CHAPTER 2: A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO THE DETERMINANTS OF TFP AND THEIR
2.5. Concluding Remarks
Wendt's theory suggests that every state has some characteristics associated with its corporate identity such as geography and population which exist prior to the interaction with other states. At the ideational level, Özal and Erdoğan leaderships have added in accordance with their identity definitions new meanings to two important determinants of TFP, the geography and history which are simultaneously significant elements of Turkey's corporate identity. In this context, while the history and geography had largely been interpreted negatively and regarded as burden and risk factor on Turkey, the Özal and Erdoğan leaderships re-interpreted them positively and considered them as the basic reasons of their active and multi-dimensional foreign policy understandings.
On the other hand, Özal and Erdoğan leaderships re-interpreted and even totally changed some elements of the traditional foreign policy ideology of Turkey. In this respect for instance both leaderships' foreign policy paradigm has not regarded non-interventionism as an option for Turkey on the ground that a big country like Turkey with its deep historical and cultural ties has carried responsibilities. Moreover, its importance in the eyes of the west would be in parallel with its efficiency in the east and in its region. Thus, it should not be expected it to remain indifferent in the face of the events in its neighborhood and in the surrounding regions. They have also re-interpreted further elements of Kemalism like westernization and secularism in line with their identity perceptions. Enjoying a serious self- confidence rooted in the brilliant days of the Turkish history, both leaderships have sought to strengthen Turkey's relations with the east while sustaining the existing strong relationship with the west. In other words, with their self confident attitude, instead of turning their back to the east and westernizing the country at the expense of the relations with the eastern
204
Ziya Öniş and Şuhnaz Yılmaz, “Between Europeanization and Euro-asianism: Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey during the AKP Era,” Turkish Studies, Vol. 10, No.1 (2009): 10
countries, they have aimed to develop a multi-dimensional foreign policy model. Özal and Erdoğan leaderships have also not interpreted secularism as strictly as the Kemalists did. They have recognized Turkey's Muslim identity in foreign policy making and have not hesitated to actively participate into organizations like the OIC actively.
In essence, identities of Özal and Erdoğan leaderships have been initially constructed by the domestic political factors and they have simultaneously contributed to the re- construction of the internal norms. In the struggle against the undemocratic practices imposed on the Muslim-conservative Turkish people, Özal and Erdoğan leaderships have regarded democracy and human rights as liberator. Moreover, the military and bureaucratic tutelary regimes have played significant roles in the construction process of democratic identities of both leaderships. On the other hand, both leaderships have made contributions to the development and consolidation of the norms refusing the tutelary regimes and advocating the supremacy of people's will. Even though Özal's success against the military tutelage lost its impact due to the chaotic political structure of 1990s and left space for the military to intervene into politics, Erdoğan leadership has achieved a considerable success in the 2000s in his struggle against the tutelary regime with the backing of the European Union. Thereby, he has made a serious contribution to the construction of norms to prevent the generals from interfering into political processes. This case has had important impact on both the foreign policy making processes and on the efficacy of the actors in these processes.
In parallel with the policy of integration into the world introduced during the Özal era, the highly educated Islamic-conservative circles have begun in the new millennium to demand more saying in the political processes. With the effect of the democratization in the country, they have had a considerable impact on TFP along with other NGOs. Whilst this impact has been sometimes in the form of providing intellectual backup for the foreign policy of the government, it has turned other times into criticizing it. This impact has become now and then so direct, as it was seen in the Mavi Marmara event of 2010. Furthermore, whereas the Özal leadership closely sensed the lack of civil society support particularly in finding intellectual backup for his foreign policy vision, the Erdoğan administration was luckier in this respect. Furthermore, the effect of the public opinion on TFP which had been relatively limited in the first half of the Özal era increased in parallel with the democratization, development as well as dissemination of mass media. Thereby, the public opinion has become a more significant factor on foreign political issues and has played a more active role in shaping Turkish identity and foreign policy.
Özal and Erdoğan leaderships have also regarded the economic development of the country as a catalyst for their aspirations to make Turkey a global player, like in the Ottoman era. Thus, just like in the Özal period, Turkey’s increasing foreign trade volume and foreign economic ties occupied a considerable place in the TFP agenda throughout the Erdoğan era as well. Above all, this attracts attention as one of the most important commonalities in the Özal and Erdoğan eras.
At this point, one has to note a further factor influencing TFP to a considerable extent which is disregarded by the constructivists considering especially Özal and Erdoğan periods. As it was elaborated above, personal and psychological traits of both Özal and Erdoğan as leaders have placed them to distinctive positions in Turkish political history. Erdoğan’s emotional, charismatic and strong leadership as well as Özal’s charismatic and strong leadership might be regarded in this respect. Moreover, the importance that they attach to personal dialog and friendship in diplomacy, their common personal characteristics not afraid
to take risk and initiative are further common personality traits of Özal and Erdoğan which have had significant implications for the TFP.
All in all, analyzing the determining factors of TFP, one might come to the conclusion that the above mentioned determinants have affected TFP in various dimensions and measures. Yet the bottom line here is that the influence of these factors is also closely related to the lenses of the foreign policy makers. At this point, as the main point of reference of the lenses, identity is of crucial importance to interpret the determinants of FP and their reflection to the foreign policy field. For example, different political leaders in Turkey have interpreted Turkey's geopolitical location differently and this has had reflections on their policy principles and practices.