Why is the West’s criticism of the AK Party not influential?

The position of Turkey remains on the agenda due to uncertainty in the Middle East and its chaotic future, thanks to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), as well as the political, economic and social issues in the EU. When the Ukraine issue and Russia's convergence with Turkey are added, it is evident that the EU has to develop a specific strategy regarding Turkey since Turkey is still the only stable country in the region, and preventing risks that endanger that stability will favor everyone. Therefore the democracy and freedom urges of the EU authorities are not very surprising at all. But they are also required to be "listenable," which means they should be convincing. Otherwise, the majority of Turkish citizens interpret such urges from the West as manipulative, forcing the prestige of Western politicians to decline each day.

It should be primarily emphasized that the EU still refuses to take the steps to invite Turkey to reform the fields that the EU complains about. As the subject that gets the most amount of criticism is the situation of the jurisdiction and police, the EU, which defends the operation of these institutions in accordance with democratic norms, should have opened the 23rd and 24th chapters so far. The criticism loses its value because EU authorities criticize without performing their duties.

Second of all, it is crucial to base these criticisms on the observations and findings of recognized institutions. For instance, it is obvious that an evaluation based on a report from Freedom House would not be respected. For someone who knows Turkey, it is really hard to take the evaluation aspects of this institution seriously. We are confronted with a political manipulation targeting Turkey rather than an objective effort. Most of the data used is false or partial. And the comments are vulgar. We might not find this odd as much if we consider this institution's foreign affairs and neo-con affinities and the fact that it is financed by the U.S. government to a great extent. Also keep in mind that many administrators in it have direct CIA origins. But we naturally find it odd when we see that the EU authorities "miss" these facts intentionally or unintentionally.

Thirdly, a criticism must be fair in order to be listened to. Unfortunately, the EU authorities cannot get rid of the habit of resorting to the easiest way out. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government had to take non-democratic steps on many subjects. On the other hand, this party is still contending with various plots that have been organized to overthrow the government for 13 years. What needs to be said to the government is simple: "We see that you are threatened and you are required to take measures, but it is not right for you to act like this since more democratic methods are also possible. " However, the West says: "There is no evident threat but you act like you aspire to be a dictator."

Frankly, the majority of the Turkish people find this Western view biased, superficial and quite stupid because it is not likely that the Western diplomats and politicians will be familiar with a reality we already know well. When the current tension between identities is considered, the idea that this perspective reflects anti-Turkey behavior is spreading. Thus, the gap between Turkey and the EU is growing wider.

Interestingly, those who wish to join the EU still outnumber those who do not; and the AK Party voters are still the most willing group to be a EU member. Europe has already lost Turkey when it lost the AK Party, but seemingly Europe has difficulty in managing a political leadership that could comprehend this fact for a long time.