Panagiotis Andrikopoulos

PhD Candidate of International Relations

Kadir Has University

Conference Presentation Title: “A “Turkish Model” for the Middle East: Deconstructing

a Discourse”

“How do we recognize the shackles that tradition

has placed upon us? For if we can recognize them, we

are also able to break them” Franz Boaz

“All knowledge that is about human society, and not

about the natural world, is historical knowledge, and

therefore rests upon judgment and interpretation. This

is not to say that facts or data are nonexistent, but

that facts get their importance from what is made of

them in interpretation… for interpretations depend very

much on who the interpreter is, who he or she is

addressing, what his or her purpose is, at what

1

historical moment the interpretation takes place.”

Edward W. Said

Introduction

Ever since the Arab Uprisings started in the end of

2010, great structural changes took place in the area

of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). We saw the

falling of dictators that dominated their lands for

decades; leaders like Ben Ali of Tunisia, Mubarak of

Egypt and Qaddafi of Libya belong to the past. The

West, especially the US, had for long established good

relations with all these leaders and their regimes, in

that, that served their interests in the area. The so-

2

called “Arab Spring” came as a blow for the world’s

superpower because of the gap that left behind it. For

many years, human rights and oppression were not high

in the agenda of the US when it came to the MENA region

and the reason was that the dictatorial regimes

maintained a stability that kept the status quo and

American hegemony intact. But things changed after the

Arab Uprisings and a new strategy was required to fill

the gap that has been created.

Revisionism is something that a hegemon does not

want. Since the falling of the dictators, states like

Iran came to fill the gap and show the Arab people how

a state must be run based on religious law and

fundamentalism. In a region that Iran tries to “export”

an image that deviates from the standard American

ideology of the market economy and capitalism in

addition with the fact that most of the earths’ oil is

being produced in the area, the US interests are

jeopardized. In moments like these, when the American

foreign policy in the post 9/11 era has failed to

impose its ideology of democracy and market economy in

the Middle East with force, a new means is required

3

that comes through soft power. If they cannot impose it

on them, then they will make them want it without

force. Turkey and its leadership of Justice and

Development (AKP) party, is exactly the asset that US

is looking for as it is the only country that has many

prerequisites that Washington needs: Turkey sits on a

strategic geographical spot, being a part of many

regions (Mediterranean, Balkans, Europe, Middle East,

Central Asia); According to US, moderate Islam and

democracy are well married and Turkey proves that these

two terms are not mutually excluded; Also the

achievements of Ankara on terms of economy and

development based on the ideology that prevailed in the

post-Cold War era, the neo-liberalism, capitalism and

open market economy makes Turkey more ideal for US and

its effort to keep its hegemony in the area. In other

words, a “Turkish model” is what the Arab world has to

adopt in order to be prosperous and evolve in a rapid

way lust like Turkey did.

This paper, therefore, will talk about this model

that Turkey and US try to “impose” on the MENA region

in the post-Arab Spring era. Our main argument is that

4

the “Turkish Model” has been constructed through

discourses both from US and Turkey in order to serve

certain interests. In the case of US, such a “model” is

ideal to preserve the hegemonic order in the Middle

East and avoid models of revisionist states, such as

Iran. As far as Turkey is concerned, the Turkish Model

has been created to boost the country in the Arab

World, enhance the investments and its total image and,

thus, to become a regional power that will not meet the

resistance of the hegemon as long as it promotes its

interests as well.

The intention of this paper is to raise critical

questions and bring to light the interpretation of

events that occur in world politics and the Turkish

Model is one of them. Therefore, we will not use a

mainstream methodology exactly because we want our

paper to be quite critical and raise questions of

interpretation. Our methodology will include two

theoretical approaches that will help us defend our

main argument. First, we will frame our argument around

Neo-Gramscianism, especially, Antonio Gramsci’s

insights about hegemony and how a dominant social group

5

(or a state) instead of imposing through force its

ideology, tries to make other social groups (or states)

want what the hegemon wants. Having framed the paper

around Gramsci’s hegemony we will then use the approach

of Critical Geopolitics because as we saw above, Middle

East is a vital strategic place that is crucial for the

great powers because of the vast oil reserves. Also,

what is important in this approach is that it talks

about the discourses that are created in order to

promote certain interests in a strategic place.

Especially, we will use its insights about the linkage

that it makes between three kind of discourses, the

formal geopolitics, which is the discourses of academic

and intellectual sources, the practical geopolitics,

which includes discourses from government members and

bureaucrats and, finally, the popular geopolitics,

which involves the mass media, press, newspaper

articles, etc.

Therefore, with the “hegemonic” background of Neo-

Gramscianism and the three sources of discourses that

will be used from Critical Geopolitics, we will see how

Turkey and US constructed and promoted the “Turkish

6

Model” in the Middle East and what is the

interpretation behind it. Our main objective is to

deconstruct this discourse and conclude that only a

Turkish Model does not exist but it can harm Turkey in

future.

This paper is important because it offers another

perspective in the Middle East studies, one that is

based on post-modernism and critical view of world

politics. Although the Turkish model is being used in

all the media sources, no work has been done in such a

critical way, in a way that will try to not just

explain the model but interpret its foundation and

roots.

