Stabilization of the Turkish Economy in the Early 2000s and the Urgent Action Plan

The first major crisis that the Justice and Development Party, which came to power in 2002, had to deal with was the deep social divisions caused by the 1990s, and especially the Ecevit era, and the near-bankruptcy of the Turkish economy. Without wishing to be exhaustive, it is worth highlighting some of the factors and events from this period in order to make visible how complex the crisis was that the AKP had to deal with while stabilizing Turkey after their first election victory. One of the reasons for the constant crisis of the 1990s was that the political scene was extremely polarized, many parties with relatively little influence were present in the National Assembly, and they were unable to secure a stable government majority. As a result, coalition governments were formed in which parties with very different ideologies participated. After a while, the army also intervened in the ongoing battles of the parties. In 1997, during the so-called the postmodern coup, the Turkish armed forces published an e-memorandum on the Internet. With this document, the government of the radical right-wing Necmettin Erbakan was finally overthrown. Between 1997 and 2002, there was a deeper political crisis compared to the previous years, it marked the repulsion of Turkish political life. The political crisis was further exacerbated by one of the greatest natural disasters of the republic’s era, the 1999 earthquake, which claimed tens of thousands of lives in the eastern basin of the Marmara Sea. The disaster, which had just ruined the developing hinterland of the country’s industry, slowed the businesses and the recovery exceeded the capabilities of the Turkish economy. After 1999, nearly one million small and medium-sized businesses went bankrupt. Not only companies, but also families were in an extremely difficult position with unemployment in the skies and inflation galloping. In this economic crisis, the pre-AKP Turkish governments resorted to the instrument of neoliberal economic policy. Kemal Dervis, an internationally known and recognized economist, was asked to create the economic recovery program. However, the extreme austerity measures provoked even more serious social tensions, which brought the long 1990s to the point where the last coalition government also failed. The present article aims at describing the nature of the economic crisis of 2001, and the forms of recovery used by Kemal Dervis and the subsequent AKP governments. Globally speaking, the economic crisis management was successful, so this paper –using both English and Turkish language sources- tries to clarify how the neo-liberals of the late Ecevit era and the liberals of the early AKP period contributed to this achievement

Stabilization of the Turkish Economy in the Early 2000s and the Urgent Action Plan

The first major crisis that the Justice and Development Party, which came to power in 2002, had to deal with was the deep social divisions caused by the 1990s, and especially the Ecevit era, and the near-bankruptcy of the Turkish economy. Without wishing to be exhaustive, it is worth highlighting some of the factors and events from this period in order to make visible how complex the crisis was that the AKP had to deal with while stabilizing Turkey after their first election victory. One of the reasons for the constant crisis of the 1990s was that the political scene was extremely polarized, many parties with relatively little influence were present in the National Assembly, and they were unable to secure a stable government majority. As a result, coalition governments were formed in which parties with very different ideologies participated. After a while, the army also intervened in the ongoing battles of the parties. In 1997, during the so-called the postmodern coup, the Turkish armed forces published an e-memorandum on the Internet. With this document, the government of the radical right-wing Necmettin Erbakan was finally overthrown. Between 1997 and 2002, there was a deeper political crisis compared to the previous years, it marked the repulsion of Turkish political life. The political crisis was further exacerbated by one of the greatest natural disasters of the republic’s era, the 1999 earthquake, which claimed tens of thousands of lives in the eastern basin of the Marmara Sea. The disaster, which had just ruined the developing hinterland of the country’s industry, slowed the businesses and the recovery exceeded the capabilities of the Turkish economy. After 1999, nearly one million small and medium-sized businesses went bankrupt. Not only companies, but also families were in an extremely difficult position with unemployment in the skies and inflation galloping. In this economic crisis, the pre-AKP Turkish governments resorted to the instrument of neoliberal economic policy. Kemal Dervis, an internationally known and recognized economist, was asked to create the economic recovery program. However, the extreme austerity measures provoked even more serious social tensions, which brought the long 1990s to the point where the last coalition government also failed. The present article aims at describing the nature of the economic crisis of 2001, and the forms of recovery used by Kemal Dervis and the subsequent AKP governments. Globally speaking, the economic crisis management was successful, so this paper –using both English and Turkish language sources- tries to clarify how the neo-liberals of the late Ecevit era and the liberals of the early AKP period contributed to this achievement

The Fragility of Turkish Political Structures – The AKP Closure Case

For the Justice and Development Party (AKP), one of the most serious challenges in its history was the dissolution lawsuit against the party in 2008. This was not because there would have been no precedent in Turkey for banning the various political parties, but because by then one could speak of a government party with serious social support that had already won two parliamentary elections. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, it has not been uncommon for one or another political formation to be banned, but at times they have reactivated themselves under a different name. In fact, the initial, one-party era of the republic was also created by the situation provoked by the founder of the state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who banned rival, opposition parties that threatened his position. Even since the introduction of the multi-party system in 1946 and the first multi-party election in 1950, nearly three dozen parties have been doomed. These included Kurdish separatist groups, parties with communist ideologies, but also the AKP's moderate Islamist predecessors. It has also happened that the leaders of a military coup have decided to ban some parties, but it has also been the case that in a peaceful and democratic period the prosecution has initiated the same in the Constitutional Court claiming that one party or another is opposed to the most basic republican principles. Yet the case of the AKP was special because, in the case of a party that had been ruling alone for six years, it was still surprising that it was not its political opponent trying to overthrow its power, but the legal nomenclature attached to the old elite. In the second half of the 2000s, the AKP was still taking reluctant steps towards democratic opening, and it was far from the authoritarian style and centralization efforts that characterize it today, yet it can be said that they had fairly stable political positions. Of course, it is no coincidence that several things have weakened the situation of the AKP, and the party leaders could not have felt that they were surviving this crisis in a political sense. There was a chance that the organization would actually cease to function and the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic would be banned from practicing public affairs for up to 5 years. The legal process aimed at banning the party has resonated heavily in Turkey, but has come as a real surprise only to the Western public opinion. The purpose of this article is to look at why the Turks were so laconic about the situation and why it has caused so much uproar in Europe and America. At the same time, it will be possible to see the main differences between Western and Turkish democratic traditions.As the wrangling around the ban of the AKP excited foreign observers more than domestic experts, the literature used for the article was also mostly in English, and only a small number of works in Turkish were taken into consideration

