The Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) used to be in violent opposition to one another, with each representing distinctly different social and ideological poles.
But today as part of the post-elections scenarios, a coalition of these two is being promoted, which is quite unlikely according to public opinion surveys in which the CHP seems to earn 20 percent of the vote while the MHP is just over 10 percent, in contrast to the 40 percent that supports the Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
Anyhow it is worth looking at the details of the positions, policies, and visions of these two that serve as the ground on which a projected coalition government is being contemplated.
The MHP election manifesto starts with an assertion that the Turkish state is on the verge of total collapse under the assault of globalization forces aligned with some domestic actors. This is an alarmist political stance shared and repeated many times by the president and the chief of General Staff. Advocating for an aggressive foreign policy, the MHP visualizes Turkey like an iron fist in regional and global politics. It is clear that the MHP is sick and tired of the EU as it calls for a break in negotiations. Along with the claim that Turkish national interests were surrendered to the EU, the MHP describes EU-Turkey relations with terms like bullying, imposition, and blackmailing.
On Iraq the MHP is of the view that there is an imminent threat to Turkey emanating from northern Iraq and thus conditions for “self-defense,” as allowed by the UN charter, have arisen. The MHP regards an intervention in northern Iraq as both necessary and legitimate and does not seem to have any respect for Iraq’s sovereignty or territorial integrity. Iraq, and particularly its north, are viewed as the backyard of Turkey. We know that these are views that are not alien to the views and wishes of the high-level state bureaucracy.
The CHP’s views on foreign policy as displayed in its election manifesto overlap in perspective and proposal with those of the MHP. The CHP supports EU membership in principle but criticizes the recent form of the relationship, which resulted in meeting the political Copenhagen criteria and the beginning of accession negotiations, characterized as “submission” to and political bullying by the EU. The CHP also declares its dissatisfaction with the negotiation framework document, the terms on which accession negotiations are conducted, terming it unacceptable. On the EU therefore, the CHP seems to be close to the MHP in its calls for a “break” in the negotiation process.
The government is criticized by the CHP for “not having the guts to intervene in northern Iraq.” It is strange that the main opposition party that claims power in upcoming elections resorts to such an approach rather than a rational, sensible and responsible one. In its election manifesto, the CHP declares its intention to invade a sovereign country if it comes to power in the government. I think this is a unique election promise by a so-called social democrat party, and that the Socialist International should take note of it. On the northern Iraq policy, the CHP follows the leader of the MHP who called on the military to be ready to intervene in northern Iraq after the elections since the MHP is coming to power.
On Cyprus, the CHP shocks many by arguing that the Annan plan was accepted in 2004 by the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) because of pressure and bullying. It is worrisome that a free and democratic referendum is described as an occasion when people were forced to vote for approval. Moreover, a free and democratic presidential election in which people voted with 56 percent for the current pro-solution president, Mehmet Ali Talat, is portrayed as a plot to sacrifice Rauf Denktaş. All these alarm me about the commitment of the CHP to the idea, process, and institution of democracy. I am worried that CHP leader Deniz Baykal may declare the result of the upcoming elections unacceptable, simply because he will not be voted into the government.
From the CHP’s election manifesto it is sure that the party wants to keep Turkish-American relations at a critical suspension. Fanning nationalist sentiments, the CHP challenges the US on its Iraq policy and threatens it with “non-cooperation” in the future unless its Iraq policy is changed. It seems that under a CHP government Turkish-American relations would deteriorate further.
A general illiberal attitude toward “foreigners” is also discernible in the CHP’s manifesto. The CHP asserts that property sales to foreigners will be re-regulated so as not to threaten national security -- assuming that such a practice is a threat to national security. This reflects security centrism, protectionism and even an element of xenophobia.
A joint nationalist foreign policy stand of the CHP and the MHP illustrates that the main dividing line in Turkish politics is between those who advocate globalization, EU membership, open society and market economy and those who are skeptical of all these. Otherwise, how can we explain the applause of Ilhan Selcuk, a national socialist editor of the daily Cumhuriyet and a frequent visitor of the sitting President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, for the MHP?
