Turkey’s Referendum Is a Balancing Act

How does the Obama administration view the referendum held in Turkey yesterday? As I am writing this column the results have not yet been announced. Therefore, it is too early to get an official comment from Washington. But it is still possible for us to make a few statements about Washington's views on it. The Obama administration gives high significance to the referendum. And it’s not because America has any interest in Turkish constitutional reforms. My impression is that nobody in Washington sees the “democratization and elimination of military tutelage in Turkey” as among its purported benefits. The American administration is watching the referendum rather closely because it seeks an answer to a very pragmatic question it has been asking lately: how strong is the AK Party (Justice and Development Party)? A possible decisive “yes” vote around 55 percent or an alternative, equally strong ”no” vote would certainly influence Washington’s evaluations on the prospects for the AK Party. A humble (below 55 percent)”yes” or ”no” vote would not have much impact on Washington’s analysis of Turkey.

The American Perspective

A strong “yes” vote would strengthen the hands of those in Washington, who view the AK Party positively and adhere to a more patient approach toward it. As it is known, the hands of the adherents of that approach have been weakened due to dissension between Ankara and Washington about Israel and Iran. Turkey’s stance (who voted against the Iranian sanctions at the U.N. Security Council) made it harder for the optimists within the Obama administration. The “shift of axis” argument flared in Washington and the hands of the groups at loggerheads with the AK Party have been strengthened as a consequence. Turkey’s deteriorating relations with Israel upset the balance in the American Congress, to Turkey’s detriment. The anti-AK Party group will certainly endorse a ”no” vote from the Turkish referendum. A strong ”no” vote for that group will be telling them that the Turkish electorate has been on the lookout for a strong alternative government. A ”no” vote will also be interpreted as a no-confidence vote for the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This might eventually cause the balance within the Obama administration to shift, to the detriment of the AK Party, in which case the voice of those arguing for the preparation of a post-AK Party period in Turkey will be heard louder.

On the other hand, if the referendum results in a “yes” vote, this will substantiate the thesis that the AK Party will retain power for another term beginning in 2011. The proponents of this group believe that Turkey will be worse off with a CHP-MHP (Nationalist Action Party) coalition government. Although this group is not very welcoming to the AK Party, they are also cognizant of the fact that any alternative formation to an AK Party government is likely to be far more anti-American, anti-E.U., anti-Kurdish and anti-Armenian. After all, Washington knows the MHP’s perspective toward the U.S. and the E.U. well. I should also note that Washington’s bias against the CHP also continues. The specifics of the foreign policy that the CHP would pursue raise questions. For all those reasons, the Obama administration is trying to be positive and pragmatic. The number of those who say, "Let’s be realistic, the AK Party will be in power for another term," outweigh the others at the moment.

In short, the U.S. sees the referendum in Turkey as a harbinger of what will come during the 2011 general elections. Obama wants a strong, democratic, civilian and pro-Western opposition to the AK Party in Turkey, but the absence of such an opposition is not giving much hope. It seems then more preferable to get a modest result than a strong “yes” or a strong ”no.”