The Political System of Turkey within the European Union - Case Study Example

I. Introduction Turkey is a baffling scene to numerous foreign spectators. One of its perplexing features is its political structure, rather than its economic system; it cannot be said that on one hand it is a totalitarian country, it would be illogical to argue that it is a stable democratic country. Another perplexing feature is its distinctiveness; it is either a country of the Middle East or a country of Europe; these two issues, the political structure and distinctiveness of Turkey, cause difficulties in its relations with the member states of the European Union (EU). On the other hand, Turkey also confronts difficulties in meeting EU’s economic criteria. Generally described as a fully operational market and a capability to contend with the EU, the economic qualification is basically analysed as the least problematic aspect of Turkey’s membership. However, the economic calamities in the country in the twenty first century and the ensuing economic recession accompanied with predicaments experienced in the Customs Union ever more indicate that satisfying the economic conditions will be thornier than anticipated (Altunisik 2004). The reality that majority of the economic reform and technical assistance subsidies, which are chiefly obtainable for the potential and bargaining new member states, will not be accessible for Turkey, worsens the economic potentials of the country. In 1987, Turkey applied for EU membership which is three years ahead of Cyprus and Malta. However, when all of the post-Turkey applicants were approved of membership in the EU in 2004, membership arbitrations not merely had to discuss about the implications of Turkey’s full membership but to guarantee the country of full accession. For several reasons, the application of Turkey has not been regarded equally by the EU compared to the consideration it gave to other applications. To a certain extent, it has been viewed as being particularly and uniquely problematical, both politically and economically, although the latter takes less precedence over the other in terms of difficulties. This also has been partly due to the belief that Turkish membership will generate several problems for the EU and partly due to the perception of Turkey as a country extremely different from the other EU aspirant countries (Carkoglu & Rubin 2004). In this paper, the premise that the main obstacles to Turkey’s membership of the European Union are political rather than economic will be discussed. II. Overview of Turkey’s Membership in the European Union The European Council implemented the following standards for the assessment of aspirant states for membership in the EU: “(1) political conditions, i.e. the state of democracy and respect for human righs; (2) economic conditions i.e. macroeconomic stability, ability to deal with competitive pressure; and (3) the ability to adopt the body of Community Law” (Carkoglu & Rubin 2003: 44). The Copenhagen European Council declared that “membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities” (Carkoglu & Rubin 2003: 44). In relation to the Amsterdam Treaty, the current Treaty’s Article O is revised to protect a constitutional code that “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law” (Carkoglu & Rubin 2003: 45). In that dimension, the internal crises of Turkey turned out to be evident problems preventing its addition into the new order. One clear argument of the paper is that the prospect of Turkey in Europe will be difficult in part due to the fact that a transformed European identity is being recreated within which Turkey’s addition is turning out to be a predicament. There are fundamentally two descriptions of Europeanness; one dimension emphasises shared intellectual tradition, ethnicity and religion; the other one emphasises collective values such as democratic ideals. Turkey has a difficulty with these two descriptions; if Europe is reinvented along the premise of ethno-nationalism, in that case Turkey’s segregation would be unavoidable (Carkoglu & Rubin 2003). Given that Europe is reinvented along concepts of liberal democracy, then either Turkey’s segregation or Turkey’s provisional inclusion can be disputed with the conditions that Turkey should restructure its political system, in the character of Europeanness, Turkey stumbles upon particular dilemmas for the reason that its democracy is not seen to be in line with European principles, but there is still space for movement. The Commission, in its Agenda 2000, did not propose accession agreements with Turkey and as soon as the Council of the European Union deliberated these proposals in the 1997 Luxembourg Summit, it concluded that Turkey should be excluded from the list of entrant countries within which accession agreements would commence. These decisions were made on the basis of the assumption that Turkey does not satisfy the required political qualifications for full membership (Diez 2007). The justification of EU of its decision to exclude Turkey from the list of candidate countries is that in spite of Turkey’s state of democracy, dilemmas associated to human and minority rights put off the initiation of accession agreements with Turkey. II. The Politics and Economy of Turkey’s EU Membership