Following on from yesterday’s article, we are very lucky this guest post by Michael Talbot, a PhD Researcher currently based in Turkey.

The bunting hanging across almost every street and the minivans blaring out propaganda songs announce season in Turkey, and scarce a street in Istanbul is without the posters and flags of the 25+ parties contesting this year’s general election on 12 June.

By far the most common displays of loyalty are for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s AKP (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi/ Justice and Development Party), and the PM’s face, forward-looking and decisive, dominates billboards across the city. From boot-blacks to university students, AKP seems to have something that appeals to almost every section of society. Economic growth, improvements in higher education, strong international diplomacy, judicial reform, eroding the power of the Kemalist elite (particularly the army), these are just some of the reasons I have been given for why people will vote for Erdoğan, often beginning their explanations with, ‘I/my family have never voted for AKP before but…’

With unknown millions of lira poured into his election campaign, and with hundreds of thousands attending his party rallies across this vast country, it seems safe to say that Erdoğan will gain another four years of government. Much of the enthusiasm comes from the PM’s ‘Hedef 2023′ (2023 objective), a series of policies designed to demonstrate Turkey’s greatness and progressiveness in time for the centenary of the Republic’s founding. The vision includes plans to universalise healthcare, to reform the country’s energy consumption through both renewable sources and nuclear power, to expand domestic infrastructure and institute a Turkish space program. Foreign policy and the economy are the two main points of this objective. By 2023, Erdoğan’s Turkey aims to develop economic and political integration in its immediate neighbourhood (i.e. the Balkans, Caucasus and Middle East) and, after a rather long wait, to become a full EU member state. All of this will be achieved by massive investment in the country’s economy, bringing down the perennially high unemployment figures through new industries and services aimed at the export market, the result of which will see Turkey zoom into one of the top ten world economies.

This is music to the ears of many. Although Turkey has been affected by the global financial crises, and possesses an ever-growing budget deficit, the AKP, by introducing tax-breaks for locally produced goods, has managed to stimulate industrial growth, despite losing much of its EU manufacturing market to China. Most importantly, the very fresh memory of the catastrophic market crash in 2001 – which resulted in insane inflation, a massive loss of the country’s foreign currency reserves, and mass unemployment – means that the current economic situation, and the promise of better to come, has won the party many supporters.

Moreover, the PM is planning hold a referendum after the election on a new constitution with wide-ranging political reforms, including an American-style presidential system, to replace the current constitution imposed after the 1980 Coup (with some judicial amendments approved with 58% support in last year’s referendum). This all sounds very promising to a large number of Turkish voters, especially here in Istanbul which, with 85 seats out of a 550-seat parliament up for grabs, is crucial for any electoral success.

But what about the opposition? The CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi/ Republican People’s Party), the party of Turkey’s founding father Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, has been gaining some ground in these later stages of the campaign. Its incredibly charming leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed ‘Gandhi’ for his remarkable resemblance to old Mahatma, seems to be appealing to more and more people, which is not hard after replacing the very unappealing Deniz Baykal about this time last year. But the problem is, perhaps, that being so new a figure, it will take time for him to establish himself as a popular figure, although his book outlining his ideology seems to be doing quite well in the bookstores recently.

However the CHP does at the election, it will not face the problem of most political parties in Turkey. Under the PR system here, parties must attain over 10% of the national vote in order to gain representation in parliament. In the last general election in 2007, in addition to AKP and CHP, only the ultra-nationalist MHP (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi/ Nationalist Movement Party) gained such a percentage (although a number of independents made it in). MHP, led by the sinister Devlet Bahçeli is currently mired in scandal, losing six major members after a rather dicey sex-tape was leaked to the press in mid-May, a big no-no for its conservative and rural support base. At the moment it seems likely to scrape past the electoral barrier, but a repeat of its huge successes in 2007 seems far off.

So that leaves another 25-or-so parties, often based on personality cults and splinter groups. For instance, the newly-formed HAS Parti (Halkın Sesi Partisi / Voice of the People Party) is the brain-child of an ex-member of the SP (Saadet Partisi / Felicity Party), and has developed a loyal and socially conservative fan-base almost solely around the leader’s charisma.

