Tensions rising in Turkey

By Esra Aygin

April 21, 2017

Turkey’s controversial referendum, in which people voted by a small margin to replace the parliamentary system with a powerful executive presidency, left the country more divided, tense and internationally isolated.

In a vote largely seen as a plebiscite on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, 51.4% of the citizens voted in support of constitutional changes that expand the powers of the president– which, supporters say, will render the state stronger and more efficient – while 48.7% opposed it. In a blow to his prestige, Erdogan lost former strongholds of Istanbul and Ankara.

With allegations of irregularities, international concerns on the fairness of the referendum, countrywide protests and the opposition demanding recounts, hopes that Turkey would finally find some calm and stability after the referendum seem to be far-fetched.

“The referendum further polarised an already-divided country,” said political scientist Dr Bilge Azgin.

“There already were stark political contrasts between the conservative central Anatolia, secular coastal regions and the predominantly Kurdish south-east. Now, the country has further been divided between a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ camp,” he added.

“A country can be divided and polarised only to a certain extent. At a certain point, it becomes unmanageable. Erdogan will try to rule cities like Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir with the ‘yes’ vote he got from conservative regions.

he predictable consequence is that he will face significant resistance. This will further increase tension and destabilise Turkey. Serious challenges lie ahead.”

Independent election observers from OSCE and PACE said the referendum was contested on “an un-level playing field” and fell short of international standards.

The ‘yes’ referendum campaign was carried out by the government during a state of emergency with leaders of the Kurdish movement and opposition journalists jailed.

A last-minute decision by the Higher Election Board to consider valid ballots without an official stamp increased concerns. The European Commission called for an investigation into the irregularity allegations, while the US State Department said it took note of concerns and called on Turkey to protect fundamental rights and freedoms.

Under the changes approved in the referendum, the Turkish president will be able to appoint top public officials, including ministers, dissolve parliament and call for early elections, appoint judges, draft state budget and declare a state of emergency without cabinet’s approval. Opponents argue that the changes will lead to an autocratic one-man rule.

Most of the changes will only come into effect after the next elections due in 2019 and it is unclear if Erdogan will seek to reconcile society until then or continue with the confrontational and divisive rhetoric that dominated the pre-referendum period.

Many political analysts expect Erdogan to try and prove his legitimacy – hurt by the lower-than-expected support – through continued aggressive discourse, tightfisted rule and disputes with perceived enemies at the expense of not only increasing tension internally but also further straining its relations with the EU and the wider international community.

In fact, Ankara extended the state of emergency – already in place for nine months – for another three months the day after the referendum, while Erdogan renewed suggestions that the country could hold referendums on its bid to join the EU and on reinstating the death penalty.

“Erdogan is about to change the regime,” said Mete Hatay, senior researcher at PRIO Cyprus Centre.

“But for this, he needs to continue to spread fear, create enemies and gather people around for another one-and-a-half years. Therefore, we can predict that he will want this whole period to pass under the state of emergency, while he leads his people, who are under ‘threat’ to ultimate victory.

“Therefore, I expect tension to increase in Turkey in the coming days.”

http://in-cyprus.com/tensions-rising-in-turkey/

Erdogan’s shadow looms large over Cyprus

By Esra Aygin

April 22, 2017

The referendum result in Turkey is not expected to have a direct effect on Ankara’s position on, or handling of, the Cyprus problem, but further tension with the EU is a cause for concern.

A majority of Turkish nationals living in the north voted against Erdogan’s constitutional changes with a ‘no’ vote.

“The Justice and Development Party AKP’s Cyprus policy has been stable and consistent since the very beginning,” said a Turkish Cypriot official.

“Turkey supports a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution based on political equality. There is no reason for this policy to change due to the referendum. However, the further distancing of Turkey from the EU and from modern, democratic values would be unfavourable not only for Cyprus but the whole region.”

The referendum resulted in the narrow win of supporters of constitutional changes that would greatly extend the powers of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan raising concerns about further divisions internally.

Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci, in a message he issued following the referendum, said that he would continue to cooperate closely with Turkey for the solution of the Cyprus problem.

He also underlined the importance of democratic dialogue in Turkey, taking into consideration the narrow margin of the ‘yes’ win.

Political scientist Dr. Bilge Azgin, who agreed that Ankara’s official position on the Cyprus problem is unlikely to change, said, however, that the political scene in the north is likely to be influenced.

“Politics and policies in the northern part of Cyprus are shaped over the relations with those in power in Turkey. Now that Erdogan will be the sole decision-maker and the sovereign ruler, his personal influence in Cyprus will increase. From now on, the whole political scene in the north will be shaped through, and according to, Erdogan.”

Article - Was constitutional referendum a rehearsal of possible settlement referendum? (Published in Greek in 24h on 13 July 2014)

Was constitutional referendum a rehearsal of possible settlement referendum?

On 29 June, the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) did not only suffer a huge wound by losing the three biggest cities – Nicosia, Famagusta and Kyrenia - in the local elections, but was also shaken by the rejection of a set of constitutional amendments that it advocated strongly. The amendments were submitted to a referendum on the same day as the local elections.  

The constitution of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” adopted in 1985, is a shameful copy of the 1982 constitution of Turkey – the product of the 12 September 1982 military coup. For the first time in almost 30 years, some changes – albeit small – were made through the efforts of mainly the CTP deputies and adopted unanimously by all the parties in parliament – the bigger party of the ruling coalition CTP, the smaller party of the ruling coalition right-wing Democratic Party (DP), main opposition right wing National Unity Party (UBP), and the left-wing Social Democracy Party (TDP).

The proposed amendments had initially called for the lifting of temporary article 10 - which is the legal basis for the Turkish Cypriot police to be under the control of the Turkish military, and the introduction of conscientious objection. However, CTP could not get the required support in parliament to go ahead with these changes and therefore, limited the amendments to some 20 articles. 

Although the amendments, which among others, introduced children’s rights, limited the immunity of politicians, improved fundamental rights, and lifted the political ban on civil servants, were adopted unanimously by all the parties in parliament, they were rejected by 65% in the referendum.  

Two major factors seem to have played an important role in the rejection of the constitutional amendments. First is the radical approach of the left-wing parties and non-governmental organisations, which criticised the amendments for being “cosmetic” and not touching on the substantial provisions – such as the temporary article 10.

The second, and the scarier, is the undercover, ear-to-ear no-campaign led by hardliner Turkish Cypriot leader Derviş Eroğlu, who has a significant influence on both UBP and DP, and the supporters of his ideology.

Although the more optimistic in the northern part of Cyprus would argue that the ‘no’ vote is the victory of the radical left, a strong message of rejection of the status quo and the 1985 constitution, I fear that this referendum was a rehearsal of the nationalist guardians of the status quo, to test the grounds. And I fear very much that this method of undercover campaigning against a unanimously adopted text, tested and proven to be successful, can be put to work during a possible referendum for a federal settlement in Cyprus.

Those, against the reunification of Cyprus through a federal solution know now that giving approval to a settlement text does not necessarily lead to a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum.