Professor of Political Science and Gender Studies, Alev Özkazanç breaks down the discourse of AKP which has combined multiple logics such as Islamism, populism, nationalism, and authoritarianism to produce a highly gendered divide between “us” and “them.”
Alev Özkazanç / Open Democracy
The case of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has been in power in Turkey for 17 years, requires elaborate scrutiny extending beyond its populist logic and considering its articulation with other discourses such as neoliberalism, Islamism, nationalism, and authoritarianism.
Such scrutiny also necessities a periodization of AKP rule which has undergone a dramatic transformation. In its first two governmental terms (2002- 2011) the AKP acted mainly as an emergent centre-right party rather than a right-wing populist one – self-designated as “conservative-democrat”. It represented the forward march of the Islamic-conservative constituencies to the centre of power without alienating most of the electorate and accommodating the demands of its constituency to the requirements of neoliberal capitalism, in the context of further democratization enabled by the EU accession process.
Then, going through a drastic period of transition between 2010-2015, the party transformed itself into a nationalist-populist party pushing the regime into electoral-authoritarianism with the imposition of a new constitution and the establishment of one party-one-man rule.
The AKP has always relied on a populist logic which has gradually come to the forefront over time. Initially, this populist narrative stayed within the confines of a long-established legacy of the Turkish centre-right, which pitched the “conservative-pious masses of Anatolia” against the “Westernist Republican bureaucratic elites” and “modernist seculars”. But in the course of events, a slippery slope from a reformist to a revolutionary polarization has developed, transforming the AKP itself in the process.
Janus-faced gender politics
“What else would women want?”
In its first phase, the Janus face of AKP rule was reflected in its gender politics. Two different and incompatible aspects of gender politics co-existed side by side. On the one hand were the policies promoting gender equality in line with the requirements of the EU accession process whereby major legal and constitutional reforms were implemented, albeit not wholeheartedly, but mostly thanks to pressure from and collaboration with a vibrant feminist movement. It should be noted that the dependence of the AKP’s “moderate” position on gender equality in the EU process rendered it flawed from the very outset. Still, when, by 2007, violence against women had risen to alarming levels, legal efforts intensified, culminating in the promulgation of n.6284 Law against Domestic Violence – a law with no tangible positive impact until now.
The “moderate” character of the period was reflected in the signing of the European Council Istanbul Convention in 2011. The Convention was the first international agreement with concrete provisions for combating violence against women. Turkey was the first signatory thanks to the contributions of the Turkish feminist movement. Yet, alongside the attempts to “keep up appearances” with regards to the EU-imposed gender equality agenda, another conflictual policy of growing islamisation of politics and of reinforcing the role of women as mothers, wives and caretakers through a family-based social welfare policy curbed the impact of the reforms.
Although its policies by no means matched the massive gender equality projects of left-populist parties in Latin America, the AKP still managed to draw extensive electoral support from women (up to 55%) – notably among conservative women and women of lower-class urban families. Compared with right populist parties in Europe, which were until recently known to be predominantly male-supported, the AKP has been more of a women`s party.
There were two pillars underpinning this appeal to women voters. One was the AKPs support for the lifting of the ban on headscarfed women entering universities and public offices – perhaps the most contentious political issue for more than ten years. Yet, even the narratives regarding the liberation of the headscarfed women from the oppressive Republican elites were articulated mostly in terms of human rights. Moreover, the AKPs support for women was not limited to the opening of public spaces to them. Instead, it mostly drew on organizing and mobilizing masses of women for party politics, especially at the local level.
This meant a considerable level of empowerment for most women even if they were not elevated to the upper echelons of the party. Furthermore, the most effective aspect of local politics has been the unprecedented level of social welfare assistance distributed to urban poor families through local authorities, religious foundations and pro-government NGOs. The political success of this strategy for solidifying the AKP hegemony among the urban poor and women has been well documented in the literature. Yet, there is a deeper consequence of family-based local politics which is often overlooked. As put by a female AKP local activist in Istanbul, “the AKP conveys the message to women: ‘we are going to discipline and tame your husbands and children. In our community men provide for the family, and thus the unity of the family is secured. Provision of jobs and [instilling] the fear of God (in men) powerful enough to protect you against the outside world and compassionate at home. What else would women want?”
But this deal comes with a special obligation on the part of women which requires that “women should trust the party and care for the peace at home and not confront their husbands directly. So, this was the core deal the AKP made with women: compliance with traditional gender norms, domestic obedience and political devotion in return for jobs for men, social welfare and more importantly acivilizing effect` on men. As Deniz Kandiyoti puts this “after all, the oldest deal with patriarchal power in all its forms, [is] now being played out on a national scale with the powerful resources of paternalistic populism.”
You can read the full article here.