Muslim World Report

Europe's Troubling Support for Turkey's Authoritarian Regime

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 1, 2025 10:33 AM | 9 min read | 1853 words

TL;DR

European support for Turkey’s authoritarian regime under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan raises ethical concerns as it contradicts stated commitments to democratic values and human rights. The relationship prioritizes geopolitical interests over democratic ideals, risking regional instability and public disillusionment across Europe. This post explores the complexities of European-Turkish relations, potential consequences of continued authoritarianism, and the imperative for a principled shift towards support for democratic reforms in Turkey.

The Complicity of European Powers in Turkey’s Autocracy

The recent condemnation by Kemal Ozel, the leader of Turkey’s Republican People’s Party (CHP), of European support for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s regime serves as a significant wake-up call for international observers. Ozel’s remarks illuminate the troubling dynamics between European governments and an increasingly authoritarian Turkey, a nation that has seen a dramatic erosion of democratic norms under Erdogan’s leadership. As Erdogan consolidates power, suppresses dissent, and undermines critical institutions, European leaders remain entangled with a government that contradicts the very values they claim to champion. This situation poses a dual crisis for:

  • Turkish citizens clamoring for democratic reforms
  • European states reconciling their foreign policies with their professed commitment to human rights and democratic governance (Esen & Gümüşçü, 2016; Gümüşçü, 2010).

European nations have increasingly tacitly endorsed Erdogan’s regime, prioritizing geopolitical expediency over democratic ideals. This support is often justified through a lens of strategic interests, including:

  • Management of the ongoing refugee crisis
  • Maintenance of a regional buffer against instability

Such alignments reflect a broader pattern of what has been termed “authoritarian developmentalism,” where the rhetoric of reform and stability masks a troubling complicity in authoritarian governance (Müftüler-Baç, 2005; Arsel et al., 2021). The implications of this complicity extend well beyond Turkey’s borders; it raises profound questions about the legitimacy of European governments. Public sentiment across the continent has become increasingly disillusioned with political leaders who seem to prioritize strategic alliances over fundamental human rights. Citizens are calling for accountability from their governments. The dichotomy of supporting authoritarianism in Turkey while promoting democratic values elsewhere is becoming increasingly untenable (Esen & Gümüşçü, 2018).

This complicity carries significant ramifications, particularly as Turkey’s authoritarian practices contribute to regional instability. Erdogan’s regime exacerbates tensions with neighboring countries, inflates migration crises, and undermines the prospects for democratic transitions in other Middle Eastern nations. The moral and political consequences for Europe could be dire; does Europe wish to be viewed as a bastion of democracy, or will it accept complicity in the erosion of these values for the sake of strategic advantage? The challenge is not merely one of moral standing but of navigating a complex geopolitical landscape that increasingly pits authoritarian stability against democratic aspirations.

Understanding the Current Climate

At the core of this crisis is the ongoing repression within Turkey, where political dissent is increasingly silenced. Journalists, academics, and activists face harassment, imprisonment, or worse as part of a broad campaign against dissent. The judiciary has been weaponized against political opponents, reinforcing a system that prioritizes Erdogan’s grip on power over justice and accountability (Guriev & Treisman, 2019). The international community’s reaction—or lack thereof—to these developments plays a crucial role in shaping both domestic and foreign perceptions of Erdogan’s regime.

The erosion of democratic structures in Turkey is mirrored by the responses from European states. Rather than standing in solidarity with those advocating for democracy, many European nations have favored a relationship characterized by expediency. This pattern raises the question: What if European nations pivoted towards a more solidarity-based approach? Such a shift could fundamentally alter the dynamics of both Turkish politics and international relations between Turkey and Europe, potentially reigniting hope among the Turkish populace.

What If Erdogan’s Regime Further Tightens Its Grip?

Should Erdogan’s regime continue to tighten its authoritarian grip, the consequences could extend far beyond Turkish borders, creating a volatile environment for both governance in Turkey and European relations. The suppression of dissent, manipulation of the judiciary, and imprisonment of opposition leaders could escalate, posing severe tests for civil society resilience (Guriev & Treisman, 2019). Such conditions could lead to widespread unrest, reminiscent of the Gezi Park protests of 2013, fueled by years of accumulated frustration stemming from oppression (İpek Göçmen, 2014).

However, if the international community responds as it has in the past—with appeasement rather than meaningful actions—it risks further entrenching Erdogan’s power and exacerbating the repression of dissent. The implications for the European Union (EU) in this scenario would be dire. Supporting a regime increasingly hostile to democratic ideals could alienate European citizens who feel their governments have compromised their values.

What if, in this spiraling scenario of repression, the EU adopts a more hands-off approach, leading to greater instability? The results could be catastrophic—not only for Turkey’s internal situation but also for the EU, as a refugee influx would challenge its immigration policies and border control systems (Cengiz, 2014). The evolving migratory patterns could exacerbate nationalistic sentiments within EU member states, potentially leading to increased political fragmentation.

