As a founding member, how do you describe the AK Party? Is it a religious party?
Contrary to common perception, the AK Party was born as a right-wing conservative party. It was not established as a religious party. Yet its objective was to provide a space for all religions. The party, remaining loyal to its original objective, has not pursued any identity-based policy. Since the foundation of the modern Republic of Turkey, however, all governments had suppressed religion. Different from those parties that had suppressed the Muslim identity of the people and instead embraced a Western identity, the AK Party has followed a policy that has given religion more space. In this regard, it has struggled with the Turkish Armed Forces which had dominated Turkish politics for a long time. On the other hand, the AK Party brought a different approach that helped Turkey develop better relations with the Arab and Muslim world.
Was this the AK Party’s greatest success?
No, the AK Party’s greatest success is of course its economic success. It increased Turkey’s GDP per capita from $2,000 to $11,000 within three-and-half years, as well as raising the country’s growth rate up to 11 percent. It introduced radical reforms in health care, granting people the right of getting free health care, and improved the conditions of hospitals. We can say the same thing for education as well. Level of education has increased by 50 percent under the AK Party’s rule. Positive changes were introduced in terms of gender equality. Positive discrimination towards women has been added to the constitution. Women’s political participation was also increased by over 100 percent, as it was 4 percent when the AK Party came to power and it is currently 14.5 percent. With all these improvements, the AK Party has had 50 percent of the votes in the last elections. It has gone through 13 elections in the last nine years and the votes have been increasing in every election. The AK Party means stability and trust for Turkey.
You talked about positive developments only. How about negative ones?
Of course as a founder of the AK Party, I like to talk more about positive developments. But maybe after 2010, the party has had a tendency towards pursuing a policy based on identity. I mean, it began to emphasise its religious identity more than before. Before 2010, its religious identity was not that dominant. This helped some problems come to the surface. These problems have always been there. Since the foundation of the Turkish Republic, an identity struggle had continued as people with a religious tendency had always ben suppressed in Turkey. The conservative people had not been allowed to represent themselves in political life. The AK Party has changed this. In this regard, the party has laid a stronger emphasis on its religious identity. There are also things that the AK Party could not realise. For example, the number of universities in Turkey increased but there is still a long way to go in terms of the quality of education in those universities. There are also some issues in foreign policy. Of course, when the AK Party first came to power, it was dreaming of a country that had no problems with neighbours. But as a result of the negative conjuncture in the region, it could not achieve this goal.
The opposition parties criticise the AK Party for turning its back on Europe and focusing only on the Muslim world. Do you agree with that?
The European Union process has been a priority for the AK Party. However, the interruption in this process came as a result of problems created by the European Union itself. These problems have slowed down the process a little, but Turkey is a bridge between the East and the West. It can never break apart from the West as there are many elements from the West in its culture. The AK Party has developed good relations with the Arab world as well. Since 1923, modern Republic of Turkey had turned its back on the Arab and Muslim world. Its policy was based on a Turkish identity. The AK Party has changed this identity and added an Islamic element to that. Of course, 12-13 years is a short period for a country to gain positive results. May be after 10 or more years, we will start witnessing more positive outcomes. Today Turkey is a country that is dear to the Arabs. 15 years ago, the Arabs were despised in Turkey. The Arab tourists were not welcomed at that time. But today, Turkey has established very good relations with them thanks to the AK Party.
It is the case for the Kurds as well. The Kurdish issue has been normalised, as we have a Kurdish party (HDP) in the parliament today. There are some Kurds among the founders of the AK Party. The AK Party’s policy towards the Kurds is definitely more open to dialogue than that opposition parties such as the CHP and the MHP.
In the past, the Kurdish names were not allowed to be given to children. Streets that had Kurdish names were changed to Turkish. Now all of them have been given back their original names. We have a Kurdish channel today, which is ran by a state TV, TRT. The Kurdish language can be taken as an elective course in schools. That is why the AK Party is the strongest party in the eastern part of Turkey. The CHP has no parliamentarian from this area. The AK Party has parliamentarians from 81 cities and this is a great achievement. In the last elections, 20 million people voted for Erdogan. These 20 million people cannot be out of their minds!
Is Erdogan becoming more authoritarian, as some suggest?
I do not think so. I worked with him for a long time. I am among the founders of the AK Party. I never thought that he had such a desire. The AK Party was not designed as an authoritarian party. Also, the Turkish people will never accept authoritarianism. Today there are more than 100,000 non-governmental institutions in Turkey. Civil society is vibrant and active. You can find many groups which not only represent the right but also the left. Neither Turkey can endure an authoritarian structure, nor Erdogan has such a desire. Personally, I do not feel that is his intention. The AK Party has gone through difficult times since it was founded. It faced court cases two times to be closed down. Struggling with all those challenges, we see a more aggressive Erdogan from time to time. But I do not consider this authoritarianism.
Erdogan’s emphasis on building a Turkish model of presidentialism is interpreted by some as a move towards authoritarianism.
People pay too much attention to this talk of “Turkish model.” Each country has its own model, the US, France etc. When it comes to Turkey, people equate this model with sultanate or monarchy. Presidential system is another form of parliamentary system. You continue to keep the parliament. Do we call the countries who have a presidential system non-democratic? This issue is associated with Erdogan and described as his personal matter. In Turkey, opposition is based on anti-Erdoganism.
In the end, Erdogan is a person who believes in the hereafter. He knows that he will not live forever! When a system changes, it is a change for your future generations, for your country; not for the current leader.
Presidentialism was debated during the formative years of the AK Party.
Yes. This debate is not new to Turkey. The model was first introduced by Turgut Ozal, and before him Suleyman Demirel. Presidentialism is a more efficient system. Let me give you an example. There was a plan for a stadium construction in the province of Van. You have to get 50-60 approvals from different offices for this construction to start. The whole process may take years. Bureaucracy is very slow in Turkey. Some decisions take a very long time to be implemented. Now the population is over 70 million, and you need a faster and more efficient mechanism. But if you look through a narrow window, you can read it as Erdogan’s desire to have more power. I believe presidential system will advance pluralistic democracy. Not only me, there are many academics who think the same way.
Were you expecting such a success in the beginning?
We were not. But we have worked so hard. Erdogan himself, street to street, house to house, person to person. It is not very easy to win people’s hearts. When you create a new party, especially at a time when everybody is against you, of course you do not expect such a big achievement. People used to say “he can not even be a village headman” for your party’s leader. Personally, I faced many challenges myself. When the AK Party was formed, the constitutional court sued me, arguing that “a founding member cannot wear headscarf.” Just because I said “a female judge can wear a headscarf” when I was on TV, I was charged again for the second time. Wearing a headscarf was a crime! Having a woman with a headscarf could be a reason for your party to be banned. As Muslim women, we suffered a lot. With the AK Party, this has changed. But of course there are people who are not happy with these changes. There are some who want to keep their privileges of the past. This created a political struggle between AK Party and the others. We have come to this point not by luck, but by working hard. Of course the others can be strong rivals by working hard like us!
The Peninsula
