[VIEWPOINT] A fresh warning about Turkey in Washington: The significance of Congress’s recent hearing

Adem Yavuz Arslan explores the evolving perception of Turkey within U.S. policy circles, following a significant hearing by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. While human rights discussions in Washington don’t dictate foreign policy, they are critical in shaping the intellectual and political frameworks that influence diplomatic stances and congressional initiatives. The June 3 hearing, titled “Will Turkey See Freedom Again? Authoritarian Consolidation or Democratic Resilience?” offered vital insights into this evolving situation.

The Shift in Analytical Frameworks

One major takeaway from the hearing was the transition in how experts view Turkey’s political landscape. Historically, evaluations focused heavily on human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech. However, discussions have recently shifted toward recognizing what many termed a “broader regime problem.” Andrew O’Donohue from Harvard University pointed out that Turkey has been classified in political scholarship as a “competitive authoritarian” regime, characterized by elections that favor the ruling party. Yet recent events, particularly concerning İstanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and legal pressures affecting the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), raise a critical question: can elections in Turkey still effectuate a genuine change in leadership?

The Western Response to Democratic Backsliding

Michael Rubin from the Middle East Forum further emphasized the role of U.S. foreign policy in this context. He criticized both past and present U.S. administrations for inadequately addressing Turkey’s democratic decline. Rubin believes that this failure has fostered a sense of impunity within Ankara, leading to a belief that the international ramifications of oppressive actions would remain minimal. In a particularly controversial assertion, he argued that the aftermath of the July 15, 2016 coup attempt was manipulated by the Turkish government to intensify its authoritarian measures. This assertion challenges the mainstream narrative while also highlighting how Turkey’s issues are part of a broader Western failure.

Personal Testimonies and Broader Implications

Former political prisoner and NASA researcher Serkan Gölge provided a poignant counterpoint during the hearing, detailing his own experiences of persecution. His testimony illustrated how state mechanisms can distort legal processes, portraying ordinary life actions as criminal activities. This personal narrative encapsulates the widespread erosion of the rule of law in Turkey, making it a vital addition to the official congressional record. Gölge’s experiences resonate with many human rights advocates who view such systemic issues in Turkey as urgent.

The Changing Narrative in Washington

According to Turkey expert Henri Barkey, the current regime has transcended traditional electoral authoritarianism. He argued that the actions taken against İmamoğlu, along with judicial pressures on opposition parties, illustrate a deliberate strategy to manipulate state institutions for political gain. Barkey’s notable remark that the opposition has not been eliminated but rather criminalized serves as a stark reminder of the deepening political malaise in Turkey.

The most striking outcome from the hearing, however, was the noticeable shift in language. Terms like “authoritarian consolidation” are becoming more prevalent, replacing earlier discussions focused solely on “democratic backsliding.” While immediate policy changes may not follow, such shifts in language often precede substantive alterations in U.S. foreign policy.

In conclusion, the hearing highlighted that concerns about Turkey’s human rights situation and challenges to the rule of law remain high on Washington’s agenda. More importantly, an increasing number of analysts now view Turkey as grappling with profound questions about its democratic future. This deeper understanding underscores the potential significance of the June 3 hearing, which could influence U.S. policy directions in the months and years to come.