Latest Articles

Although the Justice and Development Party (AKP) victory in the 2015 Turkish municipal elections was generally expected, the percentage of votes surprised many, including the leaders of the party. This paper suggests that, despite the best efforts of opposition parties to manipulate a series of crises for the AKP, the voters were able to see past the political maneuvering and took action at the ballot box. By first examining the many factors that had been expected to impact the results, not least of which was its political timing, and the general sense that Turkey’s ruling party was set for victory, this paper explores the political situation in Turkey at the time of the elections, and probes the events leading up to the vote. It begins with events of the year prior, which had witnessed a series of crises for the AKP including: events in Gezi Park and Taksim Square, a series of leaked voice recordings that put leaders in compromising positions, allegations of corruption against some AKP ministers, and most importantly, an ongoing conflict between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his former ally and leader of the Gulen (Service) movement Fethullah Gülen. Each of these was expected to affect the AKP’s chances of maintaining a strong political position, and was used by the ruling party to bolster its own stance; a tactic that ultimately failed.

This study attempts to understand the concepts of democratic consolidation and of dictatorship, and explains which is closer to coming about in the Turkish state after the experience of the past sixty years. Despite the reforms undertaken by the AKP since it came to power in 2002 that aimed to curtail the constitutional and legal pretexts allowing the military to intervene in political life, there have been notable changes in the Turkish scene, especially in 2013 and 2014. It has been implied that Turkey is on course to consolidate dictatorship, and this makes the third and final phase of democratization in Turkey subject to very different assessments. On this basis, the study attempts to answer a key question: where is Turkey heading, towards democratic consolidation or towards dictatorship?

This paper analyses the extent to which a “New Era” of the Turkish Republic is possible following the election of former Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the presidency on August 10. Erdogan is the twelfth individual to hold the office of President since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. Having won the presidency following a prolonged period as prime minister, Erdogan has become the single most influential individual in Turkish politics since Mustafa Kemal. Given Erdogan’s current ambitions to bring about major constitutional change in Turkey, his election to the presidency can be seen as ushering in a new era for the Turkish Republic.

In December of 2013, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reshuffled his cabinet, dismissing four ministers linked to a nationwide corruption scandal. Some of the ministers ousted from their positions were involved in the Halkbank scandal, a financial institution involved in the processing of payments for Iranian natural gas supplied to Turkey, and which the US has long accused of violating the terms of international sanctions on Tehran. Erdogan has accused exiled Turkish cleric Fathallah Gulen, a former ally of the AKP leader, of orchestrating these scandals within a wider “international conspiracy” aimed at bringing the AKP government down in retaliation for its regional and international policies. This paper shall examine how the present conflict between Erdogan and his erstwhile ally Gulen will influence Turkish politics, noting that Gulen’s acolytes pose a much greater risk to the AKP than all of the secular Turkish opposition parties combined. ​

Following a return to armed conflict, the Turkish authorities abandoned, in 2015, a policy of political reconciliation with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The new approach is based on, first, the idea that no capable Kurdish negotiating partner exists for the Ankara authorities to negotiate with. Secondly, it is based on a full-scale military confrontation against the PKK and on weakening the Democratic Peoples' Party (HDP) through a variety of means. Thirdly, the new approach is based on an openness to alternative Kurdish groups to represent the Kurds in the future and is also based on strengthening the Kurdish conservatives. Despite the achievements of the AKP and the incumbent government in this regard, they continue to face on-the-ground challenges. This paper seeks to answer a set of questions: Can the HDP be weakened or lost in future parliamentary representation, or will it still represent a large segment of Kurds? Would support for the AKP's Kurdish allies be enough to allow them to negotiate on behalf of Turkey's Kurdish population? How feasible is the AKP government's present approach and how successful is it?

Book Title: Abdullah Gul and the Making of the New Turkey [English] Author: Gerald MacLean Year of publication: 2014 Publisher: One World - London Pages: 368 (large format)

​This paper addresses a theoretical model for the concept of "consociational democracy", beginning with the concept's roots in the Austrian Marxist tradition before describing its elaboration in 1969 by the Dutch-American political scientist Arend Lijphart. Lijphart's work was part of his wider critique of Gabriel Almond's categorization of Western political systems. This study presents a structural criticism of the term "consociational democracy" and its usage, arguing that the practice of "consociational democracy" was born of pragmatic policies before maturing into a theoretical model. It argues that the subsequent contributions of Lijphart were merely an extrapolation from a set of examples without "theory" to underpin it and that "power sharing" does not necessarily lead to democratization. The study thus draws up several theoretical observations that help distinguish "consociationalism" from "consociational democracy". Finally, the paper contrasts the suitability of this theoretical model for both Northern Ireland and Lebanon.

This report chronicles some of the most significant developments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

​In this section you will find the most important documents on democratic change in the Arab world. In this issue, we publish documents highlighting the political movement in Tunisia demanding democracy and look at the main political changes in Sudan, Iraq and Jordan in March and April 2022.

This paper explores public attitudes to pan-Arab issues, specifically, the question of intra-Arab relations and intra-Arab cooperation. The results, based on a series of public surveys conducted for the Arab Opinion Index, indicate that a majority across the surveyed countries agree either with the statement “The Arab peoples constitute a single nation, even if certain specificities distinguish the specific peoples”. In contrast, only 14% of the respondents agreed with the view “That the Arab peoples are entirely distinct nations tied together by only tenuous bonds”. This broad consensus among respondents in the countries surveyed is further evidenced by respondents’ answers to a number of other points, such as support for increased intra-Arab cooperation and respondents’ reported desire for increased economic, political and military cooperation between Arab countries.