Erdogan’s Balancing Act

In a great rush, the West welcomed Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s victory in the May 28 runoff vote. For NATO, the election outcome would have been much better if opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu had won. For the president is known for taking stands that do not always often tally with those of his Western counterparts. 

On election eve, some Western media had echoed good prospects of the opposition candidate backed by a six-party alliance to outpoll the incumbent president. It was a close contest, no doubt. Since no single candidate won a clear majority of 50 per cent-plus votes on May 14. The run-off two weeks later gave Erdogan another term in office, with the Supreme Election Council crediting him with 52.14 per cent of the votes as against Kilicdaroglu’s 47.86 per cent. 

In fact, Erdogan polled 48.5 per cent votes in the indecisive first round, which was a three-cornered contest.  Placed third after collecting 5 per cent votes, Sinan Ogan declared his endorsement of Erdogan for the final round. That the president’s parliamentary alliance obtained the majority of seats in the national legislature demonstrated his overall position. 

It was obvious that most NATO members would have been pleased if, as described by the Western media prior to the elections, the “increasingly authoritarian” Erdogan had been defeated. Even as NATO members, including the US, the United Kingdom and France, were among the first to greet the Turkish president for his success. NATO’s arch-rivals China and Russia were also pleased to congratulate the Turkish leader for understandable reasons. 

After all, they have been able to find more than a foothold in moderating the Turkish leader’s approach to them these past few years. Such competitive rush among the major powers to congratulate Erdogan spoke of the unique position the latter holds as an important player in the international landscape.

Balancing act

Clearly, Erdogan is in a relatively win-win situation, with an international profile of a peace broker. At a time when the US-led anti-Russia and anti-China campaigns are tightening especially among NATO members in general together with Australia and Japan in the Indo-Pacific region, the Turkish leader emerges as a credible figure for smoothening things at the micro level within and between NATO members as well as an emerging combine that strengthens Sino-Russian initiatives.

Erdogan’s is a balancing act that exacts a calculated approach. Assertive but not to the extent of attracting hostility, he does not take too drastic a stance when a mid-path can render better results against the background of accelerated pace of war of words, fuelled by blatant propaganda between NATO and the Sino-Russian team.

NATO allies are not very happy with Erdogan who, they think, is playing with both sides over the Ukraine conflict. Instead of joining the mainstream West’s chorus in imposing strict sanctions against Vladimir Putin’s government, Erdogan goes purchasing Russian military equipment but not without supplying sophisticated drones to Ukraine. 

In the process, Ankara has managed fairly good relations with both Russia and Ukraine — a feat hardly any other major power has maintained. Hence his refusal to oblige NATO peers wanting him to follow in toto their prescription against Moscow. Turkish troops occupy some areas in Northern Syria to check Kurdish militants who want to create their own independent state from parts of Syria, Turkey and Iraq that have a sizeable combined population of Kurdish descent.

Turkey faces two major challenges. The first is the swift inflation triggered by the Ukraine war. Another onerous task is to rebuild the cities destroyed by this year’s devastating earthquake, in which more than 50,000 people were killed. Thousands of others are still missing in the natural disaster recorded as the deadliest in modern times. 

Ankara has a longstanding grievance against the 27-member European Union that has persistently refused Turkey’s admission to the economic grouping. Turkey’s decades old request EU membership has so far been rejected on grounds of ineligibility, ostensibly because of inadequate democratic feature in the overwhelmingly Muslim majority country. 

Deficit in rule of law and human rights violations are the two principal reasons attributed to preventing Turkey’s membership. Freedom House lists Turkey as “not free” while Reporters without Borders ranks its status of press freedom at 149 out of 180 countries. Turkey believes that its Muslim majority status is the actual reason for the EU’s foot-dragging over the membership issue. The media in EU have at times expressed concern over the prospect of being flooded by the Muslim majority, with a population of 85 million. 

Increased profile

Turkey has opened embassies in 42 African states and plans to increase the number to 50 countries within the 2020s. This contrasts sharply with the fact that its embassies on the African continent in 2002 was only 12. An answer to the thrust can be found in the big boost its trade has recorded with Africa at $25 billion today as against $4b two decades ago.

In October, Ankara declared persona non grata ten foreign ambassadors, including that of the US, Germany and France accredited to Turkey the ten had jointly issued a statement for an immediate release of businessman and philanthropist Osman Kavala, who is in jail since ten years on charges of plotting a military coup. Seven of the ambassadors represent NATO members.

Erdogan told his supporters that foreign ambassadors had no right to demand something that is purely the host country’s domestic matter. NATO’s second largest military force, Turkey military strength is ranked thirteenth in the world. In short, Erdogan is very much in power. Why? Here, a Turkish woman, quoted by The New York Times, sounds logical: “Voting is not only about electing someone. It is making a decision about your life.”

At a time when the world is clearly undergoing a shift in power equations, the Turkish president’s assertive style when dealing with his NATO counterparts might embolden others that have generally remained meek in accepting agendas they were not really happy about. Other leaders might also like emulating him, which would be a matter of consternation to the West.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)