Turkey and the AKP

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20iht-edasli.4.20336561.html?scp=2&sq=Turkey%20AKP&st=cse

In this NY Times article by Asli Aydintasbas, the author describes the new international relations policy that has been shaped by the AKP in Turkey. Traditionally Turkey has been a country that has catered to the west, more specifically the EU. Turkey has remained extremely secular despite some pressure from the surrounding nations in the area. In addition, Turkey and the AKP has continually tried become a member of the EU by changing their system of government to make it more democratic and also joining NATO. This was in an attempt to meet the EU's standards. But after the continuous denial by the EU, the AKP has started to change its thinking on its international policy. President Abdullah Gul has proposed a new policy that reaches out to Turkey's Middle Eastern neighbors and also countries such as Russia in order to expand economically and politically. This basically is basically an effort to expand Turkey's power and to offer an alternate source of international support should the relations between Turkey and the west turn sour. In addition, improving relations with their neighbors may help Turkey spread their form of Islamist government to the other countries in the area.

This form of Islamist government that is run in Turkey is something that Gamze Cavdar describes in his essay "Islamist New Thinking in Turkey: A Model for Political Thinking". Cavdar explains how the AKP has been able to run an "Islamist" government within a structure that is entirely secular. This ability is classified by Cavdar as "Islamist New Thinking". Cavdar also offers a few "pillars" of this new Islamist movement that allows the AKP to exist and work within the secular Turkish government. The first of these "pillars" is the ability of the political leaders to recognize what they can and cannot do based off of history. For example, the AKP cannot try to pass radical changes such as religious education and the wearing of headscarfs but instead can try to expand the role of Islam within the bounds of the secular government that is set up. The second "pillar" is basically the support of the Islamic thinkers in Turkey. With the support of these people, the AKP can stay within the bounds of the secular government and still have the support of the people since the Islamic thinkers support the AKP. The final "pillar" put forth by Cavdar is the economic support of the conservative capitalists. These people have thrown their support behind the AKP thus making the AKP the party of the rising middle class that is growing in Turkey. This gives the AKP great monetary and political support.

These two pieces offer to vastly different perspectives of the AKP. Cavdar offers a revolutionary look at the AKP as a party that is drifting towards the concentration of working within a secular government that is pro-West. On the other hand, the author of the NY Times article is looking at the AKP as drifting back towards supporting the Middle East and Russia and making them their prime allies. These are two vastly different views on the work of the AKP. But the fact remains that the AKP is a revolutionary government in that it is an Islamist party existing within a secular government. If Turkey can spread this form of government to some of the other states within the region as the NY Times article suggests, it may create better relations between the states in the Middle East and thus more peace in the region.