The strongman syndrome

Turkey's referendum is a cautionary tale

The once widely admired secular republic of Turkey has already experienced the future under a modern Islamic Caliphate in the nine months that President Recep Tayyip Erdoðan has exercised unfettered emergency powers granted to him by Parliament following a failed coup in July last year. The slim and fiercely contested majority in the referendum for an executive presidency – Mr Erdogan’s transparent and long-held ambition – is testimony to the fact that he has used unchecked powers to do his worst. Taken together with the steady erosion of democratic institutions during Mr Erdogan’s 11-year-long stint as prime minister and 16 years as head of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which he founded, Turks are unlikely to expect a diminution of his authoritarian proclivities and hard-line religio-populist agenda. 

Economic growth has been anaemic – the economy has barely grown and unemployment this latest quarter has peaked to 13 per cent – and Turks across the country have suffered serial terrorist attacks by the Islamic State and disaffected Kurds, groups he once nurtured, his relations with Europe are at an all-time low and interactions with Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Donald Trump’s US decidedly erratic. His country is on the frontline of the confusing and unprecedentedly violent war in West Asia, a position complicated by Turkey’s status as a significant Nato power. Yet Mr Erdogan’s attention has been focused on jailing and suppressing opposition in the name of a conspiracy by his ally turned foe, the US-based Fethullah Gülen. Over 100,000 people – academics, teachers, soldiers, generals, bureaucrats, journalists, even football association officials – have been sacked or suspended since the putsch, which explains why he was able to squeeze out a majority in a referendum, the veracity of which remains in doubt. Presidential elections are not due in Turkey until November 2019, when Mr Erdogan will formally attain his Ottoman Caliphate dreams, reinforced by his residence in a 1,100-room palace built with state funds. Till then, he will continue to hold emergency powers, a handy dress rehearsal for a reign in which he will enjoy constitutional supremacy over Parliament and the judiciary, the two pillars of democratic checks and balances.

Turkey offers one vision of the endgame of authoritarian democracy that is gaining ground around the world, where the authority of Parliament is bypassed via a direct reference to the electorate, but only after dissenting voices have been ruthlessly suppressed. It is worth wondering whether a referendum on a significant constitutional change should have required a two-third supermajority rather than a simple one. The nuts and bolts of referendum management are of significance in an unruly democracy like India, where the notions of a presidential form of government and “direct democracy” appear to hold attraction for many. It is also noteworthy that Mr Erodgan’s early popularity stemmed from his “modern” Islamic credentials coupled with rapid economic growth. But when Mr Erdogan arrives for his state visit on April 20, India may do well to focus on such practical issues as enhancing negligible but high-potential economic ties – India enjoys a trade surplus – with a country that has been a steadfast ally of Pakistan. His political proclivities should best be considered an internal matter of Turkey.