Economic difficulties of Turkey are regarded as the least of the obstacles to Turkey’s membership in the EU because the country is seen as a fully operational market and a capable contender in the EU. On the other hand, the most problematic of the aspects of Turkey-EU relations is Turkey’s political difficulties particularly its domestic and foreign policies. Nevertheless, both of these problems, political and economic, will be discussed in the proceeding sections. With the enlargement course of action of EU progressing at full speed, there is considerable debate in Turkey among legislators and media icons regarding the coordination of reforms such as economic streamlining and altering domestic policies exclusively for the purpose of finally being admitted into the EU. In spite of the reality that Turkey has significant experience and understanding of the market economy, specifically when measured up to the other aspirant states in Eastern Europe, and possess some capability to challenge its European counterparts, Turkey confronts critical problems and challenges in satisfying EU’s economic criteria. Economic liberalisation which has been initiated since the 1980s and which has not thus far succeed in pushing for reform in the public arena, and the unrelenting legacy of patronage politics and populism are analyzed as the underlying obstacles to Turkey’s accession. The European economic development program has changed from a chiefly Keynesian policy with stress on assimilation and unity to the neo-liberal approach. The European assimilation’s neo-liberalisation was primarily interwoven with the enlargement of EU and the accession of Turkey. The lack of EU subsidies and the timing of these funding and tributes accessible for Turkey as it underwent momentous liberalisation restructurings with the anticipation of accession also distressed the economic relationship between Turkey and the EU (Clarke 2006). In relation to economic difficulties, Turkey’s accession is most challenging because its economy is remarkably dissimilar from that of the EU’s member states and aspirant countries, in several ways. Turkey has the leading economy, with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), among the aspirant countries thus far, even in the repercussions of the financial downturn experienced in 2000 and 2001. On the contrary, among the 28 countries of the EU and aspirant countries Turkey was ranked twenty-forth in terms of GDP per capita in 1998, which suggests the drawbacks of a rapidly growing population (Carkoglu & Rubin 2003, 61). Turkey confronts serious problems and challenges in satisfying the Copenhagen economic requirements. These difficulties are partly because EU’s agenda and courses of action are also adjusting from a Keynesian policy- stressing integration and unity of a neo-liberal approach, putting emphasis on deregulated markets in a period of mounting global competition. This adjustment has unavoidably affected the enlargement course of EU and the related provision for accession, referred to as the Copenhagen standards (Aras & Bicakci 2006). However, Turkey’s accession was impeded because of the inadequate execution of political reforms and in this case, economic reforms are perceived to be unproblematic. Turkey has experienced difficulty in satisfying the political requirements ever since its accession partnership contract was approved in 2001. Although there have been considerable modifications of legislation, the predicament lies at the implementation phase. Moreover, the Cyprus problem and the Turkish-Greek relations after the 1974 Turkish intervention have been a very important aspect in the development of the Turkey-EU relations. These two concerns, oftentimes related, are considered the most difficult to resolve. The membership of Greece in the EU in 1981 has aggravated matters, particularly for the EU. From then on, the EU became incapable of keeping its benign objectivity towards its two associates. As a result, the path towards the Turkish-EU relations’ amelioration approved thru Athens and Nicosia, in spite of the aspiration of Turkey to maintain the resolution of these concerns independent from the issue of its EU accession (Nachmani 2003). The partitioned island of Cyprus makes up one of the countless dilemmas the present EU enlargement course necessitates as a whole. Each aspirant evidently has its own specific difficulties; however, even a glimpse of the list of aspirant countries may suggest that the Cyprus case is currently the most singular case. The inconsistency is that, both in terms of economy and administration, Cyprus is the finest aspirant. It is the most progressive among the aspirant countries and has every administrative mechanism required for membership. However, the question is, which Cyprus? Because of the conflict with Cyprus, which has remained problematic for the recent decades, this consuming concern has structured the Cypriot incident as a problematic candidacy, politically speaking. The relationship between the Cyprus case and the Turkey accession to the EU has turn out to be particularly prominent for the reason that Cyprus and Turkey both were aspirants for EU membership. As an outcome of the Helsinki summit decisions in 1999 of the European Council, the resolution of the dilemma of