Part 1-Theoretical Background

1.1. Neo-Gramscianism and Hegemony

In order to fully understand Gramsci’s definition

of hegemony and how the hegemonic powers, within states

or states per se, act in order to keep the order and

status quo that keeps them on top of the hierarchy, we

should try and define the word. According to Wade,

7

hegemony refers to a dominant group’s ability to make others want the

same thing as it wants for itself… It rests upon the belief that the system of

rule created by the dominant group brings material and other benefits to

other groups and that, alternatives are worse, and also on the belief that

the dominant system of rule is both fair and appropriate1

Hegemony, according to Gramsci, or supremacy is

manifested in two ways, as domination and as

intellectual and moral leadership. The Italian

intellectual described the role of hegemony as

something that surpasses the limits of domination and

ultimately convinces its subordinate groups that its

rule serves not only its own interests but also make

the subordinate groups believe that their interests are

served as well. In other words, hegemony, when coercion

fails, is all about soft power and its ability to make

others want the hegemons want, an ability that can

force unconsciously others to give you what you want.2

The basis of hegemony is a social construction; a

product of leadership that through various ways tends

to make subordinate groups believe in it and that there

1 Wade, R. H. (2002), “US Hegemony and the World Bank: The Fight Over People and Ideas”, Review of International Political Economy, 9:2, pp. 201-2292 Ibid

8

is no alternative outside of it. In their effort to

convince and create their reality, the hegemonic state

or dominant social groups within states collaborates

with other forces, and the outcome is the creation of a

historic bloc, that will promote the dominant ideology

through a structure of discourses. This historical bloc

works in a double sense, as the principal elite

domestically and internationally. For example, since

this paper will discuss about Turkey serving the US

interests and its own at the same time, emphasis will

be given on the neo-liberal ideology and its

constitutive role in the creation of global hegemony.3

As Germain and Kenny put it

“Broadly speaking, hegemony is achieved within the

sphere of civil society by consensual means, when a

leading class (or state) sheds its immediate economic-

corporate consciousness and universalizes its norms and

values, thereby establishing a political and ethical

harmony between dominant and subordinate groups. A

dominant class rules, with and over, rather than

against, subaltern classes (or states) […] Discourse as3 Germain, D.R. – Kenny, M. (1998), “Engaging Gramsci: International RelationsTheory and the New Gramscians”, Review of International Studies , 24:1, pp. 3-21

9

a product of a transnational managerial elite, who are

at the forefront of globalization trends worldwide, and

who have marshaled a convincing set of intellectual

arguments to underpin their material position within a

globalizing economy… with the attendant ideologies of

neo-liberalism and market-access economies”.4

Robert Cox argued that the hegemonic order is the

result of a manufactured compatibility of three

factors, ideas, institutions and material capabilities.5

It is through a set of discourses that we can

understand and interpret the world events and in our

case the “Turkish Model”. Both Turkey and US use the

discursive power to produce knowledge and create a

reality that will suit the interests of the Arab world.

According to Foucault, “discourses are selective, draw

lines and constitute knowledge as to socially “correct”

thinking and action. The constitution of discourse

represents a process, which is struggled over, and at

the same time it forms “spaces” and the rules of the

game. Discourses have effect on power, are linked to

4 Ibid5Burnham, P. (1991), “Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order”, Capital and Class, 15:3, pp. 73-92

10

action and become carriers of valid knowledge.

Discourses are hegemonic, when they become the

‘historical-organic’ ideology of ruling actors, who in

this way gain consent in society for their particular

interests”.6

It is within this context that the Turkish Model

was constructed, to promote both US and Turkish

interests, one for keeping a hegemony that dates back

to the end of the World War II and is totally connected

with the efforts of the superpower to make all the

subordinate states follow its ideology, which will be

beneficial for the hegemon and for the states that

become part of it7; an ideology that is based on neo-

liberalism (or capitalism), privatization of every

public asset and democracy, which is defined different

from country to country for even this term is

constructed through discourses. Since democratization

with coercion failed8, US found Turkey and its regime to6 Brand, U. (2005), “Order and Regulation: Global Governance as a Hegemonic Discourse of International Politics?, Review of International Political Economy, 12:1, pp. 155-176 7 Ikenberry, G. J. (2007), “Globalization as American Hegemony”, in Held D. and McGrew, A. (eds), Globalization Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 41-61

8 For a detailed analysis on how the US foreign policy and democratizationthrough force failed see Ansari, A.M. (2006), Confronting Iran: The Failure of American

11

keep the status quo and deprive revisionist states from

rising in the area. Geography, really matters in

International Relations9 as it is a constant that cannot

be socially constructed. Middle East, as we saw before,

ever since it was proven that it is full of energy

resources in previous centuries, became the focal point

of great powers. Therefore, we move on to the next

theoretical approach that will help us interpret the

Turkish model and its construction.

1.2. Critical Geopolitics

Since the Turkish Model is constructed and directed

especially to the Middle East we cannot but mention

geopolitics but through a different perspective, one

that goes along with the general outlook of this paper,

a critical one. Being a part of an interdisciplinary

mosaic within social theory critical geopolitics “has

Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East, New York: Basic Books; For theother side of the coin, where US is trying to keep its hegemony through softpower means see Nye Jr., J.S. (2008), “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power”, TheANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 616, No. 1, pp. 94-1099 Handel, D.G. (1997), “The Immutable Importance of Geography” Parameters, pp. 55-64

12

sought to consider the ways, in which geographical

discourses, practices and perspectives have measured,

described and assessed the world.10 The connection that

this approach has with Neo-Gramscianism hides in the

fact that both argue that world events, presented to

the public as something that is absolute and does not

allow any space to alternative perspectives, are

socially constructed in order to promote certain

interests. Like Gramsci, Foucault11, Edward Said12 and

other post-modernists, critical geopolitical scholars

believe that social phenomena, including geopolitics,

are a product of an interaction of geography,

knowledge, power and political and social institutions

that owe their existence in various discourses.13

Dodds argues that “World politics has to be

understood on a fundamentally interpretative basis,

rather than in terms of a series of divine “truths”14.

10 Dodds, K. (2005), Global Geopolitics: A Critical Introduction, Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited, p. 2811 See Crapmton, W. J. (2007), Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography, Hampshire,UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited12 The book that gave essence to the power of discourses vis-à-vis the Middle East, see Said, E.W. (1979), Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books Edition13 Ibid, p. 2914 Ibid

13

And this is exactly what this paper tries to argue,

that the Turkish Model, which has been constructed for

the Middle East, has to approached through an

interpretative basis, not to explain what it is and

what is has to offer to the Arab World but to explain

the reasons that it has been created in the first

place. The questions that Critical Geopolitics helps

arise are how current situations came to exist or how

power functions in order to sustain particular

contexts.15 It is within this logic that this paper

tries to combine Neo-Gramscianism and Critical

Geopolitics. One of the greatest influences of the

latter approach is Foucault’s theory, which explores

the interaction of knowledge and power through the

discourses, in that, it is them that produce and create

“realities” and through this process power is

sustained. It is the discourses that “can represent the

world in particular ways”, therefore what we need to do

is to go through them and try to interpret them instead

of just accepting them as something undeniable.16 In his

seminal work, Orientalism, Said tried to interpret the15 Ibid, p. 3016 Ibid, p. 30-31

14

West’s efforts to create an image of the Middle East

and Islam as a “threat” to the Western civilization

and, therefore, to prepare the ground for future

attacks and exploitation of the area. Foucault’s theory

of what is knowledge, how it is produced and by whom

aligns with the sustainability of power and this is the

guideline of Said’s effort.17

The same can be inferred about the Cold War, which

according to ‘O Tuathail and Agnew, has been nothing

more than a discourse, a war that has been fought more

in words than in action, with the contradiction of

terms such as “capitalism versus socialism” dominating

and creating grounds for later “live action” in various

parts of the globe.18

The way we describe the world, the words we use,

shape how we see the world and how we decide to act.19

“Discourses are best conceptualized as sets of

socio-cultural resources used by people in the

construction of meaning about their world and their17 Said, E.W. (1979), op. cit.18 ‘O Tuathail, G. – Agnew, J. (1998), “Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasosing and American Foreign Policy”, in ‘O Tuathail, G – Dalby, S. – Routledge, P. (eds.), The Geopolitical Reader, New York: Routledge, p. 7819 Ibid

15

activities. It is not simply speech or written

statements but the rules, by which verbal speech and

written statements are made meaningful. They are a set

of capabilities, an ensemble of rules, by which

readers/listeners and speakers/audiences are able to

take what they hear and read and construct it into an

organized, meaningful whole. They have a virtual and

not actual existence. They are never static, but are

constantly mutating and being modified by human

practice.”20

The “Turkish Model” that the US and Turkey

constructed for their own interests through discourses

is just a virtual structure and, therefore, needs to be

deconstructed. This will become obvious by the linkage

of three kinds of discourses (formal, practical and

popular)21, a combination that according to ‘O Tuathail

will make us acknowledge up to a great extend how this

model was created to promote both American and Turkish

interests rather than truly help the Arab people get

over their bloody past and live in a more free and

fully democratic place.20 Ibid, p. 8021 See Introduction

16

Part 2 The “Turkish Model” through Discourses

2.1. Practical Discourse – How Washington sees

Turkey

As it was mentioned above, for promoting the US

interests in the broader area of the Middle East,

Turkey was and still remains a key strategic country in

that while the ruling AK party is trying to “export”

Turkey’s example as a role model for the Arab people,

at the same moment US is benefiting as well,

sustaining, thus, both the hegemony of the superpower

and Turkey’s own ascendance in the area as a regional

power. Being an “open” state with its focus on

neoliberalism and market economy, Turkey has adopted

the economic policy that put the US on top of the world

in the post-war era.22 Since this paper tries to argue

that the “Turkish Model” is constructed through

discourses, we will use one of the three discourses

that Critical Geopolitics use in order to show that

everything is subjective and created for certain

22 Ikenberry, G. J. (2007), op.cit.17

purposes. Practical discourse is based on speeches or

written texts held by government officials or

bureaucrats23, therefore, we will use some key points of

speeches made by two US presidents, George W. Bush and

Obama, in order to show that although the ideology that

separates them is huge, their discourse vis-à-vis the

US interests in the Middle East, is commonly directed

to keeping Turkey as a close ally and praise its

efforts to exert its “unique example” in the Middle

East. Furthermore, by using the speeches of these two

US presidents we will prove that the Arab Uprisings

came to justify once again how Ankara is being used

from Washington, as a bridge of connection between West

and East, especially after the failure of the US

foreign policy that followed the Iraq war.

Starting G.W. Bush, we chose to use the speech that

he delivered in the NATO summit that took place in

Galatasaray University, Istanbul of Turkey, as this is

quite a symbolic move to show how US and its allies see

Turkey’s role in the Middle East. The previous American

President started his address by saying that “America

23 ‘O Tuathail, G. – Agnew, J. (1998), op. cit.18

is honored to call Turkey an ally and a friend… Many

Americans trace their heritage to Turkey, and Turks

have contributed greatly to our national life…” to link

the US and Turkey as states with great historical

bonds. He could not neglect to mention, of course, the

geographical importance of Turkey and the strategic

point that she has on the map. The discourse becomes

gains more significance when he starts making insights

of what Turkey is and what others in Middle East ought

to be in the future: “…And in Istanbul we have dedicated

ourselves to the advance of reform in the broader M. East,

because all people deserve a just government… Turkey is a

strong, secular democracy, a Muslim-majority society,

and a close ally of free nations24” The American

President believes that the wave of change that he

tried to impose by force in the Middle East, it will be

done through Turkey, as he believes the latter is an

ally of free nations, meaning that the nations of the

Arab world are enslaved or that they do not know how to

govern themselves in a proper way. Therefore, he asks

24 From now on all the Italicized words or sentences constitute an emphasis made by the author of this paper

19

for a “just” government, but how do we define a just

government is still an unanswered question.

And this is how he starts referring to the “Turkish

Model” and its applicability to the Middle East: “Your

country [Turkey] with 150 years of democratic and

social reforms, stands as a model to others”. He continues,

“America believes that as a European power, Turkey

belongs in the EU. Your membership would be a crucial

advance in the relations between the Muslim world and

the West… Free governments have a reputation for

independence, which Turkey has certainly earned. And

that is the way that democracy works.” Not only does he

believe that Turkey is a bridge that will bring the

West closer to East and therefore manipulate it easier

but also he is using repeatedly the fact that Turkey

although belongs to Europe, is still a part of Middle

East and has a free government, an example that all the

states in the area should follow because as he says

this is how democracy works. Again he states “… By

learning these lessons, Turkey has become a great and

stable democracy and America shares your hope that other

nations will take this path…” The hegemonic order punishes,

20

therefore, the students that do not conform with its

policies and praises the ones that learned their lesson

and who also show the “good” example to the

undisciplined members of the “class”.

He finishes his address, by using a part of a

novel, written by Orhan Pamuk25: “The finest view of

Istanbul is not from the shores of Europe, or from the

shores of Asia, but from a bridge that unites them and lets you

see both… His work [Orhan Pamuk] has been a bridge

between cultures and so is the Republic of Turkey… What is

important is not a clash of parties, civilizations,

cultures, East and West, what is important is to

realize that other people in other continents and

civilizations are exactly like you… For the people of Middle

East… we will do all in our power to help them find the blessings of

liberty”.

What we can extract from the closure of this

speech, is that US sees Turkey as a bridge, especially

now after Bush failed to impose US’s hegemonic order in

the Middle East by using brutal force. He believes that

people around the globe are and can be exactly like the

25 Turkish novelist, screenwriter and academician21

“free”, “cultured”, “democratic” West. Finally, he

assures the audience that US will do everything that it

can in order to put the Arab world in the right track,

the hegemonic one. And, of course, Turkey will be there

to assist for its own purposes as well.26

So, as we see, Turkey is being presented as an

example to follow long before the “Arab Spring”, it’s

just that now US is in more need for that for the

reasons that we mentioned above.

What about the Democrat, current US President,

Barack Obama?

The 44th President of the United States came in

power in an era that the American international image

suffered and was ready to collapse after the failed

foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. As

we have already seen, Washington’s grand strategy

changed by using this time soft power means in order to

keep the hegemonic order around the globe.27 And since

the focal point of US foreign policy is located in the

Middle East area, Turkey became, once again, part of

26 “George Bush addresses the NATO summit in Turkey “, 29/6/2004, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/29/eu.nato1, , last access: 31/5/201227 See Nye Jr., J.S. (2008), op. cit.

22

the discourse that tries to make Arab people believe

that Turkey’s example is exceptional and needs to be

followed.

The first Muslim country that the new President

chose to visit right after he came to power was Turkey

and this has its symbolism as it is the latter, who

will try to make the Middle East follow the path that

US has fixed. The speech that he delivered from the

Turkish Parliament verifies the above statement.

He, too, emphasized on the importance of Turkey’s

geography, heritage and culture: “Turkey is a critical

ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey

and the United States must stand together – and work together – to

overcome the challenges of our time… The ties among our people

have deepened as well, and more and more Americans of

Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our

borders… America and Turkey are working with the G-20

on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented

economic crisis. This past week, we came together to

ensure that the world’s largest economies take strong

and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore

the flow of credit; to reject the pressure of

23

protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing

countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn;

and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so

that the world never faces a crisis like this again”.

He tries to create an image of Turkey as a country that

followed neo-liberal economic policies and, thus, it is

a model to aspire and with such country, America would

be willing to cooperate and gain benefits. This is well

understood when he says “As we go forward, the United

States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to

serve prosperity for our people, particularly when it

comes to energy. To expand markets and create jobs, we can

increase trade and investment between our countries.”

Also about Turkey’s role in Central Asia he states

“It speaks to Turkey’s leadership that you are poised to

be the only country in the region to have normal and

peaceful relations with all the South Caucusus nations.

And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in

helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which

has continued for far too long” in an effort to make

clear that Turkey can be a reliable mediator the

region’s long disputes and therefore attract the Middle

24

East as well. Turkey’s constructive role as a country

that not only follows the policies of the US but also

tries to keep the hegemonic order by maintaining the

status quo and deprive possible revisionist states from

attempting to change this order (see Iran); “Turkey has

been a true partner. Your troops were among the first

in the International Security Assistance Force”

emphasizing the crucial help that US get from times to

times when there is a need. Finally, Obama uses an old

Turkish proverb “You cannot put out fire with flames”

only to mean that Turkey’s role in a rapidly changing

environment, such as the Middle East, has to be one of

keeping the order, through soft power means and

balancing other revisionist powers.28

Once again, we see how Turkey’s example is unique

in the US government discourse in that it is the only

state in the Middle East that combines everything that

the hegemon needs for its survival.

2.2. Formal Discourse

28 “Remarks by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament”, 6/4/2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Obama-To-The-Turkish-Parliament , last access : 31/5/2012

25

Moving on to the next discourse, we will deal with

the formal discourse, which is based mainly on the

texts, written by the intellectuals, such as the

academic world. Since the space of this paper does not

let us elaborate more and use many sources, we will

focus on the Turkish side this time and see how

Turkey’s current Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu,

long before he gets involved in high politics,

envisioned his country’s position in the Middle East

and the whole world when he was a Professor of

International Relations. He is considered as the

architect of Turkey’s foreign policy under the ruling

AK party, so in order to see how the discourses of

“Turkish Model” connect between US and Turkey, the

Davutoglu “Doctrine” is the right way to approach the

subject.

On one hand we have the fact that AKP is an

Islamist party and that religion plays a great role in

the minds of the elite members of the governing party.

On the other hand we have an individual, Ahmet

Davutoglu, who is considered as the main architect of

26

the Turkish foreign policy, whose advices PM Erdogan

followed in many major foreign issues. In the beginning

of the AKP rule, in 2002, as an advisor and after May

2009, as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, Davutoglu

totally changed the Turkish foreign policy from

isolationist-traditional to a more activist and multi-

dimensional.29

The so-called “Davutoglu Doctrine”, thus, is the

set of policies that Turkey should follow towards the

international arena, according to the head of Turkish

foreign affairs and what is “new” in the foreign policy

is the position that the Islamic civilization will play

in the global affairs.30 He argues that “The Muslim

world, which became the intersectional arena of the two

phenomena, civilizational revival and strategic

competition, becomes the focal point in International

Relation… The region from the Northern Caucasus in the

North to Kuwait in the South and the region of Central

Asia… is part of the Islamic Civilization… and this29 Aras, B. and Gorener, A. (2010), “National role conceptions and foreign policy orientation: the ideational bases of the Justice and Development Party's foreign policy activism in the Middle East”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 12, No.1, pp. 73-9230 Murinson, A. (2006), “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 945-964

27

fact provides commonality to this imagined community”.31

What Davutoglu implies is that there should be a

revival of the Muslim unity, with ummah (the whole

Muslim world) possessing a central role in the global

affairs. In Davutoglu’s rhetoric, which is AKP’s as

well, this Islamic community/civilization could and

should play a more universalist role.32 Turkey, due to

its unique geographical position and its Ottoman

legacy, a history that goes back in centuries, with

Islam as a common characteristic with the Middle

Eastern world, is the epicenter of many geopolitical

influences.33

He even goes further by saying that “We are a

society with historical depth, and everything produced

in historical depth, even if it is eclipsed at a

certain conjucture in time, may manifest itself again

later”.34

The Justice and Development party, therefore, is

using a neo-ottoman discourse in an attempt to re-31 Davutoglu, A. (1997), “The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of the World (Dis)Order”, Perceptions Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 132 Murinson, A., op. cit.33 See “The ‘Strategic Depth’ that Turkey Needs: An Interview with Ahmet Davutoglu”, The Turkish Daily News, 15 September 200134 Ibid

28

approach the once lost lands of Middle East. Its

willingness is to reconcile with the Muslim world and

co-exist as they once did. Events such as the 2003

Turkish denial to US troops to use Turkish soil in

order to launch their attacks against Iraq, or the

verbal confrontation that PM Erdogan had with the

Israeli President at the World Economic Forum in Davos,

2009 and later the total interruption of Turkish-

Israeli relations with the Gaza Flotilla Raid operation

in 2010, where many Turkish citizens died under Israeli

fire, brought Turkey closer to the Middle Eastern

societies, assuring them that Turkey is, indeed, one of

them.35

Davutoglu, therefore, envisions a Turkey that will

once again bind the people of the Middle East together

under the cultural “umbrella” of the country that

shares with them a set of commonalities, such as

history, land, religion, values etc. In other words,

the discourse that the former academician used to

describe his country’s role in the world is in full

compliance with the US interests in the broader area of

35 Murinson, A., op. cit.29

the Middle East and it’s quite visible from what he

recently said while talking about the Arab “Spring”:

“We will manage the wave of change in the Middle East.

Just as the ideal we have in our minds about Turkey, we

have an ideal of a new Middle East. We will be the

leader and the spokesperson of a new peaceful order, no

matter what they say”. We see, thus, how the US and

Turkish hegemonic discourse supplement each other.36

2.3. Popular Discourse

Since we saw how the US and Turkey’s practical and

formal discourse respectively actually do not exclude

each other but rather they work together, we shall now

see how the mass media works in the same direction in

order to construct the “Turkish Model” structure and

make it seem as the only viable solution for the Arab

world’s problem of self-governance. Popular discourse

includes, as mentioned above, videos, talk shows,

newspapers, and anything that has to do with the media.

36 “Do Arabs Want Turkey to Lead the Arab Awakening?” 1/5/2012, Hurriyet Daily News,http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/do-arabs-want-turkey-to-lead-the-arab-awakening-.aspx?pageID=449&nID=19618&NewsCatID=412, last access: 31/5/2012

30

We will only use some newspapers, due to the spatial

limitations of the paper, from Turkey and the West,

especially American ones, in order to support our main

hypothesis.

Actually pressing in a searching engine in Internet

the keywords Turkey, Model and Middle East, one can

come up with tens of articles and papers reproducing

the same discourse, that Turkey is indeed a model for

the Middle East and there are no other alternatives.

For the purposes of our paper we gathered a few of

them.

Helene Cooper from the New York Times argues that

since the falling of Mubarak, Egypt is in a constant

struggle in order to create a viable and democratic

regime that would satisfy the Egyptian population.

Turkey, according to the journalist, is there to give

lessons towards this direction. The effective

integration of Islam, democracy and economic

development through neo-liberal policies is the “trick”

that for decades Middle East has been trying to solve

but no one except Turkey accomplished it. Therefore,

she sees Turkey as a role model for Egypt and she

31

quotes Hugh Pope, Director for the Turkish Office of

the International Crisis Group “Turkey is the envy of

the Arab World”37.

There are also those who believe that the Turkish

model should go even further and reach the Central Asia

and all the Turkic countries that once were part of the

Soviet Union. In a daily Turkish newspaper, Today’s

Zaman, the journalist Lamiya Adilgizi, argues that

“Turkey must progress in its role as a mentor for other

Turkish speaking countries using the shared history and

culture as a base for stronger relations in the

future”38. Most of this discourse repeatedly use the

same rhetoric in order to justify the need for a

Turkish model, which is the compatibility of Islam,

democracy, secularism and economic development as the

panacea for the Middle East and since the “Muslim world

37 “In Turkey’s Example, Some See Map for Egypt” 5/2/2011, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/world/middleeast/06turkey.html, last access: 31/5/201238 “Turkey a role model for Turkic countries on anniversary of Independence” 11/5/2012, Today’s Zaman, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=280094 , last access: 31/5/2012

32

needs democratic role models”, Turkey is there for

them.39

In the Economist, although Turkey has to correct

its domestic politics, the country is presented again

as a role model. In fact its purpose is clear when it

writes “From North Africa to the Gulf, the region seems

to be going through a Turkish moment… Turkey is now

being studied by Arabs as a unique phenomenon of a

compatibility of Islam, democracy and economic

achievements.” And in an effort to make a contrast with

other “revisionist” states in the Middle East, it

continues by saying that “Turkey under the AKP presents

a more benign picture than any many other versions of Islamist

rule”. It concludes “An evolution in the Middle East

following the Turkish example (relative political and

economic freedom) would be a happier outcome than many

others.40

Similarly, the main discourse continues with

another article which says “As unrest spreads across

the Middle East, many have pointed to Turkey’s39 “Turkey’s Leadership”, 20/9/2011, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/turkeys-leadership.html, last access: 31/5/201240 “The Turkish Model: A Hard Act to Follow”, 6/8/2011, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/21525408, last access: 31/5/2012

33

successful melding of a largely Muslim population with

an officially secular and working democracy as a role

model for what might come next”41

Finally, Today’s Zaman hosted an interview by

Professor Fawaz A. Gerges, who has “singled out Turkey

with its functioning democracy and growing economic

power as the only, regional example for Arab Spring

countries” and at the same time he argues that

constitutes a “failed model”.42

What we can gather from the combination of all the

above discourses, is that both in practice and theory,

from texts and speeches by US Presidents, the Doctrine

of Ahmet Davutoglu and the press, the “Turkish Model”

has been constructed and reproduced using the same

reasons and rhetoric as mentioned before. It has been

created to serve both the US and Turkish interests in

the Middle East, to keep the hegemonic order of the

postwar period and put Turkey on top of the region,

thus, benefiting two states simultaneously. But what41 “A Model of Middle East Democracy, Turkey Calls for Change in Egypt”, 2/2/2011, Time, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045723,00.html, last access: 31/5/201242 “Turkey sole example for region, Iran a failed model[Interview], 19/3/2012, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-274788-turkey-sole-example-for-region-iran-a-failed-model-says-expert.html, last access:31/5/2012

34

about the other side of the story? We have seen the

discourse that favors a Turkish Model in the Middle

East but there is also a discourse that is against that

and day after day it becomes even more powerful putting

thus both the US and Turkish foreign policy in danger.

Part 3

The other side of the story: The “anti-Turkish

model” discourse

Answering to those who believe that Turkey could

really be the only solution and a role model for the

post-revolutionary Middle East, Karabekir Akkoyunlu of

the Hurriyet Daily News says that this excessive

confidence that characterizes this false narrative

could lead Turkey to hazardous adventures and to

humility. What the journalist actually argues is that

this whole “model” narrative is just the peak of an

iceberg, that underneath the surface, Turkey suffers

from a number of problems: “a vulnerable economy coping

with a record current account deficit, a society

35

bitterly divided along ethnic and religious fault

lines, a chauvinistic state tradition that continues to

cover up its historical and more recent crimes, and an

overbearing government intent on adopting the

authoritarian legacy of its Kemalist predecessors”.43

In line with the purposes of this paper, Professor

Meliha Altunisik argues that the “Turkish Model”

discourse “has been used in a rather utilitarian way by

all the relevant parties”. Since the 2000, both the

Islamists and seculars “made references to the aspects

of the Turkish model they liked”. What the Professor

implies is that the whole model narrative not only is a

social structure but it is being used by many sides for

their own purposes.44

Dietrich Jung is trying to make a rather critical

analysis of the whole Turkish experience that many call

the Turkish Model, only to conclude that there is a

great doubt whether this model can be implemented in

states that have so many differences from Turkey’s past43 “The ‘Turkish model’ isn’t good for Turkey”, 8/2/2012, Hurriyet Daily News, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-turkish-model-isnt-good-for-turkey-.aspx?pageID=449&nID=13239&NewsCatID=396, last access: 31/5/201244 “What is Missing in the ‘Turkish Model’ Debate?”, 23/6/2011, Hurriyet Daily News,http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=what-is-missing-in-the-8216turkish-model8217-debate-2011-06-23, last access: 31/5/2012

36

and background. In order for Turkey to reach this level

of secularism and combine quite successfully Islam and

democracy, it took her many decades and still it’s an

ongoing process that did not reach its end. Therefore,

taking the Turkish example, according to Jung, and

applying it to the Arab world would be wrong.45

Mamedov and Makarov argue that in order to talk

about a Turkish Model, we should take a closer look in

the current domestic situation of Turkey only to

realize that the country should not be considered as a

model. Particularly, they say that “Looking at Turkey

today, one can derive the conclusion that a successful

democratic transition requires not merely the change of

elites at the helm of the state, but also a

dismantlement of the authoritarian structures,

establishment of democratic checks and balances, free

media, effective political competition and building up

of tolerance of individual cultural and lifestyle

choices of even those who do not conform to the

preferences of the majority. And herein lies the snag

45 Jung, D. (2011), “After the Spring: Is Turkey a Model for Arab States?” Center for Mellemoststudier, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/7/B/6/%7B7B6A2F99-2B13-478F-8B87-AB7D754D1DC0%7D1111DJ.pdf, last access: 31/5/2012

37

with the ‘Turkish Model’”. They talk about a democratic

deficit in Turkey, which is not known in the West, or

at least the latter seems not to care about as long as

Turkey promotes those certain interests as mentioned

above.

They mention that there has been an increase in the

“criminal proceedings and arrests involving journalists

in Turkey… There are currently 67 press workers in

prison. This is the direct result of the failure of the

Turkish authorities to amend or overhaul the laws that

limit freedom of expression…An additional problem stems

from the fact that the law gives ample powers to

prosecutors to initiate cases.” So the authors conclude

that although Turkey is indeed in the process of a

democratic transformation, however what is happening

vis-à-vis the freedom of expression, indicates that

Turkey is far from becoming a fully democratic society,

therefore, it cannot be considered as a model to

follow.46

According to Schaake, the narrative that favors a

Turkish Model is null and void in that the “Arab46 Mamedov, E. – Makarov, V. (2011), “Turkish Model for the Arab World”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 10:2, pp. 43-47

38

Spring” uncovered the weaknesses of Turkish foreign

policy. The “zero-problems” policy that the Davutoglu

Doctrine envisioned for the future Turkish foregn

policy has collapsed since it was more interest driven

than ideologically oriented. The Arab Uprisings

revealed the weakness of AKP to deal effectively with

the new challenges in the Middle East. The relations

with Syria, Iraq, Iran and Israel have deteriorated

delivering a huge blow to Turkey’s credibility and

image in the broader area. Erdogan’s warm relations

with Hamas, Hezbollah and the wanted war criminal,

President of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir further supports the

negative image of Turkey in the post-revolutionary

Middle East. Also, the “polarized debate on fundamental

freedoms that is waging in Turkey has been intensified

after the recent arrests of journalists… If Turkey

chooses the fundamental rights of people as the

cornerstone of domestic reforms and foreign policies,

it will have a real chance to become the regional power

it aspires to be…”47

47 Schaake, M. (2011), “Zero Problems? Time for a New Policy Narrative”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 10:1, pp. 47-52

39

What we get from the above is that the Turkish

model discourse gets a big blow when it comes to the

domestic political situation of Turkey and the

democratization process, which is always like two steps

forward and one step back. Paradoxically, the United

States do not seem to bother about this reality, since

Turkey continues to promote the American interests in

the area. A final “anti-Turkish model” discourse and

extremely interesting at the same time comes from

Mohamed S. Younis who argues that the whole effort to

present to the Arab world a Turkish Model is “counter-

productive”. The author approaches the matter from the

perspective of the willingness of the Egyptian

population to “embrace Ankara as a guide…If Turkey

wishes to export its model regionally, it must do so

through the gates of Cairo”. According to a Gallup’s

polling in December 2011, which had as central question

“which country should serve as a political model for

Egypt’s future government?” only 11% cited Turkey as a

role model while 22% cited Saudi Arabia. What is

striking is that more than half of the Egyptians who

voted said “None” or refused to answer the question

40

indicating that the population after a huge struggle to

get rid of a dictator and the dominant power of the

armed forces, want to “craft their own domestic

Egyptian model”, without needing any state interfering

in their politics. The author, finally, says that

during a prestigious working group forum that took

place in Istanbul and he himself was also participating

many businessmen, diplomats, researchers and experts

from many countries of the Middle East were invited.

During the conference a “highly respected Turkish

business person declared that Turkey is the natural

“big brother” of Egypt and, thus, any suggestion that

the Turkish Model was not relevant is in fact absurd.

The reaction to these statements were so vociferous

that the discussion quickly descended into a recalling

of, what some of the Egyptians at the table described

as, the Orwellian Ottoman posture resurfacing in a now

politically vulnerable Arab world”.48

Conclusion

48 Younis, M. S. (2012), “Turkish Delight? The Feasibility of the “Turkish Model” for Egypt”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 10:4, pp. 107-115

41

The purpose of this paper was to deconstruct a

discourse that has been created in order to promote

certain sides’ interests. Particularly, we argued that

both the United States and Turkey for their own

materialistic reasons, created a “Turkish Model” in

order to a) maintain the US hegemony in the world, a

status quo that has been around since the end of World

War II and b) for Turkey to earn a high position in the

hierarchical order of the Middle East, or in other

words, to become a regional power.

In an era, when anti-Americanism is rising due to

the failure of the US foreign policy in the Middle East

under the Bush administration, the grand strategy of

the superpower needed to unfold and use other means in

order not only to keep its hegemony in the globe but

also to make others want it as well through a set of

policies. It is within this broad context that the

Turkish Model discourse was created and reproduced by

politicians, academicians and the mass media. In our

effort to defend our main argument we used the

combination of two theoretical approaches, the Neo-

Gramscianism and Critical Geopolitics. While the first

42

was utilized in order to fix a framework of this paper

due to its focus on hegemony and the efforts of

dominant groups or states to make others want what they

want without using force, in other words, with soft

power means to achieve what was not achieved through

military power and in doing so discourses and social

constructions of “objective” realities play a crucial

role. Critical Geopolitics helped us understand how the

combination of various kinds of resources interact with

geography and through certain interpretations of events

people are “guided” towards specific directions without

leaving any space for alternative thought and judgment.

In a post-revolutionary Middle East, the Arab world

managed something that under the current international

circumstances is unachievable, to make a bottom-up

change in their domestic politics without the

interference (Tunisia-Egypt) of external powers. Middle

East is an area that suffers not only by sectarianism

and dictatorship but also from exploitation by the

great powers in the globe. They had the blessing to

step in soil, underneath which there was “black gold”

but at the same time the curse to be exploited exactly

43

because of that. The Arab Uprisings are still an

ongoing process in many of the MENA societies and

future will show how they will evolve. What prompted me

to write this paper was the fact that the Arab peoples

left a form of dictatorship and marginalization not to

find another one. They should be left free to judge how

they will govern themselves and the last thing they

need is an external model. What lies beneath the

discourse that we covered in this paper, is the effort

of both US and Turkey to impose to the Middle East what

Bush failed to do back in 2003, to democratize the

region based on the Western standards in a logic of “a

white man’s burden”, meaning that the West knows what

is the best for the Middle East, the same scenario that

we keep experiencing for centuries.

Turkey should understand that this policy although

it had short term benefits for her (see investments

from Middle Eastern countries) in the long run the

whole thing will turn back to her as a boomerang

because it will make the Arab people bring back

memories of an imperial past both of English and French

command and also the Ottoman past and this is something

44

that they prove that they cannot allow. The “Arab

Spring” should be a warning to Ankara that the people

of this tortured land, finally rose up and said a big

no to the despotism either that comes from internal

forces or external ones. They do not need anyone to

tell them how to govern themselves, they do not need

any model, they are capable enough to create their own

models and they will not depend on any other country.

Turkey should turn into her domestic environment and

try to solve problems that remain unresolved such as

the freedom of expression, the social polarization

between the Islamists and the seculars in that these

are the challenges that Ankara has to deal with and not

how to export its “model” in other regions. Therefore,

there is no such thing as a Turkish Model in that a

country’s foreign policy is always the reflection of

its domestic situation so Turkey has to redefine its

top priorities before it’s too late.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

45

Burnham, P. (1991), “Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order”, Capital and Class, 15:3, pp. 73-92

Wade, R. H. (2002), “US Hegemony and the World Bank: The Fight Over People and Ideas”, Review of International Political Economy, 9:2, pp. 201-229

Germain, D.R. – Kenny, M. (1998), “Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians”, Review of International Studies , 24:1, pp. 3-21

Brand, U. (2005), “Order and Regulation: Global Governance as a Hegemonic Discourse of International Politics?, Review of International Political Economy, 12:1, pp. 155-176

Ikenberry, G. J. (2007), “Globalization as American Hegemony”, in Held D. and McGrew, A. (eds), Globalization Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.41-61Ansari, A.M. (2006), Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East, New York: Basic Books

Nye Jr., J.S. (2008), “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 616, No. 1, pp. 94-109

Handel, D.G. (1997), “The Immutable Importance of Geography” Parameters,pp. 55-64

Dodds, K. (2005), Global Geopolitics: A Critical Introduction, Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited

Crapmton, W. J. (2007), Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography, Hampshire,UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited

Said, E.W. (1979), Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books Edition

O Tuathail, G. – Agnew, J. (1998), “Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasosing and American Foreign Policy”, in ‘O

46

Tuathail, G – Dalby, S. – Routledge, P. (eds.), The Geopolitical Reader, NewYork: Routledge

Aras, B. and Gorener, A. (2010), “National role conceptions and foreignpolicy orientation: the ideational bases of the Justice and DevelopmentParty's foreign policy activism in the Middle East”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 12, No.1, pp. 73-92

Murinson, A. (2006), “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 945-964

Davutoglu, A. (1997), “The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of the World (Dis)Order”, Perceptions Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1

Mamedov, E. – Makarov, V. (2011), “Turkish Model for the Arab World”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 10:2, pp. 43-47

Schaake, M. (2011), “Zero Problems? Time for a New Policy Narrative”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 10:1, pp. 47-52

Younis, M. S. (2012), “Turkish Delight? The Feasibility of the “Turkish

Model” for Egypt”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 10:4, pp. 107-115

ELECTRONIC SOURCES

-“George Bush addresses the NATO summit in Turkey “, 29/6/2004, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/29/eu.nato1, , last access: 31/5/2012

-“Remarks by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament”, 6/4/2009,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Obama-

To-The-Turkish-Parliament, last access : 31/5/2012

-“Do Arabs Want Turkey to Lead the Arab Awakening?” 1/5/2012, Hurriyet

Daily News, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/do-arabs-want-turkey-to-lead-47

the-arab-awakening-.aspx?pageID=449&nID=19618&NewsCatID=412, last

access: 31/5/2012

-“In Turkey’s Example, Some See Map for Egypt” 5/2/2011, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/world/middleeast/06turkey.html, last access: 31/5/2012 “Turkey a role model for Turkic countries on anniversary of Independence” 11/5/2012, Today’s Zaman, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=280094 , last access: 31/5/2012

-“Turkey a role model for Turkic countries on anniversary of

Independence” 11/5/2012, Today’s Zaman,

http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=280094 , last

access: 31/5/2012

-“Turkey’s Leadership”, 20/9/2011, The New York Times,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/turkeys-leadership.html, last access:

31/5/2012

-“The Turkish Model: A Hard Act to Follow”, 6/8/2011, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/21525408, last access: 31/5/2012

-“A Model of Middle East Democracy, Turkey Calls for Change in Egypt”,

2/2/2011, Time, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045723,00.html, last

access: 31/5/2012

-“Turkey sole example for region, Iran a failed model[Interview], 19/3/2012, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-274788-turkey-sole-example-for-region-iran-a-failed-model-says-expert.html, last access:31/5/2012

48

-“The ‘Turkish model’ isn’t good for Turkey”, 8/2/2012, Hurriyet Daily News,

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-turkish-model-isnt-good-for-turkey-.aspx?

pageID=449&nID=13239&NewsCatID=396, last access: 31/5/2012

-“What is Missing in the ‘Turkish Model’ Debate?”, 23/6/2011, Hurriyet Daily News, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=what-is-missing-in-the-8216turkish-model8217-debate-2011-06-23, last access: 31/5/2012

-Jung, D. (2011), “After the Spring: Is Turkey a Model for Arab States?” Center for Mellemoststudier, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/7/B/6/%7B7B6A2F99-2B13-478F-8B87-AB7D754D1DC0%7D1111DJ.pdf, last access: 31/5/2012

49