Populism in the political culture of Turkey: The foreign policy dimension

The paper analyses the phenomenon of populism and its impact on Turkish foreign policy in three dimensions: institutional, instrumental and ideological. The research scrutinizes a wide selection of party manifestos and public speeches of Turkish politicians with primarily focus on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s statements during his incumbency as the prime-minister and the president. The embeddedness of populism in political culture of Turkey provided it with ideological flexibility and made populism almost a universal instrument for engaging with electorate. Starting from Turkey’s transition to multiparty system the majority of political actors have resorted to populism in one or another way. Erdoğan has not only continued this tendency but mastered the populist rhetoric. The character and content of Erdoğan’s populism fluctuated following the changing domestic and international environment. In the 2000s it was hinged on the loose concept of conservative democracy. At the turn of the 2000s and 2010s the dreams for the EU membership gave way to ideas of ‘civilizational expansionism’ which had the concept of Islamic/Ottoman civilization as its core. From the mid-2010s ultra nationalism has come to the forefront of the populist rhetoric. Eventually, the populist binary opposition of ‘us’ and ‘they’ took a definite shape of global confrontation between Turkey as a defender of Islam and the ‘adverse’ West. Populist rhetoric helped Erdoğan to justify his almost two-decades-long incumbency and evade direct responsibility for economic hardships of the 2010s. Populism has become an effective instrument to monopolize the foreign policy in the hands of Erdoğan. Utilizing negative rhetoric against Turkish professional diplomats within the last decade Erdoğan has managed to cement his clout over the foreign-policy making. Institutionally the expansion of populism in the sphere of foreign policy led to its ‘domestication’ and ‘nationalization’ while its impact on the foreign policy discourse manifested itself in the spread of civilizationism. Making both domestic and foreign policy process more personalized Erdoğan has reinforced ‘personal authoritarianism’ at the expense of the state institutions. Thus their decline led to the ‘Erdoğanization of the Turkish politics’. The declarative pursuit of Turkey to get more independent and autonomous position in the international system resulted in the strategy of development with primarily focus on the bilateral relations with different states. Consequently Turkey, previously known as a consistent advocate of regional cooperation and integration, in many respects has become a regionally isolated state.

1. Vainshtein G.I. 2013. Populizm v sovremennoi Evrope: novye tendentsii [Populism in contemporary Europe: New trends]. World Economy and International Relations, no. 12, pp. 24–33. (In Russ.)

2. Danilov V.I. 1985. Politicheskaya bor’ba v Turtsii. 50-e — nachalo 80-h godov XX v. [Political struggle in Turkey in the 1950s — 1980s]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)

3. Kapitonova N.K., Magadeev I.E., Pechatnov V.O. et al. 2020. Pravyi populizm: global’nyi trend i regional’nye osobennosti [Right populism: Global trend and regional features]. Moscow, MGIMO-University Publ. (In Russ.)

4. Shlykov P.V. 2017. Evraziistvo i evraziiskaya integratsiya v politicheskoi ideologii i praktike Turtsii [Eurasianism and Eurasian integration in the political ideologies and practice in Turkey]. Sravnitel’naya politika, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 58–77. DOI: 10.18611/2221-3279-2017-8-1-58-76. (In Russ.)

5. Shlykov P.V. 2020. Mezhdu SShA, Evropoi i Evraziei: transformatsiya vneshnepoliticheskikh prioritetov Turtsii [Between the US, the EU and Eurasia: Transformation of foreign policy priorities of Turkey]. Aktual’nye problemy Evropy, no. 1, pp. 110–135. DOI: 10.31249/ape/2020.01.06. (In Russ.)

6. Abts K., Rummens S. Populism versus democracy // Political Studies. 2007. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 405–424.

7. Albertazzi D., McDonnell D. Populists in power. London: Routledge, 2015.

8. Ardıç N. Civilizational discourse, the ‘alliance of civilizations’ and Turkish foreign policy // Insight Turkey. 2014. Vol. 16. Iss. 3. P. 101–122.

