• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Marc Pierini"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Turkey’s Transformation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "EP",
  "programs": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Europe",
    "Türkiye",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

Behind the Diplomatic Spat: A Stark Choice for Turkish Voters

The Turkish leadership and several EU governments are currently in the middle of a diplomatic spat of rare magnitude.

Link Copied
By Marc Pierini
Published on Mar 21, 2017

Source: NRC Handelsblad

The Turkish leadership and several EU governments are currently in the middle of a diplomatic spat of rare magnitude. But the real challenge is the outcome of the April 16th referendum.

Hurling bad words for a reason

The reason for Ankara’s fiercely nationalist and hostile narrative is well known. The ruling AKP is not unanimous about a “yes” vote on April 16th. Worse, its ally the nationalist party MHP is leaning toward a “no”. As AKP leaders fear they will lose this crucial referendum, every vote counts. To ramp up the nationalist narrative, European electoral campaigns provide a battleground of choice.

The sad irony of the situation is that, while opponents to the AKP draft constitution cannot campaign freely in Turkey (some are in jail and freedom of expression is severely restricted under the state of emergency), EU governments are asked that a one-man-rule constitution which contradicts EU principles be promoted on European soil.

Europeans have clearly said that terms such as “excuses”, “sanctions”, “banana republic”, “fascist”, “supporter of terrorism” and “Nazi” are utterly unacceptable. No one should be surprised that Ankara has engineered negative unanimity among EU leaders and citizens. Yet, despite the Europe-wide outrage, the deluge of criticisms from Ankara should be met with dignified silence. It, after all, reflects primarily Ankara’s deep fear of losing a crucial vote on April 16th.

The EU was painfully constructed in the past 67 years from the devastation left by war, ethnic cleansing, racism and the Nazi rulers. For my generation of Europeans, hurling the word “Nazi” at German and Dutch leaders hurts deeply, it negates the values and principles on which the entire European Union was built. And despite the many EU woes, because of our own dreadful populists, these values and principles remain very dear to hundreds of millions of us, including many Turks who have become citizens of our countries. The Turkish leadership is ill-advised to criticize these principles for its own electoral gains.

A sober analysis

Let’s remember that, in 2004, Turkey had embarked upon a journey to be part of the liberal democratic system governing EU countries. Later, it gradually distanced itself from its core principles as soon as they appeared to be impediments to the absolute power structure sought by the AKP leadership, especially after the direct presidential election of August 2014.

What is now at stake should be named: the one-man-rule system with no checks and balances and no rule-of-law presented to the voters in the April 16th referendum is undemocratic and EU-incompatible. It will estrange Turkey from the democratic world and will put the accession process on hold until better times.

This is not about a Turkey-EU marriage turned bitter, it is a fundamental watershed. Turkey’s ruling party has been unable to implement a religious-conservative political and societal revolution through democratic means in the past 14 years for the simple reason that the Turkish society’s diversity is immensely resilient. It now seeks do so through a new constitution introducing an authoritarian presidential system where coexistence of different lifestyles will have no place. This is a stark choice for Turkish voters to make.

Life after the battle of words

Many policymakers are asking how the EU should reorganize its relationship with Turkey in this difficult context. Cutting off relations if indeed not an option, but there are other avenues.

The strong EU-Turkey trade, direct investment and technology relationship should continue for a simple reason: the EU represents 50% of Turkey’s total external trade and 75% of Foreign Direct Investment inflows (and the associated technology). The EU-Turkey Customs Union has brought immense benefits for both sides: it brought Turkey’s industry up to EU standards and integrated it in major production networks (Fiat, Ford, Renault) while the European counterparts benefitted from a dynamic workforce, a commitment to excellence and cheaper production costs. The Customs Union should be modernized in the coming months and years and may even become the centerpiece of EU-Turkish relations.

This will usher in a more transactional relationship, where the goal of aligning Turkey on the EU’s rule of law architecture may be definitively lost. Those citizens of Turkey who aspired to adhering to a European-style liberal democratic system will feel left alone, which will constitute a considerable political loss for the European Union.

Ultimately, there is a simple bottom line: the future of Turkey squarely belongs to those voting in the April 16th referendum. If these voters choose to adopt a one-man-rule system, it is their prerogative, but predictably Western democracies will frown and the Turkish Lira will plunge. If they don’t, it will be the responsibility of the Turkish leadership to go back to a properly working parliamentary system as per the existing constitution. The third possibility, i.e. a cancellation or postponement of the referendum, now rumored because the “no” vote may win, would represent the ultimate denial of democracy.

This article was originally published in Dutch by NRC Handelsblad.

About the Author

Marc Pierini

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Pierini is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, where his research focuses on developments in the Middle East and Turkey from a European perspective.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for Europe

      Marc Pierini

  • Other
    Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy
      • Cecily Brewer
      • +18

      James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …

Marc Pierini
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Marc Pierini
Foreign PolicyPolitical ReformDemocracyEuropeTürkiyeMiddle EastIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?

    The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By Date

    Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle East

    The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer Market

    The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s Expense

    Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.

      Serik Beysembaev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.