1 - 10 of 10
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. What Turkey’s Political Changes Mean for U.S.-Turkish Relations
- Author:
- Max Hoffman, Alan Makovsky, and Michael Werz
- Publication Date:
- 07-2018
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The July 9 swearing-in of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for his second term as Turkey’s president—and his subsequent decree1 thoroughly restructuring the Turkish government—have inaugurated a new phase in the country’s political history. Erdoğan will preside over a new system in which power is even more centralized in the office of the presidency than it was previously. Of course, this structure represents the institutionalization of what had been a de facto reality: Erdoğan was already the unassailable top decision-maker, and he will remain so. This continuity means that there may be little visible change in many areas of government. But the shift is emblematic of Turkey’s transformation over the last decade from an institutional, bureaucratic state into a highly personalized one. This personalization will affect Turkey’s foreign policy management, which may become even more unpredictable than it was before, with ramifications for U.S. and EU policy. As just one element of this change, Western diplomats may find that long-time Turkish diplomatic or military contacts have diminished authority and responsibility as foreign and security policy development is centralized in the presidential palace.2 Given his complete personal control, it is time to take seriously President Erdoğan’s apparent desire for Turkey to chart a more independent course, one that shows less deference to the ties that have long bound Turkey to the Western security architecture. During the swearing-in ceremony in Ankara, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro hailed his Turkish counterpart as the “leader of the new multi-polar world.”3 Erdoğan and his advisers certainly share this view: They believe that the United States is in decline, that the world is fundamentally multipolar, and that Turkey deserves to be a center of gravity in its own right.4 They further feel that the West is hypocritical in its espousal of democratic values and human rights. Therefore, they have concluded that Turkey’s traditional, Western-oriented foreign policy is obsolete.5 This worldview has led Erdoğan to adopt a transactional approach toward the United States and Europe and cultivate ties with Iran, China, and—especially—Russia.6 Alongside this understanding of a changing world, President Erdoğan has built his domestic political legitimacy on an aggressive nationalism that includes at its core deeply anti-Western and anti-American rhetoric.7 This was on full display in Erdoğan’s recent electoral campaign, which relied heavily on anti-Western resentment, conspiratorial thinking, and the cultivation of a sense of national threat—all staples of the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) politics in recent years. Meanwhile, the election empowered the extreme nationalists of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). This will only reinforce the negative trends in the government’s political orientation, given the MHP’s deep suspicion toward the United States and hostility toward any reopening of dialogue with Kurdish populations in eastern Turkey and northern Syria. This issue brief considers the ramifications of these changes for U.S. policy, providing recommendations for how the U.S. government should approach bilateral relations with Turkey in the months ahead. It is a policy designed to maintain the viability of U.S.-Turkish relations while seeking to restore Turkish respect for U.S. interests.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, North America, and United States of America
3. Erdoğan’s Proposal for an Empowered Presidency
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 03-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- On April 16, the Turkish people will vote on a package of constitutional amendments passed by Turkey’s Parliament on January 21, 2017, that greatly expands the powers of the presidency. If the package passes the nationwide referendum, it will broaden and deepen the de jure powers of the presidency, giving it authority over all executive branch institutions, including the military. It would give the president the power to appoint key senior-level judges and other judicial officials without parliamentary—or any other—review. It would abolish the post of prime minister, with the president assuming the powers of that office. And it would allow, under certain circumstances, the president to serve three terms totaling just short of 15 years. In short, Turkey’s long-standing parliamentary political system would be transformed into something more appropriately called a presidential system, in which an “executive presidency”1 amasses unprecedented power in the hands of one man. The referendum will take place amid the ongoing erosion of Turkish democratic institutions, freedom of speech, and political rights. Moreover, the referendum campaign and the vote itself will be held under some of the least democratic circumstances imaginable—namely, emergency rule.
- Topic:
- NATO, International Cooperation, Governance, Authoritarianism, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, and Asia
4. Turkey’s Parliament
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The combination of post-coup emergency rule and the phasing in of the new presidential system has reinforced President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s role as the virtually unassailable ruler of Turkey. Emergency rule has now been extended five times since the attempted coup in July 2016, with no end in sight. But even without emergency rule, the new presidential system affirmed in the April 16 referendum promises the hollowing out of institutions that once, for better or worse, were fairly autonomous. The judiciary is now little more than an arm of the Justice and Development Party, better known as AKP, government; its key positions are appointed by Erdoğan—who is AKP leader as well as president of the nation—and by the AKP-dominated Parliament. The military, too, is now mostly under the thumb of the government—unlike the judiciary, appropriately so, if not politicized. Following the next election, the prime ministry will be abolished. The president will stand alone atop the executive branch, his power of appointment unreviewable. The reach of the executive branch itself will be significantly broadened, including increased authority even over civil society.1 Many observers expect that Erdoğan’s position will remain unchallenged and that the AKP will hold onto power for many years to come. But AKP dominance of Turkish governance actually could be limited or removed entirely in elections that must be held by November 3, 2019—assuming those elections are conducted fairly.2 The winning presidential candidate must win with a majority of votes cast, at least by the second round. This requirement is enshrined in the constitution; unlike the rules on parliamentary elections, it is not changeable without a constitutional amendment. And, although the polarizing Erdoğan is far ahead of other potential candidates in popularity thus far,3 it is by no means clear that he would win a majority of votes in a fairly conducted, head-to-head second round.4 As for Parliament, the AKP has won a sizable majority of seats in 4 of the 5 elections it has contested since its founding—winning a clear plurality of seats in the other election. The AKP has also captured more than 49 percent of the popular vote in 2 of the last 3 elections.5 Yet, the next election will be Turkey’s first in which voters cast separate, simultaneous votes for president and Parliament. It is difficult to predict how that may affect voter preferences. Significantly, the result of the parliamentary vote could still affect how Turkey is governed. As suffocating as presidential power is likely to be under the new system, there may nevertheless be some breathing room for a meaningful Parliament, and some measure of parliamentary checks and balances on the presidency, depending on the preferences of the Turkish voter. The following briefly details the duties and responsibilities of Parliament under the new system.