9. Arkan Z., Kınacıoğlu M. Enabling ‘ambitious activism’: Davutoğlu’s vision of a new foreign policy identity for Turkey // Turkish Studies. 2016. Vol. 17. Iss. 3. P. 381–405. DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2016.1185943.

10. Ayata S. Patronage, party, and state: The politicization of Islam in Turkey // The Middle East Journal. 1996. Vol. 50. Iss. 1. P. 41–57

11. Bettiza G. Civilizational analysis in international relations: Mapping the field and advancing a ‘civilizational politics’ line of research // International Studies Review. 2014. Vol. 16. Iss. 1. P. 1–28. DOI: 10.1111/misr.12100.

12. Boucher J.-C., Thies C.G. ‘I am a tariff man’: The power of populist foreign policy rhetoric under president Trump // The Journal of Politics. 2019. Vol. 81. Iss. 2. P. 712–722. DOI: 10.1086/702229.

13. Brubaker R. Between nationalism and civilizationism: The European populist moment in comparative perspective // Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2017. Vol. 40. Iss. 8. P. 1191–1226. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2017.1294700.

14. Bulut A., Yıldırım M. Political stability, democracy and agenda dynamics in Turkey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

15. Canovan M. Populism. London: London Junction, 1981.

16. Chryssogelos A. Old ghosts in new sheets: European populist parties and foreign policy. Brussels: Centre for European Studies, 2011. Available at: https://www.martenscentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/old_ghosts.pdf (accessed: 01.06.2021).

17. Çınar M. Turkey’s ‘Western’ or ‘Muslim’ identity and the AKP’s civilizational discourse // Turkish Studies. 2018. Vol. 19. Iss. 2. P. 176–197. DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2017.1411199.

18. Davutoğlu A. Stratejik Derinlik. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001.

19. Destradi S., Plagemann J. Populism and international relations: (Un) predictability, personalisation, and the reinforcement of existing trends in world politics // Review of International Studies. 2019. Vol. 45. Iss. 5. P. 711–730. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210519000184.

20. Eligür B. The mobilization of political Islam in Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

21. Erdemir A., Edelman E. Erdogan’s hostage diplomacy. Western nationals in Turkish prisons. Washington: Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 2018. Available at: https://www.fdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/REPORT_Erdogan_Hostages.pdf (accessed: 01.06.2021).

22. Europe’s troublemakers: The populist challenge to foreign policy. Brussels: European Policy Center, 2016.

23. Flyvbjerg B. Making social science matter. London: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

24. Genc K. Erdogan’s way. The rise and rule of Turkey’s Islamist shapeshifter // Foreign Affairs. September/October 2019. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2019-08-12/erdogans-way (accessed: 01.06.2021).

25. Heinisch R. Success in opposition — failure in government: Explaining the performance of right-wing populist parties in public office // West European Politics. 2003. Vol. 26. Iss. 3. P. 91–130.

26. Herkman J. Articulations of populism: The Nordic case // Cultural Studies. 2017. Vol. 31. Iss. 4. P. 470–488. DOI: 10.1080/09502386.2016.1232421.

27. Hintz L. ‘Take it outside!’ National identity contestation in the foreign policy arena // European Journal of International Relations. 2016. Vol. 22. Iss. 2. P. 335–361. DOI: 10.1177/1354066115588205.

28. Jagers J., Walgrave S. Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties discourse in Belgium // European Journal of Political Research. 2007. No. 46. P. 319–345. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x.

29. Kalaycıoğlu E. Elections and party preferences in Turkey changes and continuities in the 1990s // Comparative Political Studies. 1994. Vol. 27. Iss. 3. P. 402–424. DOI: 10.1177/0010414094027003004.

30. Kalaycıoğlu E. Turkish democracy: Patronage versus governance // Turkish Studies. 2001. Vol. 2. Iss. 1. P. 54–70. DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2001.11009173.

31. Kaliber A., Kaliber E. From de-Europeanisation to anti-Western populism: Turkish foreign policy in flux // The International Spectator. Italian Journal of International Affairs. 2019. Vol. 54. Iss. 4. P. 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2019.1668640.

32. Kaltwasser C.R., Taggart P., Espejo P.O., Ostiguy P. The Oxford handbook of populism. London: Oxford University Press, 2017.