This scenario is not merely hypothetical; it mirrors the difficulties faced by European nations during the Arab Spring, where the consequences of disengagement led to a series of crises with far-reaching implications. In such a context, does Europe risk becoming introspective, focusing on border security while neglecting the ethical imperatives of foreign policy?

What If European Powers Shift Their Stance?

Conversely, if European powers were to reevaluate their positions and adopt a more principled stance towards Erdogan’s regime, the potential for positive change could emerge. A shift towards demanding measurable democratic reforms as a condition for any partnership would resonate with Turkish citizens, who have long awaited tangible support from Europe in their struggle for reform (Huq & Ginsburg, 2017). This proactive stance would require European leaders to prioritize human rights and democratic values in their foreign policy framework, moving away from an overly transactional approach. Such a commitment could rekindle faith among the populace in both Turkey and Europe as advocates for democracy.

However, this approach would not be without risks. Straining relations with Erdogan could provoke retaliatory measures, leveraging issues such as migration as bargaining chips (Şule Toktaş & Ümit Kurt, 2010). The potential unraveling of Turkey’s already precarious internal situation could result in a backlash, leading to heightened repression or violent crackdowns on dissent, complicating Turkey’s fraught relationships with various regional actors (Rogenhofer & Panievsky, 2020).

Imagining a scenario where European powers start to leverage their economic and political ties to incentivize democratic reforms could create a more favorable environment for political change in Turkey. This shift could involve:

  • Fostering civil society engagement
  • Providing support for independent media and human rights organizations
  • Facilitating dialogue between the government and opposition figures

Such efforts would require significant commitment and patience but could ultimately yield dividends by empowering democratic forces within Turkey.

Moreover, a shift in European policy could have implications for Turkey’s foreign relations, potentially altering Erdogan’s approach to regional geopolitics. The necessity to project an image of strength could compel him to recalibrate his strategies, opening the door for negotiation and compromise with opposition forces.

The Broader Impact of Governance in Turkey

The implications of continued authoritarianism in Turkey extend into the realm of international relations, notably in how countries engage with one another. Erdogan’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy, exemplified by military interventions in neighboring countries and an assertive stance in international diplomacy, reflects a regime keen to project power while grappling with domestic discontent. The interplay of internal repression and external aggression creates a complex scenario for the European Union, which must balance its responses to both Erdogan’s domestic policies and his regional aspirations.

What if Turkey’s antagonistic posture continues unchecked? Regional actors could find themselves drawn into conflict due to Erdogan’s aggressive policies, leading to destabilization across the Middle East. This possibility compels European nations to reconsider their strategic partnerships, forcing a reevaluation of how best to engage with a Turkey that is seemingly at odds with the very principles of democratic governance.

In this context, the EU’s role as a mediator or a facilitator of dialogue could become critical. Rethinking diplomatic strategies to not only halt Turkey’s authoritarian drift but also to stabilize the broader region is a challenge that European leaders must confront. Should they fail to navigate these complicated waters, they risk alienating their own citizens and contributing to a broader cycle of instability that could reverberate across Europe.

The Complex Landscape of Turkish and European Relations

Navigating the complex landscape of Turkish and European relations demands strategic maneuvering from all parties involved. For Ozel and the CHP, advocating for democratic reforms should be accompanied by grassroots mobilization to garner broader support within Turkey. This dual approach would send a clear message to the Erdogan regime that opposition remains robust while simultaneously pressing European leaders toward a more principled stance.

European leaders, in turn, must confront the uncomfortable reality of their complicity. They should leverage their economic and political ties to incentivize democratic reforms while anticipating potential pushback from Erdogan’s regime (Yavuz, 2004). Such actions could include conditionality clauses in trade agreements prioritizing human rights, alongside diplomatic measures that express solidarity with Turkish civil society.

Fortunately, the shifting political tides provide an opportunity for a reimagined coalition among regional actors to engage with the discourse surrounding Erdogan’s authoritarianism. By fostering collaborative efforts focused on promoting democratic governance, states can bolster collective resistance against autocracy and deliver a potent message to Erdogan.

The strategic interests of European nations are at a crossroads; while they pursue stability and strategic partnerships, they must also grapple with the ethical dimensions of their choices. The European response to Turkey’s evolving landscape is indicative of a larger struggle within the international community: the tension between maintaining pragmatic relationships and advocating for the essential tenets of democracy and human rights.

As the world watches, the stakes remain high. A failure to navigate this intricate path could lead to deeper complicity in authoritarian governance, with dire consequences for both Turkish citizens and European integrity on the global stage. The potential scenarios outlined here reveal the delicate balance of power, moral obligations of international actors, and the far-reaching ramifications of their choices.

References

← Prev Next →