Securitization is one of the international relations theories developed by Copenhagen School Scholars Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. The prominent concept in this theory is political actors may sometimes use security rhetoric for their own benefit to change perception of their audience. Playing on security related concerns of the public helps these politicians to make leeway from real and relevant political arguments. Creating fear on society ease legitimatizing extraordinary security practices. If opposition groups challenge with these practices, politicians using securitization rhetoric blame them undermining security interests of the country and being on the same side with traitors and terrorists. Within this political environment while public finds itself discussing unnecessary topics irrelevant with real needs of country, the political actors benefiting from this strategy pave the way to accomplish their political agenda.
Securitization strategy become popular in the last decade not only in undemocratic countries but also in the democratic world. We see many Western Leaders using this rhetoric for multiple purposes. They use securitization to find a pretext towards the existing liberal policies those encumber implementation of heavy handed security practices. They also rely on securitization to mobilize their followers especially in election times and using as a bargaining tool towards the other countries or international/regional organisations. Despite the fact that this strategy may have short term benefits to its enforcers, in the long run it endangers individual freedoms and liberal democratic values. It also disrupts the social and cultural harmony in the society and causes disintegration/radicalization of many people who have different ethnic origin, religion and political ideology. Along with these internal consequences, it also deteriorates diplomatic relations with outside world.
In consideration of Turkish Politics, securitization has always been a popular strategy for many Turkish Politicians to hide their incompetence on solving Turkey's major economic and political problems. For instance, terror threat has always been galvanized by Turkish Governments to disguise economic, cultural and human rights policies of the country. In fact, there is sometimes no relevance between two policies.
Since 2002, securitization rhetoric has been in decline trend among Turkish politicians due intense democratization efforts of Justice and Development Party (AKP). By the time Turkey transposed the EU required reforms and upgraded Turkish democracy, party leaders who benefited from securitization strategy left with empty hands because of their arguments were no more realistic and credible for the majority of Turkish Society. Many people in Turkey realized that democratization brings freedom and wealth to all and coercive methods are not feasible to solve Turkey's longstanding internal political conflicts.
Despite these positive trend in Turkey, a sudden u-turn seen in recent years on the side of the AKP who was the leading political actor of Turkey's democratization and European integration. First steps of deterioration started with the Gezi Protests that was against construction of a shopping mall in Taksim. The President Erdogan preferred using securitization rhetoric towards the protesters not only suppress the demostrations but also mobilize his followers for upcoming elections. His securitization rhetoric worked well to end protests, however, it created divergence in Turkish society who are with the Erdogan and who are against him. As Erdogan and his advisors realized the securitization rhetoric brings considerable support from their constituents, they relied on this strategy more on to govern the country. Then it became a routine political maneuver of the President Erdogan for every political matter both in Turkey and abroad.
Even though this strategy was useful against secular voters who will never vote to the AKP, no body in Erdogan's advisory team assumed that securitization rhetoric will also target its conservative voters. Especially, after the bloody coup attempt in July 15, fight against the FETÖ also began to target many AKP voters due to this strategy is implemented unproportionally and recklessly. Currently, many constitutes who voted for the AKP began to feel alienated due to they became targets of this securitization rhetoric. If President Erdogan and his team will insist on carrying this strategy, more AKP constitutes will distance themselves in the near future from their party.
Using securitization rhetoric rather than relying on diplomatic channels is also began to deteriorate Turkey's international relations with its neighborhood. Threatening its international partners seems very attractive in recent years for Turkish politicians for domestic mobilization. However, false and unrealistic threat of sanctions are undermining reliability of Turkish Governments on the eyes of their international counterparts. It creates feeling on international society that Turkish accusations and threats are weak and hollow. This also undermines Turkey's regional power image and it's bargaining power when it comes to negotiate with the countries who get into a brawl with Turkey.
In consideration of rising trend of securitization rhetoric by many world leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders should not let Turkish Political Leaders to fall in this trap. In order to use securitization, politicians using this tool must know that whether they can cope with their economic and security problems on their own or with other partners. If the answer is no, securitization is not good strategy for them.
As a final note, securitization is also double edge sword that can turn against the politicians who are using it. Relying on securitization may create an angry crowd which cannot be controlled by its leaders in the long run. This securitization rhetoric may target their politicians if their rhetoric cannot satisfy the audience. Therefore, Turkish authorities should reconsider using securitization strategy for every political matter in Turkey. This might be tempting for now in upcoming referendum. However, the audience grown up with this rhetoric may ask sacrifice of their leaders when they are not satisfied with their leaders rational choices.
Securitization strategy become popular in the last decade not only in undemocratic countries but also in the democratic world. We see many Western Leaders using this rhetoric for multiple purposes. They use securitization to find a pretext towards the existing liberal policies those encumber implementation of heavy handed security practices. They also rely on securitization to mobilize their followers especially in election times and using as a bargaining tool towards the other countries or international/regional organisations. Despite the fact that this strategy may have short term benefits to its enforcers, in the long run it endangers individual freedoms and liberal democratic values. It also disrupts the social and cultural harmony in the society and causes disintegration/radicalization of many people who have different ethnic origin, religion and political ideology. Along with these internal consequences, it also deteriorates diplomatic relations with outside world.
In consideration of Turkish Politics, securitization has always been a popular strategy for many Turkish Politicians to hide their incompetence on solving Turkey's major economic and political problems. For instance, terror threat has always been galvanized by Turkish Governments to disguise economic, cultural and human rights policies of the country. In fact, there is sometimes no relevance between two policies.
Since 2002, securitization rhetoric has been in decline trend among Turkish politicians due intense democratization efforts of Justice and Development Party (AKP). By the time Turkey transposed the EU required reforms and upgraded Turkish democracy, party leaders who benefited from securitization strategy left with empty hands because of their arguments were no more realistic and credible for the majority of Turkish Society. Many people in Turkey realized that democratization brings freedom and wealth to all and coercive methods are not feasible to solve Turkey's longstanding internal political conflicts.
Despite these positive trend in Turkey, a sudden u-turn seen in recent years on the side of the AKP who was the leading political actor of Turkey's democratization and European integration. First steps of deterioration started with the Gezi Protests that was against construction of a shopping mall in Taksim. The President Erdogan preferred using securitization rhetoric towards the protesters not only suppress the demostrations but also mobilize his followers for upcoming elections. His securitization rhetoric worked well to end protests, however, it created divergence in Turkish society who are with the Erdogan and who are against him. As Erdogan and his advisors realized the securitization rhetoric brings considerable support from their constituents, they relied on this strategy more on to govern the country. Then it became a routine political maneuver of the President Erdogan for every political matter both in Turkey and abroad.
Even though this strategy was useful against secular voters who will never vote to the AKP, no body in Erdogan's advisory team assumed that securitization rhetoric will also target its conservative voters. Especially, after the bloody coup attempt in July 15, fight against the FETÖ also began to target many AKP voters due to this strategy is implemented unproportionally and recklessly. Currently, many constitutes who voted for the AKP began to feel alienated due to they became targets of this securitization rhetoric. If President Erdogan and his team will insist on carrying this strategy, more AKP constitutes will distance themselves in the near future from their party.
Using securitization rhetoric rather than relying on diplomatic channels is also began to deteriorate Turkey's international relations with its neighborhood. Threatening its international partners seems very attractive in recent years for Turkish politicians for domestic mobilization. However, false and unrealistic threat of sanctions are undermining reliability of Turkish Governments on the eyes of their international counterparts. It creates feeling on international society that Turkish accusations and threats are weak and hollow. This also undermines Turkey's regional power image and it's bargaining power when it comes to negotiate with the countries who get into a brawl with Turkey.
In consideration of rising trend of securitization rhetoric by many world leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders should not let Turkish Political Leaders to fall in this trap. In order to use securitization, politicians using this tool must know that whether they can cope with their economic and security problems on their own or with other partners. If the answer is no, securitization is not good strategy for them.
As a final note, securitization is also double edge sword that can turn against the politicians who are using it. Relying on securitization may create an angry crowd which cannot be controlled by its leaders in the long run. This securitization rhetoric may target their politicians if their rhetoric cannot satisfy the audience. Therefore, Turkish authorities should reconsider using securitization strategy for every political matter in Turkey. This might be tempting for now in upcoming referendum. However, the audience grown up with this rhetoric may ask sacrifice of their leaders when they are not satisfied with their leaders rational choices.
Comments