Most centre-left parties have merged with CHP, but there are still a number of more radical parties contesting the elections. Some are more visible in the public arena than others. The TKP (Türkiye Komünist Partisi / Communist Party of Turkey), whose campaign is running under the slogan ‘Boyun Eğme’ (don’t submit), has been leafleting in the heaving ferry terminals at Eminönü and Istanbul’s Oxford Street, İstiklâl Caddessi, as well as putting up posters and banners all over the centre of the city.

Smaller groups include EMEP (Emek Partisi / Labour Party), whose support-base seems to be growing, and which is associated with one of the few genuinely left papers Turkey, Evrensel (Universal). There are two parties that specifically class themselves as ‘libertarian socialist’ (özgürlükçü sosyalist), essentially loose associations of various socialist and anarchist groups, the EDP (Eşitlik ve Demokrasi Partisi / Equality and Democracy Party) and ÖDP (Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi / Freedom and Solidarity Party), which is dominated by the Dev Sol (Revolutionary Left), a radical movement that has struggled since the 1970s against the Kemalist establishment, fascist militias, and Islamists. The İP (İşçi Partisi / Workers’ Party) hold a bizarre mix of policies, based in part on Maoism and Kemalist nationalism.

The left in Turkey suffers from the same problems as its comrades abroad, large egos and continual disagreement over dogma. Although there are frequent protests, in Istanbul and Ankara for rights for LGBTT, women, and minorities, as well as anti-NATO actions and an attempted occupation of Istanbul’s Taksim Square in protest over moves to build new nuclear plants in Turkey, these actions attract anything from a few dozen to maybe a couple of thousand, nothing more. Between them, the parties above may receive, judging on various polls and previous results, these various left parties might receive between 1 to 1.5% of the national vote.

The party to watch, in terms of its electoral success and post-election actions, will be the BDP (Barış ve Demokrasi Partisi / Peace and Democracy Party). The BDP has its predecessors have often been described as ‘Kurdish’ parties, but it is really much more complex. Yes, a lot of its support base comes from Kurds, but many Turkish progressives also support the party; yes it attracts many Kurdish nationalists, but also those who see the Kurds’ struggle against Turkey as a means to fight both kinds of nationalism. The BDP will do will, gaining perhaps 5.5 to 6% of the vote on a good day, but, of course, this is still well below the necessary 10% for representation. Although Turkish politics is prone to shock results now and then, it seems unlikely that the party can break that barrier.

This electoral barrier is therefore a huge problem for left parties in Turkey. It creates a bi-partisan system, where the AKP and CHP dominate, the system discouraging people from voting for TKP/EMEP et. al. on account of the 10% barrier making them seem like wasted votes. And raising mass movements is incredibly difficult. There are two main reasons for this which I will briefly explain, based on conversations at protests and emails with different activists and journalists in Istanbul from different parties and ideologies.

One major problem is AKP’s use of Islam as a political discourse. Whenever in conversation the occasional cooperation between certain left and Islamist groups in Europe, and the concept of Islamophobia in the UK has come up, the overwhelming response here has been one of dismay. ‘Let them see what Islam has done here,’ one activist told me, ‘and they will think twice about cooperating with these people.’ Far from criticising the role of Islam in politics from the perspective of Kemalist laïcité, the left in Turkey views Islam as reactionary, and its influence on AKP’s policies as fundamentally damaging to Turkey’s most oppressed. Erdoğan recently dismissed Kurdish nationalism, arguing that they were all brothers in Islam. The recent protest commemorating the one-year anniversary of the attack on the Mavi Marmara was not so much a rally in support of the Palestinians as a demonstration of AKP’s power. Many of the activists I have spoken to believe that the AKP’s focus on the issue of Palestine distracts from Turkey’s oppression of the Kurds. Moreover, thousands of supporters chanting ‘Allahu Ekber’ in the secular heart of Istanbul was a clear message to political opponents that, in a country where such a rally would have been unthinkable even ten years ago, AKP has the power and influence mobilise thousands of angry people on demand.