the Cyprus case is not a prerequisite to the accession of Cyprus or even Turkey to the EU. Nonetheless, Ankara is anticipated to fulfil an important task of bringing about an agreement in Cyprus as every party involved sees it as having a major part in realising the resolution of this entanglement. Provided with this anticipation and the emphasising of this concern as a brief priority of the Accession Partnership of Turkey, Cyprus is indispensable for Turkey’s membership; Turkey hence discovers itself accountable to the region’s stability and the security of Cypriots (Carkoglu & Rubin 2003). In any case, the future of EU accession requires a deep-seated change of vision, particularly regarding on the basis of long-established view of national sovereignty. Nowadays, sovereignty rests a great deal on the inter-subjective relationships between countries: countries are sovereign simply through their complements; it is the counterpart, through its attitude or actions, which influences sovereignty or the extent of sovereignty. This is relevant to Turkey and Cyprus. All the parties involved should recognise ideals of the EU if they envisage their future in the new order, wherein even smallest states flourish without feeling sorry for the loss of sovereignty which EU membership necessitates. III. Conclusions The political system of Turkey has critical deficiencies that act as hindrances to its membership into the EU. The EU’s Copenhagen standard and human rights criteria are positioned in front of the closer Turkey-EU relations. In that dimension, there is continuing course of political transformation in Turkey in an effort to comply with the EU criteria. The scenario at the closing stages of the twentieth century is that Turkey faces a crucial challenge in restructuring its political structure; yet simultaneously, this is where there is space for creating the integration of Turkey into the new European order as described, through high regard for human rights and through democracy. The part of the Cyprus conflict in Turkey’s accession is secondary yet crucial. It was evident that it would be a hindrance to setting off future negotiations. After an extended period of needless pushing and insisting, the Turkish regime at last took the proposal for a conflict resolution, and big steps were made to come up with a just and feasible solution to the predicament. Eventually, much to the astonishment of all involved parties that had failed to pay adequate attention to Turkey’s latest dynamics, the Turkish Cypriots acknowledged the proposal arranged by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. In the meantime, the Greek Cypriots successfully voted for the separation of the island, yet no sanction against them for challenging the decision of the international community as well as of the EU was likely. From the standpoint of those who have confidence in Turkey’s European career and who take into account a liberal democratic system the paramount assurance of the country’s cohesion and also its prosperity, this extended passage has been an advantageous one. The European Union relations, founded on the mutual agreement responsibilities initially framed in the Ankara agreement assisted Turkey in institutionalising its market economy. The presence of varied, intricate and penetrating economic relations with the EU was as well mainly accountable for Turkey’s capacity to assimilate with the international economy and compete in global markets through the high value of its labour force and production. At present these relations are facilitating democratic elements in Turkey to shove the country to reform along the lines of liberal democracy and to establish the tenet of law. It is as well evident for those who persevere for membership in the EU that when Turkey satisfies the democratic principles of Europe it will be capable to fulfil its pledge and will progressively more willingly serve as a model for its colossal region. Indeed, Turkey’s victory and full membership into the EU could be both a political and economic force that could assist in the stabilisation of the Middle East. References Books Altunisik, M. B. (2004), Turkey: Challenges of Continuity and Change, New York: Routledge. Carkoglu, A. & Rubin, B. (2003), Turkey and the European Union: Domestic Politics, Economic Integration and International Dynamics, London: Frank Cass. Lovatt, D. (1970), Turkey since 1970: Politics, Economics and Society, New York: Palgrave. Nachmani, A. (2003), Turkey-- Facing a New Millennium: Coping with Intertwined Conflicts, Machester, England: Machester University Press. Rubin, B. & Kiri~sci, K. (2001), Turkey in World Politics: An Emerging Multiregional Power, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Journal Articles Aras, B. & Bicakci, S. (2006), Europe, Turkey and the Middle East: Is Harmonisation Possible?, East European Quarterly , 367+. Clarke, K. (2006), Crossing Over? Turkey and the European Union, Harvard International Review , 13. Diez, T. (2007), Expanding Europe: The Ehtics of EU-Turkey Relations, Ethics & International Affairs , 415+. Evered, K. T. (2005), Regionalism in the Middle East and the Case of Turkey, The Geographic Review , 463+. Reedom-Ackerman, J. (1999, November 18), New Hope in Turkey, Christian Science Monitor , 9. Read More