By the Editors (vol. 1, no. 3 of the Turkey Analyst)

Turkey’s regime crisis, ongoing since 2007, has reached an unprecedented, dangerous level. If not checked, it could threaten recent advances in Turkish democracy. Indeed, the Turkish state itself shows signs of breaking up into confrontation along ideological lines. Turkey is adrift, putting extra strain on the country’s partners, the European Union and the United States. They need  to reexamine their assumptions about the character of the Turkish crisis and its protagonists, and draw policy conclusions that will serve theirs and Turkey’s interests in the long term.

By Halil Karaveli (vol. 7, no. 9 of the Turkey Analyst)

Many recognize that the Turkish social democrats, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), need to broaden their appeal. The CHP has long defined its mission as protecting the secular, bourgeois lifestyle. Lately, it has tried to appear more conservative and pro-Islamic. The party assumes that identity politics trumps class politics. However, the successes of the AKP show this assumption to be wrong. The CHP could emulate the example of the AKP and build a coalition of bourgeois and working class interests. A modern social democracy would speak both for bourgeois interests – freedom, individual liberties and a culture that values innovation – and cater to the interests of the working and poor classes. There is no reason to assume that social democracy can never rise again. But first, the CHP needs to rediscover the working class.

Prime Minister Erdoğan’s leadership style is the subject of many comments. Eyüp Can in Radikal claims that Erdoğan wants to become Turkey’s second founding father after Atatürk. He observes that Turkey does not need another “father” who would rule with an iron fist, and that the country is too diverse for such an attempt to succeed. Murat Belge in Taraf, meanwhile, points to the societal foundations of Erdoğan’s ambitions. He suggests that the lack of democratic culture among the rural bourgeoisie that is the main force behind AKP sustains the drive to impose a majoritarian system. Meanwhile, Yüksel Taşkın in Taraf sees hope emerging that the urban bourgeoisie – the Kemalists – is going to promote democratic values, as this would conform to its class interests.