AKP publicises the ‘good works’ of various Islamic philanthropists, foundations and charities which provide some relief for the poverty-stricken. These are supported by but not funded by the government, thus removing the expense of welfare from the state. Such institutions do little to alleviate the massive problems of widespread child labour, lack of pensions and support for the elderly, oppression of women (no, not the headscarf issue but honour killings, marital rape, and general forced subservience to men for a large number of women), oppression of minorities, and sub-standard housing. Education is becoming a big problem, with a growing emphasis on Islamic education and schools, and increased government funding to religious schools, which do not provide a suitable education, unless you consider studying one book over and over again to be sufficient. At the same time, secular state schools are threatened with cuts and privatisation, leading to the formation of groups such as Okuluma Dokunma İnisiyatifi uniting students and activists to protect their institutions.

So the Islamic element is a problem, but it is by no means the biggest. When posed the question, ‘what are the biggest challenges facing progressives in Turkey today?’, one activist/journalist responded simply:

‘Freedom of expression! It is possible for you to find yourself in court facing the judge right after you opened your mouth. There are some other important problems, but this is so fundamental a problem.’

There are elements of this linked to the Islamic factor, with various AKP initiatives being proposed (and in some places implemented) to curb alcohol consumption and (sorry Reuben) smoking as detrimental to public morality and health – some worry that Islam will replace Kemalism as the new censor, although this seems unlikely. The biggest problem here is that Turkey still suffers from huge violations of rights of protest and speech. Journalists are very often harrassed, with kidnappings and murders a hazard of the job. Political prisoners are still tortured. Police and military go unpunished for their brutality. Those attempting to express any opinion on ‘sensitive’ issues such as the right of Kurdish self-determination and the ‘events of 1915′ can get in serious trouble. With the army on the back foot following allegations of an attempted coup a few years ago, the police have become increasingly employed as the strong arm of the government. Just two days ago, a demonstration in Istanbul by mothers of men murdered in police custody attracted the attention of several coach-loads of heavily armed police who intimidated them and threatened force against them.

But resistance is always there, from bereaved wives to enraged students. Many have asked me if the Kurds or others will take a leaf from the Arab world. The fact is that those struggling for equality and justice in Turkey have plenty of experience, and plenty of ideas. Both the Kurdish population and the radical left have fought a war for many decades, both rhetorically and physically, against the forces of the Kemalist establishment and now the AKP. From the throwing of eggs at politicians visiting university campuses to the full-scale riots in Hopa when Erdoğan visited last week (brutally suppressed by the police), from the increasing graffiti campaigns in the major cities to growing mobilisation of activists, it seems that something is brewing. Several activists I have spoken too have told me that big unrest is being planned should AKP gain a large majority in these elections, primarily nonviolent civil disobedience, but more drastic measures too. Whether this is just bravado or not will have to be seen, but it is clear that although many are happy with what AKP has been doing in Turkey, there are others who see that its reforms and Erdoğan’s visions will not only fail to tackle the huge disparities in wealth and massive social and political injustices in the country, but indeed deepen them.

To contact Reuben email reuben@thethirdestate.net

Egemen Bagis

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

Yesterday, Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s chief EU negotiator, gave a speech in Greece on strengthening ties between the former rivals, Turkey’s EU candidacy and how to resolve the thorny issue of Cyprus. Press-Gr’s Christos Loutradis reports for The Third Estate

It was a speech of lifting taboos. Egemen Bagis, chief EU negotiator and Turkish Minister of State, spoke for the first time to a Greek audience in a lecture that was organised by the International Centre for Black Sea Studies. The audience comprised the political, academic and diplomatic elite of Greece and the rest of the world. From the Government side, the Member of Parliament Michalis Katrinis, from the previous Government of New Democracy, the ex deputy minister of Foreign Affairs Giannis Valinakis, and Giorgos Dendias, a personal friend of Egemen Bagis and the former minister of Justice. The most surprising presence, however, was that of Giannis Karantis, ex chief of the Greek Intelligence Service and MP for the ultra-nationalist party LAOS.

Bagis began his speech with a moving opening, stating that he feels proud “to be in the birthplace of Democracy”. In addition, he argued that “today’s event, your presence shows the great potential for the betterment of the relations between the two nations.”

“Turkey and Greece share a common fate and a common future,” the chief negotiator of Turkey added.

The Greek audience responded with satisfaction when Bagis proclaimed that “a new era has started in the relations of the two countries, with the Government of Papandreou willing to build a peaceful future with Turkey.”

The Minister added that during this period, Erdogan’s Government has demolished the taboos of the Turkish Society, by addressing the Kurdish problem and dealing with all the open disputes with Armenia. “It is time to talk to Greece, too.”

The most interesting part of Bagis’s speech, however, was the revelation that Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan agreed to the formulation of a co-operation council between the two nations that will discuss at the highest level all the disputes that may arise in the future. In addition, Bagis said that Erdogan plans to visit Athens in the near future.

EU-Turkish Relations

The chief negotiator suggested that accepting Turkey into the European Union would be a win-win situation. The EU will benefit from the role of Turkey as “a bridge between different civilizations, religions and cultures”. In addition he added that Turkey’s bid to join the EU serves as “a source of inspiration for the deprived of the world such as the Muslim community.”

Giannis Ioakeimidis, professor of International Relations at the University of Athens, asked Bagis if Turkey will accept a special status relationship with European Union. Bagis replied that “Turkey is a candidate for full membership of the EU and any alternative is not accepted.”

Moreover, Egemen Bagis argued that “the European Union should prove it wants to be an alliance of civilisations… We will part of the solution and not part of the problem of the EU.”

Cyprus

With regards to Cyprus, the Minister expressed the official view that Turkey will support any solution that is agreed by the leaders of the island’s two sides. Furthermore, he praised the efforts of the two Presidents, Talat and Christofias, and stressed that Greece and Turkey should support the two presidents sooner rather than later. “Their term is limited and we do not know who will govern next. We must help these guys.”

Another interesting point arose from a question raised by a citizen with regard to the presence of the Turkish Army in Cyprus. Bagis said that the Turkish Army protects the safety of the Turk-Cypriots and it will not withdraw unless all the other armies withdrew too.

Quite clearly, there’s still a long way to go.

From a journalistic and more personal perspective, Egemen Bagis’s most interesting moment was when he praised the Greek citizens who contribute to the Turkish newspapers and the Turkish Citizens who contribute to the Greek newspapers.

In conclusion, Bagis left Greece with a strong impression of a political personality committed to peace.

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

Following our coverage of this month’s Greek elections, The Third Estate continues its partnership with Press-Gr, one of the foremost news sites in Greece, by inviting Christos Loutradis to look at the country’s thawing relations with Turkey.

Where a Prime Minister chooses to visit on his or her first trip abroad is often a telling sign of their foreign policy priorities. Interestingly, of all the places he could have gone, newly elected social democrat, George Papandreou, made the decision to visit that old enemy Turkey. Papandreou’s election signals a significant shift in foreign policy from the days of his conservative predecessor. One that is open, tolerant and ‘aggressive’, but, with luck, in a constructive way.

Has Greece finally woken up? This is the central question of the lips of the nation, from leading analysts in political and media circles, to the demos themselves.

Speaking in Istanbul, Papandreou heralded a new beginning in Greece’s policy towards the Cyprus Issue. “We must allow the two communities in Cyprus to solve their disputes solely alone, without depending on other states or international super-powers,” he said. Papandreou’s statement came as he publicly confirmed his pledge to support Turkey’s candidacy for European Union membership, under the condition that Turkey commits to preventing dogfights over the Aegean Sea.

Meanwhile Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, is trying to foster the public image of a European politician reaching out to his neighbours in an attempt to resolve the ongoing disputes, most notably with Greece and Armenia. Papandreou’s visit is important to this process of conflict resolution, not because anything concrete was agreed but because of the semiotics. And in our modern mass mediated era, semiotics are important in and of themselves.

As for the Greek media, it has lauded the newly elected Prime Minister for choosing Turkey as his first overseas destination, suggesting a new era between the two nations has begun despite the diplomatic woes waiting to be solved.

“The Greeks have realised that Greece and Turkey should live in harmony because friendly relations are the only way to solve all the heated internal problems,” Greek journalist John Papadimitriou told us. “The media just followed society’s preference.”

The pro-government newspaper, Ta Nea, said Papandreou was in favor of dialogue between Ankara and Athens, but added that he would not accept what it called a “rubber check” from Turkey. The conservative newspaper, Kathimerini, said Papandreou’s meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister would have a “positive impact,” and also drew attention to the Greek Prime Minister’s remarks in which he said the European Union should listen to the Turkish people. The leading political website, Zougla, said Papandreou has declared “a new era of diplomacy” just a few days after his election victory.

“Papandreou will continue the friendly approach toward Turkey he pursued in the early 2000s with the efforts of late Turkish Foreign Minister İsmail Cem,” a professor of International Relations at the University of Panteion in Athens, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Daily News. “If he succeeds, the Prime Minister will move forward in solving all of the issues between Greece and Turkey. In my opinion the main problem is the Cyprus issue, which should bother neither Turkey nor Greece,” the professor said.

Another academic specialising in international relations, Alexis Irakleidis, called for a discussion on different approaches regarding the Aegean problem. “The Greek government should understand that President Barack Obama’s foreign policy will not accept Greece as a good guy and Turkey as a bad one. We should sit down and discuss the situation in the Aegean.”

Whatever happens next, this is undoubtedly a positive first step.

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

In The Third Estate’s second collaboration with Press-Gr, one of the biggest news sites in Greece, Christos Loutradis reports on the results of the elections

For me, the most moving moments of an election campaign come with the results. The night of the counting, I was at the studios of the major Greek television channel, Alter. As a journalist covering Sunday’s marathon, I encountered all the strange characteristics of human nature, from hysteria to cupidity and arrogance. As former foreign minister, George Papandreou’s PASOK won a convincing victory with an 11% lead over the incumbent Kostas Karamanlis; it was not a good day to be a conservative commentator in the studio. On the day that New Democracy should have been celebrating its birth, the party found itself mourning its worst defeat in history, gaining only 33.5% of the vote. Meanwhile Nikitas Kaklamanis, Mayor of Athens, found himself venting his frustration at Alter employees in a shocking reaction to the result. PASOK’s newly appointed Minister of Education, Anna Diamantopoulou, on the other hand, was in high spirits, smiling and shaking the hands of the studio staff. I must admit, it was slightly uncomfortable to watch the journalists triumphantly congratulating the successful candidate only a day after deriding the party for its populist strategy.

In Greece, as in the UK, most of the attention goes to the two major centrist parties. The minor parties, for the most part, failed to take advantage of the depth of public disapproval PASOK, and New Democracy in particular, seem to have faced over the last months. Notably, the Greek Communist Party saw its vote fall to 7.4% (from 8.15% in 2007) and it lost two of its 22 seats in Parliament. The Coalition of the Radical Left (Sy.Riz.A), meanwhile, saw its share of the vote slip half a percentage point to 4.5%. Only La.O.S, the ultra-nationalists, managed to take advantage of the collapsing New Democracy to increase their vote from 3.8% to 5.54%.

The huge momentum that Papandreou seems to have found tonight does not, by any means, suggest that he has won the nation’s heart for the next four years. Papandreou, in his first statement, as Prime Minister has acknowledged the difficulties ahead. It is for this reason that the most frequent sentiments expressed during his speech were a ”call for unity” and the ”need for collective work”. Papandreou’s proposals for the control of the public finances and the other reforms needed to rescue Greece from the brink of bankruptcy demand an increasing and dynamic consensus from different parts of the political spectrum.

”We cannot lose a day without working for this nation,” Papandreou said. “I call all the Greeks to unite for our common goal. Our main and only interest is the wellbeing of our citizens”.

The call for unity was unanimous among the PASOK candidates. “We are fully aware that the days ahead us are very, very difficult, but we know how to fight,” Anna Diamantopoulou said.

In Rigilis street, where New Democracy keeps its headquarters are, the mood was very different. After years in the spotlight, Kostas Karamanlis had to come to terms with the loneliness of politics. Seated alone at his press conerence, the former prime minister tried to convince the public that he may have lost the elections, but he believed in his policies.

“Society didn’t agree with my proposals,” he said. “I still believe that my proposals are the only solutions for the financial crisis. However, I accept that today’s loss is 100% my fault. For this reason, I resign as president of New Democracy”.

Dora Bakoyanni, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and for many the next president of New Democracy, didn’t reply to the flurry of press inquiries as to whether she will run for her party’s top job, but she congratulated Karamanlis for his political courage.

The other two potential candidates, Dimitris Avramopoulos, former Minister of Health and Antonis Samaras, former Minister of Culture, supported ”Karamanlis’s legacy”. Everything remains at stake, however, until the party’s conference 48 days from now. This gives Papandreou six weeks of political freedom to implement his first measures and to send his first messages to Greek society. It’s a dangerous time for the incoming government as public finances face collapse and the market struggles for survival.

But there are signs of hope, especially in the sphere of international relations. It was Papandreou, as foreign minister, who turned his back on the vitriolic rhetoric Greek governments once aimed at their Turkish neighbours. Now, as prime minister, he is prepared to support Turkey’s entry into the European Union, raising hopes of ending one of the last great rivalries in Europe.

Whether Papandreou can meet the lofty expectations of Greece and its neighbours remains to be seen.

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

Hands up, who knew there’s an election in Greece tomorrow? The snap election triggered by unpopular conservative Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis seeking a new mandate for his ailing New Democracy party to tackle the economy has received little coverage in the UK. But is the all but certain victory of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and former foreign minister, George Papandreou a strong sign from the Greeks of a wind of change, or simply a matter of urgency owing to Karamanlis’s inability to deal with the consequences of the financial crisis?

Papandreou and Karamanlis certainly have one thing in common. They are the progeny of two leading political families in Greece. Karamanlis’s uncle, Konstantinos, was the first democratically elected Prime Minister after the fall of the military junta in 1974. Karamanlis junior’s term in office, however, will be forever associated with financial scandal and social unrest. Papandreou, on the other hand, is the son and grandson of past Prime Ministers. His stint as foreign minister between 1999 and 2004 marked the thawing of traditionally frosty relations with Turkey and Albania and the cooling of nationalistic rhetoric.

Despite the establishment background of the two candidates, however, this election offers Greeks an ideological choice between conservatism and social democracy. Papandreou’s proposals to increase corporation tax and social investment have been met with strong criticism from the business community, and from Karamanlis, who accuses his opponent of a suicidal policy that will lead to the total removal of growth from Greece’s economic lexicon.

If American-born Papandreou is elected, he will be the first Greek premier born outside of the country. His heritage has earned him the nickname ‘the American’ in the Greek media, a title that is not wholly undeserved given Papandreou’s borrowing of policies from the Obama campaign, promising greater co-operation with US plans to tackle the global financial crisis and pushing towards a greener economy.

If Karamanlis loses tomorrow, it will owe as much to his failure as to his rival’s success. He was elected in 2004 after twenty years of PASOK dominance with the seemingly simple idea to re-introduce morality into the public political sphere. But the man governed with illusions and was trapped by them, not least the belief that victories in Euro 2004 and the Eurovision song contest could provide answers for the problems that Greece faces. How could he have known, studying International Relations in America, that relations with the US would play such an important part in his political future, or lack thereof.

The elections are still a day away, but Papandreou is already regarded the Prime Minister in waiting. The crucial question that remains will be how a new PASOK government will deal with a rising budget deficit whilst tackling high unemployment. The main dilemma of the upcoming election: can the political elites that have led Greece to the edge of financial collapse formulate a concrete and feasible plan for the country to avoid bankruptcy? Iceland is not, after all, so very far away.