On July 20, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a televised speech from his palace in Ankara in the presence of members of Parliament and high-ranking officials.
The speech had a chilling pathological quality about it. He addressed issues concerning the attempted coup of July 15; his opponents were a “metastasised cancer” and a “virus” that needed to be “exterminated” according to the “will of the nation.”
His enemies seem to be everywhere; in the army, in the media, within the judiciary and even in international ratings agencies. The rhetoric also had some religious overtones with frequent references to “martyrs”, “sacrifices” and the “will of God” – presumably, Erdogan sees himself as the perfect executor of this will.
In the same speech, Erdogan declared a three-month state of emergency. Although constitutional, the state of emergency gives him additional powers which will undoubtedly strengthen his counter-offensive following the failed coup.
The coup itself lasted less than six hours and its execution seemed very amateurish following some key strategic errors. Turkey boasts of one of Nato’s largest armed forces, yet this army coup seemed almost half-hearted. The failure was likely augmented by the fact that foreign governments rushed to Erdogan’s side while the civilian population was out in the streets trying to prevent the coup.
Past coups have been anything but peaceful or democratic. By most accounts, the protesters’ motives were rooted in their Islamic outlook rather than in any patriotic or democratic fervour.
Erdogan emerged victorious. He blamed the coup on his ally-turned-rival, the exiled cleric Fethullah Gülen and vowed revenge. Turkey has since urged the US government to extradite Gülen. Before this can take place, the US will need concrete proof that Gülen is behind the coup.
Gülen has rejected the accusations and hinted that Erdogan himself may have staged the coup. While this claim seems to be somewhat far-fetched, there is one glaring fact which cannot be ignored: the person who emerges strongest following the coup is Erdogan.
All Turkish parties, including the Kurdish opposition and the secularist parties, signed a joint declaration denouncing the coup. After effectively purging the government and weakening the independent media, Erdogan now has a pretext to purge several other aspects of public life. The state-of-emergency simply gives him additional constitutional authority to do so.
Many of Turkey’s international partners may have concluded that Erdogan is the lesser of two evils
At the time of writing, more than 50,000 people have been detained or fired in connection with the coup. A total 2,745 judges have been sacked and arrest warrants have been issued for 140 members of the courts of appeal.
Academics are banned from leaving the country, 1,577 faculty deans have been asked to resign and 21,000 teachers have had their licence withdrawn. Moreover, there are hints that the death penalty may be reintroduced in order to punish those who he believes are guilty of treason.
Erdogan is not merely executing justice; he is engaging in a vile attempt to shape the country in his own image and likeness. This does not bode well for Turkey’s democracy. It also highlights the weakness of Turkish institutions and Turkey’s unsuitability for EU membership.
The constitution provides for the intervention of the armed forces in the case that the secularity of the Turkish state is threatened. This role ascribed to the army points to one glaring paradox; the Turkish constitution provides for an undemocratic and contentious way of securing a particular aspect of democratic governance.
Erdogan will undoubtedly attempt to introduce changes to avoid a similar scenario repeating itself in the future. Nonetheless his contempt for the constitution is palpable in his other actions.
His rhetoric is peppered with references to democracy and the rule of law, yet his actions can be interpreted as going against these two principles. The events unfolding since the failed coup have clearly shown that the President intends to dismantle every aspect of the constitutional order.
By weakening constitutional checks and balances, such as the judiciary, the police, the civil service and freedom of speech, Erdogan has consolidated his hold over a number of institutions and weakened the very pillars of democratic governance.
He will undoubtedly keep on doing this with relative impunity; domestically he has ousted and intimidated many opponents while internationally cowardice reigns supreme.
Turkey’s geopolitical significance undoubtedly played a role in the support Erdogan received following the coup. Turkey remains a vital strategic partner in Nato and further instability in the region would have exacerbated matters both in Syria and in the Near East.
The EU, Nato and Russia have urged Erdogan to show restraint; his actions suggest that he will be disregarding this advice.
Many of Turkey’s international partners may have concluded that Erdogan is the lesser of two evils. This view needs to be challenged; his actions against the Kurds have indirectly strengthened Islamic State and exacerbated the conflict in Syria and his recent domestic initiatives threaten that very stability that these partners crave. His actions are both provocative and insulting.
Whether Erdogan is the lesser of two evils remains to be seen. Recent events substantiate the fact that he is evil nonetheless. The coming months are likely to strengthen this view.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André DeBattista holds degrees in public policy and international relations and is a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.