Fifty Shades Of Nationalism: Post-Election Turkey

Nationalism is Turkey’s Political Main Course: Serving It Rare, Medium or Well-done

Welcome to Turkey in the wake of the recent elections – a dynamic tableau of nationalism, painted in almost fifty distinct hues. Each candidate, it seems, offered their unique blend of nationalist ideology, carefully crafted to cater to their voter base. The variety is reminiscent of a bustling marketplace, each stall with its display of nationalist goods, appealing to different segments of Turkish society. And the response has been nothing short of overwhelming.

Just as the popular novel “Fifty Shades of Grey” explores the complex spectrum of human desire, the Turkish political scene presents its own intricate palette: Fifty Shades of Nationalism. In this crowded arena, voters are treated to a veritable smorgasbord of nationalism, much like an à la carte menu offering distinct flavours for different palates.

Two primary alliances stood at the electoral battleground, each shadowed by hardline nationalist parties, acting as the second most powerful. The opposition, the ruling bloc, everyone sings a nationalist song. Rhetoric against the Kurds and refugees paint this nationalist narrative, a story framed and penned down with aggressive strokes mostly by the ruling AK Party.

And as if the menu was not already overflowing with nationalist dishes, a third Presidential candidate, Sinan Ogan, ran a campaign riding on nationalist sentiment, with the refugees and Kurds as his marked targets. Indeed, it seems nationalism is a full banquet in Turkey.

The elections saw a significant rise in the vote share of hardline nationalist parties in parliamentary elections which were held on 14th May, the same day as the presidential elections. The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) won 10.1% of the vote, the Good Party (İYİ Parti) won 9.7%, the Victory Party won 2.2%, the Great Unity Party (BBP) won 1%, and the Nation Party won 0.92%.

Opposition leader Kilicdaroglu is not entirely the nationalist type. Sounding more social democratic tones in the run-up to the first round of elections Kilicdaroglu helms a pluralistic alliance that consists of a diverse group of parties. His rhetoric saw a strong shift with the second round where he also looks like he embraced nationalism too.

Exploring the Shades: The Different Flavors of Turkish Nationalism

The Nationalist Action Party (MHP) with the government, İYİ Party with the opposition and Victory Party (ZP) behind the third candidate they each serve their nationalism differently. Like an ideological buffet. MHP and İYİ party born from same womb now exhibit sociological differences. Urban less conservative voters side with İYİ while MHP attracts nationalists that lean more traditional and conservative. Ogan another MHP defector and Victory Party behind him offer brand of nationalism akin to European ultra-nationalism. They have adopted politics of anti-refugee sentiment a byproduct of refugee wave following Syrian conflict.

There is variation within this nationalist palette. The governing alliance’s Nationalist Action Party (MHP), the opposition’s Good Party (IYI), and the Victory Party (ZP) backing the third candidate, all represent slightly different flavours of nationalism, like an ideological buffet. Their differences, however, are less ideological than they are sociological. IYI, a breakaway faction from the MHP, primarily draws its support from urban areas and tends to be less conservative. Conversely, the MHP enjoys a broader base among the traditional and conservative populations of the Anatolian heartlands. Ogan, another MHP offshoot, and the Victory Party behind him mimic European ultranationalists, adopting similar policies on refugees. This anti-refugee stance is a relatively recent trend in Turkey, spurred by the influx of Syrian refugees fleeing conflict.

The MHP, established by Alpaslan Turkeş – a Turkish colonel who played a significant role in the 1960 coup – originally emerged as an anti-communist force. Turkes, trained in counter-insurgency in the U.S., instilled in the party a deep commitment to the Turkish-Islamic synthesis. As the perceived communist threat waned between 1980 and 1990, the MHP refocused its opposition towards the Kurds. The party, headed today by Devlet Bahçeli, is known for its significant influence over Turkey’s security services and judiciary, and also controls the Idealist Hearts (or Grey Wolves in the West) – a youth organisation engaged in paramilitary activities. MHP’s principles, nine lights, define its ideological core. The party stood as the main flagbearer of Turkish nationalism until the formation of the IYI Party in 2017 by Meral Aksener, a former MHP member.

Alongside Aksener, a group of ex-MHP members established IYI in 2017, its name and logo drawing inspiration from the seal of the Kayı tribe, considered the progenitors of the Ottoman dynasty. Since 2018, the party has had representation in the Turkish parliament. This offshoot diverges from its parent party and tries to appeal to a broader constituency including center right and far right at the same time. While its doctrine is hardline nationalist it shows less open hostility towards Kurds due to its diverse opposition alliance.

Ogan, originally from the eastern town of Igdir, was formerly an MHP MP. He distanced himself from the MHP in 2015, disillusioned with the party’s leadership.

Another curious blend is Doğu Perinçek’s Patriotic Party (VP), which is a left-wing party that combines Kemalism, Maoisim and anti-Western imperialism. The party has a very low voter base of around 0.1%, but it is believed to have influence in some parts of the Turkish government. In addition to Perinçek’s pseudo-left-wing ideology, there are also some socialist groups in Turkey that support anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalism.

In tracing roots of Turkish nationalism we find ourselves journeying back to twilight years of Ottoman Empire. Ataturk’s and later Inonu’s CHP brandished banner of nationalism. This nationalism has evolved under two-decade rule of AK Party shaped initially by pro-military opposition groups’ secularist nationalism against AK Party. In later phases AK Party itself embraced nationalism and weaponized it against opponents.

The Toxic Recipe: Nationalism framed as anti-Kurdish and anti-refugee

Turkish nationalism is geared towards local populations and minorities and west. MHP as well as other nationalists claims to oppose Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has been at war with Turkish military since 1984 and not Kurds but in practice lines blur and they fail to differentiate between Kurds and PKK tagging third largest party by votes People’s Democracy Party (HDP) as terrorists too.

When government appointed appointees to confiscate dozens of HDP-won municipalities one of first acts of new municipal authorities was to remove Kurdish signs brandished by former mayors.

The rising votes for nationalist parties, including Ogan’s alliance from new generations, indicate that nationalism will continue to stamp its footprint on the Turkish political landscape for years to come. This can be seen as a troubling trend, particularly given the divisive nature of the nationalist narratives. The key problem lies in its anti-Kurdish stance. Turkish nationalists operate under the flawed presumption that their nationalism must be anti-Kurdish.

This leads to an unhealthy, toxic environment where the very possibility of Kurdish expression is stifled and suppressed. Not only is this ethically deplorable, but it’s also a sure way to destabilize Turkey. Such fervent hostility only serves to fan the flames of radicalism on both sides – the Turks and the Kurds.

From Division to Unity: Reimagining Nationalism in Turkey

Nationalism need not be inherently toxic or antagonistic towards minorities. Given the correct guidance, it can act as a unifying force among people. However, this potential hinges on a fundamental shift in the type of nationalism currently being promoted in Turkey.

It is crucial to note that during the latest round of peace negotiations between the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Turkish state, from 2013 to 2015, there were no significant protests or instances of civil unrest in the country. Interestingly, the peace process did not incite nationalist sentiments. Even the public broadcast of messages from the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, on national television was widely accepted.

At the beginning of the peace process, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who now espouses strong nationalist views, had proclaimed that they “swept all forms of nationalism under our feet.” Such stances did not necessarily trigger strong reactions or notable drops in electoral support. Past events illustrate that nationalism only becomes toxic when elites and state powers propagate it in a specific manner.

It’s time for Turkey to cast off the shackles of toxic nationalism and embrace a more open, inclusive variant. A nationalism that’s not about division or hostility but about unity, cooperation, and shared prosperity. This is the kind of nationalism that Turkey needs – and the kind that its people deserve.

A reformulation of nationalism is urgently required. This would not entail a dismissal of nationalist sentiments but rather a reconfiguration, a shift in focus. Instead of fostering hostility towards minorities, Turkish nationalism could be redirected to cultivate a sense of shared culture and collective economic prosperity. It could be molded into a force that brings people together rather than tearing them apart.

The next stage, then, would be to transition towards an open, inclusive form of nationalism. This would not be anti-Kurdish or anti-minority; instead, it would embrace the plurality of Turkish society, acknowledging and respecting the diverse cultures and communities within it.

This evolution of nationalism could empower Turkey and help it realize some of the core ideals of nationalism. It could transform nationalism from a force that divides and antagonizes into one that unifies and strengthens. The transition may be slow and fraught with challenges, but the end result – a more inclusive, tolerant, and united Turkey – would undoubtedly be worth the struggle.

In the novel “Fifty Shades of Grey” the protagonists navigate their complexities to find harmony. Similarly, Turkey, in its Fifty Shades of Nationalism, must explore and comprehend its varied nationalistic hues to craft a more inclusive, harmonious future. The narrative should evolve from a menu offering differing strands of aggressive and discriminatory nationalism towards a unifying course that satiates all.