28.06.2007
But today as part of the post-elections scenarios, a coalition of these two is being promoted, which is quite unlikely according to public opinion surveys in which the CHP seems to earn 20 percent of the vote while the MHP is just over 10 percent, in contrast to the 40 percent that supports the Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
Anyhow it is worth looking at the details of the positions, policies, and visions of these two that serve as the ground on which a projected coalition government is being contemplated.
The MHP election manifesto starts with an assertion that the Turkish state is on the verge of total collapse under the assault of globalization forces aligned with some domestic actors. This is an alarmist political stance shared and repeated many times by the president and the chief of General Staff. Advocating for an aggressive foreign policy, the MHP visualizes Turkey like an iron fist in regional and global politics. It is clear that the MHP is sick and tired of the EU as it calls for a break in negotiations. Along with the claim that Turkish national interests were surrendered to the EU, the MHP describes EU-Turkey relations with terms like bullying, imposition, and blackmailing.
On Iraq the MHP is of the view that there is an imminent threat to Turkey emanating from northern Iraq and thus conditions for “self-defense,” as allowed by the UN charter, have arisen. The MHP regards an intervention in northern Iraq as both necessary and legitimate and does not seem to have any respect for Iraq’s sovereignty or territorial integrity. Iraq, and particularly its north, are viewed as the backyard of Turkey. We know that these are views that are not alien to the views and wishes of the high-level state bureaucracy.
The CHP’s views on foreign policy as displayed in its election manifesto overlap in perspective and proposal with those of the MHP. The CHP supports EU membership in principle but criticizes the recent form of the relationship, which resulted in meeting the political Copenhagen criteria and the beginning of accession negotiations, characterized as “submission” to and political bullying by the EU. The CHP also declares its dissatisfaction with the negotiation framework document, the terms on which accession negotiations are conducted, terming it unacceptable. On the EU therefore, the CHP seems to be close to the MHP in its calls for a “break” in the negotiation process.
The government is criticized by the CHP for “not having the guts to intervene in northern Iraq.” It is strange that the main opposition party that claims power in upcoming elections resorts to such an approach rather than a rational, sensible and responsible one. In its election manifesto, the CHP declares its intention to invade a sovereign country if it comes to power in the government. I think this is a unique election promise by a so-called social democrat party, and that the Socialist International should take note of it. On the northern Iraq policy, the CHP follows the leader of the MHP who called on the military to be ready to intervene in northern Iraq after the elections since the MHP is coming to power.
On Cyprus, the CHP shocks many by arguing that the Annan plan was accepted in 2004 by the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) because of pressure and bullying. It is worrisome that a free and democratic referendum is described as an occasion when people were forced to vote for approval. Moreover, a free and democratic presidential election in which people voted with 56 percent for the current pro-solution president, Mehmet Ali Talat, is portrayed as a plot to sacrifice Rauf Denktaş. All these alarm me about the commitment of the CHP to the idea, process, and institution of democracy. I am worried that CHP leader Deniz Baykal may declare the result of the upcoming elections unacceptable, simply because he will not be voted into the government.
From the CHP’s election manifesto it is sure that the party wants to keep Turkish-American relations at a critical suspension. Fanning nationalist sentiments, the CHP challenges the US on its Iraq policy and threatens it with “non-cooperation” in the future unless its Iraq policy is changed. It seems that under a CHP government Turkish-American relations would deteriorate further.
A general illiberal attitude toward “foreigners” is also discernible in the CHP’s manifesto. The CHP asserts that property sales to foreigners will be re-regulated so as not to threaten national security -- assuming that such a practice is a threat to national security. This reflects security centrism, protectionism and even an element of xenophobia.
A joint nationalist foreign policy stand of the CHP and the MHP illustrates that the main dividing line in Turkish politics is between those who advocate globalization, EU membership, open society and market economy and those who are skeptical of all these. Otherwise, how can we explain the applause of Ilhan Selcuk, a national socialist editor of the daily Cumhuriyet and a frequent visitor of the sitting President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, for the MHP?
28.06.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment