Putin and Erdoğan: Seeing Double

High school student Janani Rangarajan shares her reactions and analysis of week four’s lesson on Turkey. 

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin shaking hands in Moscow

The political trajectories of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey and Vladimir Putin of Russia have several parallels. Both leaders have used their power to boost certain industries, further centralize their governments, shift to different political positions to keep their level of influence and play up nationalism to maintain support for their increasingly authoritarian actions.

There is one slight difference: Putin had been a close adviser of Russia’s first President, Boris Yeltsin, and was even the acting President for some time while Yeltsin was indisposed. He ran for and won the Presidential office in 2000 and 2004. In contrast, Erdoğan helped establish the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2001 to rival the existing Turkish majority party, and it won easily in 2002.

The differences end there.

During Putin’s time in office, he was able to boost major industries, such as natural gas, by increasing foreign direct investment and governmental control over it. The economic growth that followed boosted Putin’s existing popularity and he was able to tighten his control on governmental decisions, sharply increasing centralization during his two terms. In eight years, Putin created “super districts”, removed elected governors, appointed new governors, and changed the structure of the Duma to a pure proportional representation, all without the consent of the nation. Similarly, Erdoğan’s encouragement of foreign direct investment pulled Turkey out of economic stagnation and on track to a growing economy, earning him more support. Erdoğan sharply increased the role of government in various industries with his power.

In 2008, Putin stepped down as President, as only two consecutive terms are legal, but was appointed Prime Minister. In 2012, he ran again for President and won with the potential to stay in office until 2016. Erdoğan has been Prime Minister since 2003, totaling eleven years in office, and he successfully ran for President this year as he too reached term limits. He will attempt to alter the Turkish Constitution by shaping Turkey into an “executive presidency”, conveniently in time for him to take the office next year.

When Putin was Prime Minister in 2008, one of his close allies, Dimitri Medvedev, became President. Medvedev appeared to have very little control of the government during this time and certainly not as much as Putin had in the same role. Putin retained much of his power as Prime Minister, leading to the belief that the power of the state seems to follow Putin. In 2001, when the Turkish AKP won the majority, it was actually Abdullah Gul who became Prime Minister because Erdoğan had been banned from politics for a period of time due to his past actions. However, once Erdoğan’s banishment elapsed, Gul willingly handed the position to him and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs instead.

Both Putin and Erdoğan use old national identities to rally supporters. Putin has embraced a blend of the roles of Tsar and Premier; many Russians believe in democracy, yet they feel that Russia will not be able to obtain it because of its political history. Therefore, Putin seems to be the most viable option for most Russians because he is not too extreme in either role. Erdoğan has shown extreme pride in the ways of the Ottomans, and he has managed to associate himself with the success of the Ottoman Empire.

Putin has held tight reigns on the Russian media, stopping just short of taking outright control of the sector. The Kremlin shut down NTV, the only independent TV network, and turned the newspaper Pravda into a tabloid. Erdoğan made sure that media outlets do not publish works that criticize the government, and he actually appointed one of his friends to lead a media organization to keep a watch on the material. Erdoğan has also denigrated Twitter, calling it a weapon of his enemies, and temporarily banned it for a period of time.

Both political figures have dealt with peaceful protest in similar fashion. When Putin was reelected in 2011, protests around the country erupted against what they saw as a sign of authoritarian rule. Putin ignored the protests and dispersed multiple subsequent protests, especially those in support of gay rights (Putin declared homosexuality illegal). Erdoğan has also had a zero tolerance policy for protests in recent years. In 2013, a sit-in to save Gezi Park from demolition escalated into violence once Erdoğan sent in the police who used tear-gas and rubber bullets to disperse the citizens. Erdoğan has also put limits on alcohol consumption, declaring it a threat to society, which is also how Putin justified helping institute laws forbidding public displays of homosexuality.

Since both Putin and Erdoğan have become increasingly influential over their governments, the paths of both countries seem to be advancing in the same direction. Recent election results seem to show that Russians and Turks appear not to care about the authoritarian tendencies of their heads of state as long as their economies remain prosperous. While both countries label themselves as democracies, their respective governments have demonstrated the willingness to bypass democratic processes when it suits them.

By Janani Rangarajan, Summer Institute participant, Archbishop Mitty High School

 

Meeting 4: The Trial of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

The defendant

Spoiler alert: If you do not yet know the results of Turkey’s presidential election, either read this article to catch up or stop reading this post! 

“and the prosecution now calls the Turkish army to the stand!”

During our fourth Summer Institute meeting, students stepped into the roles of lawyers and witnesses to bring Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan*, to trial. The crime in question? Is he leading Turkey in the right direction. Formerly serving as Prime Minister, Erdoğan has been in power now for 11 years; however his longevity and power have been tainted with corruption charges, criminalizing descent, violently suppressing protests and imprisoning journalists.

So why would the Turkish citizenry continue electing and supporting a supposedly corrupt anti-Twitter and Islamist politician? Because Erdoğan is also an extremely savvy statesman who has improved the economy, kept his country secure in a volatile region, negotiated with Kurd separatists and raised the standard of living for a great majority of the population.

Our esteemed economists

To answer this difficult question,  we analyzed then Prime Minister Erdoğan’s rule by looking at some of the most affected populations within Turkey. Specifically, we questioned economists, Islamists, members of the press,  judges, the Turkish Army and members of the Kurdish minority in the south.

Again, we come back to the original question: is Erdoğan leading Turkey in the right direction? We now have five more years to figure it out.

Educators, if you would like to bring President Erdoğan to trial in your classroom, feel free to use our mock trial activity,  supplementary reading packet and video from the World Affairs Council event with Mustafa Akyol. These materials were prepared before Mr. Erdoğan’s electoral victory, but most of the resources are still relevant.  

By Netta Ascoli, Education Program Officer, World Affairs Council

*One of the first things we did in class was go over the proper pronunciation of Mr. Erdoğan’s name. Here is a link to a helpful audio file. 

 

Meeting 5: Turkish Democracy

“Democracy is not just about elections.” – Abdullah Gül, President of Turkey

The fifth Summer Institute meeting focused on the wave of recent protests in Turkey. What started as a peaceful demonstration against developing a small patch of green into a mall in Istanbul turned into a nation-wide protest against what many Turks see as authoritarian rule by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip  Erdoğan. To get at the root of the issue, we asked students to think about what actually constitutes a democracy.

What is a democracy?

In his talk, Mustafa Akyul, a Turkish political commentator,  said that Mr. Edoğan only believes in a majoritarian democracy. Because the majority elected him, he refuses to listen to any opposition.  But the students disagreed that this makes a true democracy. A student reflected “Mr. Erdoğan has neglected his principal duty: to represent the people. Not just the people who like him and can keep him in office; he must represent all of the people.” A democracy, although highly dependent on free and fair elections, can only be considered a true democracy when the people (demos) are given the strength to rule and make decisions (kratos).

Who is the boss in a democracy?

Mr. Edoğan’s majoritarian democracy places the people at his command, but that clashed with the students’ idea of democracy. “The people in government work for the people,” wrote one student. This echoed something Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, said at a Summer Institute Meeting a few just a few weeks before, “…the people we elect should do what we tell them. We are their bosses.” The government’s role is to listen to its people and create policies and reforms that are for the people—not for the politicians.

Will the protests make Turkey more democratic?

Freedom to assemble was mentioned frequently as a crucial element of democracy in the students’ fishbowl discussion last Wednesday, but does that include protests? The simple answer is yes. According to one student, “a government being protested against says more about the government than the people protesting.” The protests themselves represent a right unique to democracy, and make clear what the people are demanding. Nonetheless, it may not be enough. Most students did not believe that the protests would end with a more democratic outcome due to Mr. Edoğan’s comfort in power.

Tear Gas used on İstiklâl Caddesi near Taksim Square – Gezi Park, İstanbul. © 2013 Alan Hilditch

By:

Netta Ascoli (Education Program Officer) & Monica Floyd (Education Program Intern)