- Topic:
- Authoritarianism, Democracy, Leadership, Legislation, Parliamentarism, and Power
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, and Asia
5. Is Turkey Experiencing a New Nationalism?
- Author:
- John Halpin, Michael Werz, Alan Makovsky, and Max Hoffman
- Publication Date:
- 02-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- A new CAP study finds broad consensus among Turks about the dimensions of Turkish national identity and the nation's relationship to the rest of the world.
- Topic:
- Civil Society, Nationalism, Social Order, and Identity
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, and Asia
6. Turkey And The Bush Administration: The Question Marks
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 03-2001
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Turkey's economic crisis is naturally the leading issue in bilateral U.S.-Turkish relations, and it is almost certainly topping the agenda of today's meetings of Foreign Minister Ismail Cem with Vice President Richard Cheney and other senior officials. Of course, these meetings pose the difficult question of how much Washington should do, if anything, to bail out its strategically vital ally. But this is only one of several uncertainties characterizing U.S.-Turkish relations in the early days of the Bush administration. Because so much of Turkey's importance to the United States derives from its critical strategic location, bilateral relations are greatly affected by U.S. policies toward other states in Turkey's region. Of most concern to Turkey will be the evolution of Bush administration policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Russia, and also toward Europe's nascent bid to develop an autonomous security capacity.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, Economics, and Energy Policy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Iraq, Europe, Iran, Washington, Turkey, and Middle East
7. Step Up U.S. Involvement In Turkish Economic Crisis
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 03-2001
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- Turkey's economic near-meltdown last week — its second financial crisis in three months — was precipitated by political problems, not by narrowly economic issues. Until the political problems are addressed, the prospects for any new economic package will be questionable. With Turkish leaders and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) both seemingly floundering, Turkey likely would welcome suggestions on how to proceed, and the United States would do well to send a special high-level representative to Ankara for several days, as a source of informal advice and as a powerful symbol of U.S. support.
- Topic:
- Economics, Political Economy, Politics, and International Monetary Fund
- Political Geography:
- United States, Turkey, and Middle East
8. Syria's Foreign Policy Challenges U.S. Interests
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 01-2001
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- This is the second of two PolicyWatch articles about Syria, marking the six months since Bashar al-Asad became president on July 17. This article examines the implications of Syria's foreign policy; the previous article (PolicyWatch #512, January 17) looked at the domestic political scene and economic reforms in Syria. For a region used to the late Hafiz al-Asad's stodgy predictability, his son Bashar's six-month-old presidency has displayed a surprisingly active foreign policy, including a willingness to break with the past. However, on issues of greatest importance to the United States — peace with Israel, control over Lebanon, and support for Palestinian terrorist groups — Bashar's regime is mainly a carbon copy of his father's.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- United States, Middle East, and Syria
9. Syria Under Bashar Al-Asad: The Domestic Scene And The 'Chinese Model' Of Reform
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky
- Publication Date:
- 01-2001
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- This is the first of two PolicyWatch pieces about Syria under Bashar al-Asad. This article examines the domestic situation in Syria; the next article will look at Syrian foreign policy.On January 11, a petition signed by a thousand Syrian intellectuals appeared in the Lebanese press demanding — inter alia — freedom of expression, release of political prisoners, and an end to martial law in place since 1963. A similar such petition, published in September with ninety-nine signers, has evidently sparked a broader movement. And on January 20, the first-ever elections for many positions within Bashar al-Asad's Baath Party will be held.
- Topic:
- Economics, Government, and Politics
- Political Geography:
- Syria
10. Special Policy Forum Report: The Turkish-Israeli-Syrian Triangle
- Author:
- Alan Makovsky, Cengiz Candar, and Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 03-2000
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Abstract:
- The emergence of close Israeli-Turkish relations is one of the significant strategic developments in the post-Cold War Middle East. These ties are likely to flourish as long as Israel and Turkey remain pro-Western, anti-Islamic fundamentalist, and compatible in military inventory. Turkish-Israeli ties should be described as a "strategic relationship," not as an alliance. Turkey and Israel are not obligated or likely to go to war if the other is attacked. They also have somewhat differing threat perceptions regarding Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Security, and Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Arabia, Arab Countries, and Syria