33. Karaosmanoğlu K. The discourse of üst akıl: A search for hegemony in the Turkish media // Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2021. Vol. 21. Iss. 1. P. 77–99. DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2021.1872233.

34. Kaya A., Robert M.-V., Tecmen A. Populism in Turkey and France: Nativism, multiculturalism and Euroskepticism // Turkish Studies. 2020. Vol. 21. Iss. 3. P. 361–391. DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2019.1637260.

35. Kösebalaban H. Turkish foreign policy: Islam, nationalism, and globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

36. Liang C.S. Europe for the Europeans: The foreign and security policy of the populist radical right. New York: Routledge, 2007.

37. Mardin Ş. Center periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics? // Deadalus. 1973. Vol. 2. Iss. 1. P. 169–190.

38. Meny Y., Surel Y. Democracies and the populist challenge. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

39. Mudde C. Populist Zeitgeist // Government and Opposition. 2004. Vol. 39. Iss. 4. P. 541–563. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x.

40. Norris P., Inglehart R. Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

41. Pappas T.S. Populism and liberal democracy. London: Oxford University Press, 2019.

42. Selçuk O., Hekimci D., Erpul O. The Erdoğanization of Turkish politics and the role of the opposition // Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2019. Vol. 19. Iss. 4. P. 541–564. DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2019.1689902.

43. Sevin E. Public diplomacy and the implementation of foreign policy in the US, Sweden and Turkey. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

44. Shlykov P. The ‘Turkish model’ in historical perspective // Russia in Global Affairs. 2018. Vol. 16. Iss. 2. P. 34–59.

45. Sözen Y. Populist peril to democracy: The sacralization and singularization of competitive elections // Political Studies Review. 2019. Vol. 17. Iss. 3. P. 267–283. DOI: 10.1177/1478929918814613.

46. Taggart P. Populism. London: Open University Press, 2000.

47. Taggart P. Populism and representative politics in contemporary Europe // Journal of Political Ideologies. 2004. Vol. 9. Iss. 3. P. 269–288. DOI: 10.1080/1356931042000263528.

48. Taguieff P.-A. Political science confronts populism: From a conceptual mirage to a real problem // Telos. 1995. No. 103. P. 9–43.

49. Taş H. The chronopolitics of national populism // Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power — online. 2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2020.1735160 (accessed: 01.06.2021).

50. Taş H. Turkey — from tutelary to delegative democracy // Third World Quarterly. 2015. Vol. 36. Iss. 4. P. 776–791. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1024450.

51. Turan M. Türkiye’nin Yeni Yönetim Düzeni: Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükü- met Sistemi // Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi. 2018. Cilt 7. No. 3. S. 42–91. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ssrj/issue/38851/448700 (accessed: 01.06.2021).

52. Verbeek B., Zaslove A. The impact of populist radical right parties on foreign policy: The Northern League as a junior coalition partner in the Berlusconi governments // European Political Science Review. 2015. Vol. 7. Iss. 4. P. 525–546. DOI: 10.1017/S1755773914000319.

53. Weyland K. Populism’s threat to democracy: Comparative lessons for the United States // Perspectives on Politics. 2020. Vol. 18. Iss. 2. P. 389–406. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592719003955.

54. Woertz E., Soler i Lecha E. Populism and Euro-Mediterranean cooperation: The Barcelona process 25 years after // Mediterranean Politics – online. 05.08.2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2020.1799165 (accessed: 01.06.2021).

55. Yabancı B., Taleski D. Co-opting religion: How ruling populists in Turkey and Macedonia sacralise the majority // Religion, State & Society. 2018. Vol. 46. No. 3. P. 283–304. DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2017.1411088.

56. Yalçın H.B. The concept of ‘middle power’ and the recent Turkish foreign policy activism // Afro Eurasian Studies. 2012. Vol. 1. Iss. 1. P. 195–216.

57. Yılmaz Z. Erdoğan’s presidential regime and strategic legalism: Turkish democracy in the twilight zone // Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2020. Vol. 20. Iss. 2. P. 265–287. DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2020.1745418.