Alper Ali Riza
In June 2013 I wrote an article in Hurriyet Daily News called ‘Elective Dictatorship’. In June 2018 Recep Tayyip Erdogan was elected executive president of Turkey. It was no great prediction since that is what he always said he wanted for Turkey.
Originally I sent the article to another newspaper, Today’s Zaman, but they were not prepared to run it because at that time they were still on friendly terms with Erdogan. Whereas Hurriyet, which has always been on the secular side of the political spectrum, was happy to run it. How times have changed?
Shortly after the article appeared, a nice young man came to see me in my chambers in London posing as a Turkish journalist. I am still not clear about his mission, but we had a long chat during which he sought to persuade me that an elected government cannot be a dictatorship. On reflection he had a point in the sense that as a matter of language it is wrong to say Erdogan has now been elected dictator of Turkey.
But I told him that since the British system – probably the most democratic in the world – was branded an elective dictatorship and no one in Britain batted an eyelid, it was no big deal if the Turkish system were painted with the same brush and that it was only regimes with issues about democracy that got worked up about such phraseology.
I also explained that if a government is unleashed by democratic election to do as it pleases without any accountability or control, the end result is a dictatorship, especially if it flaunts its religious credentials to get elected.
He was unpersuaded but we parted amicably. In democracies there is always room for more than one view and I can now see my interloper’s point. Mozart composed a Turkish march and called it rondo alla Turca; Erdogan devised an elective dictatorship and claims it is democracy alla Turca but he does not like it associated with the word dictatorship because only the military do dictatorships alla Turca and he is dead against those.
So here is a refined version of the article I wrote five years ago edited and updated to take in last Sunday’s result.
“The reason why religion and politics do not mix is because when they do they sometimes produce elective dictatorships. The best example is that of Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus who, whilst head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus, also stood for president and won every election from 1960 to 1977, with majorities that even President Erdogan would envy.
The phrase ‘elective dictatorship’ was coined by an English politician, Lord Hailsham, in a lecture he gave in 1976 about the unwritten British constitution that has none of the formal checks and balances of the American constitution. He was an eminent constitutional lawyer who had been Lord
Chancellor under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1987. As Lord Chancellor he occupied a unique position as head of the judiciary, a member of the executive and a member of the upper house of legislature.
In light of President Erdogan’s election to the office of president with enhanced executive powers the question whether Turkey is an ‘elective dictatorship’ is ripe for discussion. He is a popular politician and he and his AK Party have been elected many times. He is also a tough leader who wears his religion on his sleeve.
His religion is Islam. It is a religion that demands submission and obedience to revealed truth. ‘God is great because in the infinity of space and time submission to the truth of human insignificance is a moral imperative,’ a wise old Turk once told me. ‘It is good for the soul to know this and what is good for the soul makes people better and is good for society.’
On the other hand, for Kemal Ataturk, who founded the Republic of Turkey and abolished the Caliphate, religion is a private matter for the individual. The state and its laws are man-made and not answerable to any higher law. He regarded religion as more concerned with the profound questions of the individual’s spiritual life than a guide to modern political life.
Secular values are based on freedom of the individual under the rule of law. Democracy depends not just on getting a majority of votes every five years but on observance of fundamental freedoms and human rights and on an overarching tolerant political culture that encourages plurality, not one that wishes to impose a prohibitive regressive regime.
According to article 2 of its constitution Turkey is a secular democratic republic which means that although most of her people are Muslim, the state itself has no religion. Unlike, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran, laws passed in Turkey do not have to pass any test to ensure they are in accordance with Islamic law. Being a secular republic and a member of the Council of Europe means it is supposed to be governed by the rule of law and that its laws have to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Now an executive presidency under Recep Tayeb Erdogan is upon us because it is the system of government a majority of Turks decided to impose on their country just like Brexit is what the majority decided to inflict on Britain. I do not buy the argument that if the election in Turkey were fairer the result would have been different. The people are sovereign and they have spoken and the rest of us have to grin and bear it.
President Erdogan will be head of state, head of government and leader of the largest political party with the power to dissolve parliament, appoint the majority of the judges and call a state of emergency. Basically he will be able to rule without much accountability or control in accordance with his understanding of democracy.
In September 2013 President Vladimir Putin of Russia wrote to the American people and said something very wise about democracy. He said ‘there are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.’
Like Russia, Turkey does not have a long democratic tradition; she is ‘still finding her way to democracy’. Democracy for President Erdogan means getting elected to carry out a programme unimpeded by checks and balances except democratic scrutiny at the end of five years.
As for human rights, he is in no mood to take lessons from anyone. He thinks Europe is hypocritical and I have to say he has a point. Turkey has taken in three and a half million refugees from Syria and his people re-elect him regardless, whereas some of Europe’s political leaders promote racist policies to keep refugees out in order to get elected on the back of xenophobia.
I have no idea what his policy on Cyprus is going to be. I know that like Nicos Anastasiades he was in favour of the Annan plan in 2004, that Crans-Montana took place on his watch as did the relaxation of movement across the buffer zone introduced in 2003.
I used to know a brilliant barrister, a Jewish refugee from Austria, who spoke English with a German accent that was known at the Bar as the ‘breath of old Vienna’ who said something pertinent here. He used to hold court in the wine bars around the Temple and pontificate on the finer points of criminal advocacy. His most memorable advice to budding advocates was as obvious as it was amusing: ‘when your client has pleaded not guilty and you depend on the jury to decide the case, be nasty to the judge! But when your client has pleaded guilty and you rely on the judge to be lenient, why oh why be nasty to the judge?’
I now understand democracy alla Turca and if President Erdogan can deliver on Cyprus ‘why oh why’ be nasty to the man? His understanding of democracy is not the same as mine, but he knows the democratic possibilities in his country much better
Alper Ali Riza is a queen’s counsel in the UK and a part time judge