The Fragility of Turkish Political Structures – The AKP Closure Case

For the Justice and Development Party (AKP), one of the most serious challenges in its history was the dissolution lawsuit against the party in 2008. This was not because there would have been no precedent in Turkey for banning the various political parties, but because by then one could speak of a government party with serious social support that had already won two parliamentary elections. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, it has not been uncommon for one or another political formation to be banned, but at times they have reactivated themselves under a different name. In fact, the initial, one-party era of the republic was also created by the situation provoked by the founder of the state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who banned rival, opposition parties that threatened his position. Even since the introduction of the multi-party system in 1946 and the first multi-party election in 1950, nearly three dozen parties have been doomed. These included Kurdish separatist groups, parties with communist ideologies, but also the AKP's moderate Islamist predecessors. It has also happened that the leaders of a military coup have decided to ban some parties, but it has also been the case that in a peaceful and democratic period the prosecution has initiated the same in the Constitutional Court claiming that one party or another is opposed to the most basic republican principles. Yet the case of the AKP was special because, in the case of a party that had been ruling alone for six years, it was still surprising that it was not its political opponent trying to overthrow its power, but the legal nomenclature attached to the old elite. In the second half of the 2000s, the AKP was still taking reluctant steps towards democratic opening, and it was far from the authoritarian style and centralization efforts that characterize it today, yet it can be said that they had fairly stable political positions. Of course, it is no coincidence that several things have weakened the situation of the AKP, and the party leaders could not have felt that they were surviving this crisis in a political sense. There was a chance that the organization would actually cease to function and the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic would be banned from practicing public affairs for up to 5 years. The legal process aimed at banning the party has resonated heavily in Turkey, but has come as a real surprise only to the Western public opinion. The purpose of this article is to look at why the Turks were so laconic about the situation and why it has caused so much uproar in Europe and America. At the same time, it will be possible to see the main differences between Western and Turkish democratic traditions.As the wrangling around the ban of the AKP excited foreign observers more than domestic experts, the literature used for the article was also mostly in English, and only a small number of works in Turkish were taken into consideration

Division, Persecution and Rearrangement - The AKP’s Controversial Relationship with Turkish Civil Society

Throughout history, and especially in the Ottoman Empire, Turkish culture has attached great importance to foundations. In the past, mosques, schools, public baths, free kitchens, and hospitals alike, all operated in the form of foundations. After the proclamation of the republic in 1923, much of this structure was abolished by the state founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk because he believed that they were tied to the Muslim clergy by a thousand threads. In the initial period of the republic, Turkish civil society was slowly reorganized following Western examples. It lived its second heyday as a result of the introduction of the new constitution in 1982 and Turgut Ozal’s liberal economic policy, and his media market liberalization after 1983. After the Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002, the civil society in Turkey was significantly rearranged. Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party favored some with a system of opportunities, and sued those who put the government in a politically awkward position. Building on some of the scandalous cases of the second half of 2010s, this article seeks to explain the current situation of Turkish civil society and the conflicts that characterize it. The article highlights the campaign against Amnesty International and the Open Society Foundation, which by November 2021 was only partially over. In the case of current events, in the absence of scientific sources, the writings of renowned Turkish journalists at world-famous news portals were used as a basis. However, in order to substantiate the theory, an abundant literature in Turkish and English was also used

Division, Persecution and Rearrangement - The AKP’s Controversial Relationship with Turkish Civil Society

Throughout history, and especially in the Ottoman Empire, Turkish culture has attached great importance to foundations. In the past, mosques, schools, public baths, free kitchens, and hospitals alike, all operated in the form of foundations. After the proclamation of the republic in 1923, much of this structure was abolished by the state founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk because he believed that they were tied to the Muslim clergy by a thousand threads. In the initial period of the republic, Turkish civil society was slowly reorganized following Western examples. It lived its second heyday as a result of the introduction of the new constitution in 1982 and Turgut Ozal’s liberal economic policy, and his media market liberalization after 1983. After the Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002, the civil society in Turkey was significantly rearranged. Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party favored some with a system of opportunities, and sued those who put the government in a politically awkward position. Building on some of the scandalous cases of the second half of 2010s, this article seeks to explain the current situation of Turkish civil society and the conflicts that characterize it. The article highlights the campaign against Amnesty International and the Open Society Foundation, which by November 2021 was only partially over. In the case of current events, in the absence of scientific sources, the writings of renowned Turkish journalists at world-famous news portals were used as a basis. However, in order to substantiate the theory, an abundant literature in Turkish and English was also used