Demarcating Political Frontiers in Turkey: Discourses and ‗Europe-As-Hegemony‘ After 1999
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEMARCATING POLITICAL FRONTIERS IN TURKEY: DISCOURSES AND ‗EUROPE-AS-HEGEMONY‘ AFTER 1999 by BAŞAK ALPAN Department of Political Science and International Studies The University of Birmingham April 2010 I University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract: In this study, departing from a more general concern with understanding how political frontiers are demarcated in Turkish politics, I aim to show how ‗Europe‘ contributed to such a process of constructing political frontiers during the 1999-2008 period. Rather than looking at the debates on ‗Europe‘ within the Turkish political landscape through a pro- vs. anti- Europe bifurcation, I attempt to see the discourses through the lens of ‗hegemony‘. By using Laclau- Mouffean discourse analysis, starting from 1999, I argue that discourses on ‗Europe‘ were able to hegemonise Turkish political debates and thereby demarcate the political frontiers that constituted that debate which started to change when discourses began to be substituted by different antagonisms, political frontiers and therefore modes of sustaining hegemony. Keywords: Discourse theory, hegemony, Europeanisation, Europe, Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Turkish politics II To people of Turkey, who deserve the best stories and laughters… ―Gülmek bir halk gülüyorsa gülmektir‖ Edip Cansever III ACKNOWLEDGEMENT People usually liken the Ph. D. process to a journey; for me it is rather like adolescence- it is painful, it is necessary, you‘d never be the same person after that, and people around might make it less painful for you..if you are lucky...I think I was one of the lucky ones to have a long list of these people around me throughout my life in Birmingham. Thomas Diez deserves to be the first person in this list. With his academic brilliance and fascinating analytical skills, he is an important milestone in my academic venture (any black list words in this sentence Thomas?). I am now an addict of his eloquent criticisms in his own German way, and a big fan of traditional Diez hospitality by the Diez family, including Inga Diez and Lucas Diez. I was also lucky to have one of the sharpest political scientists of the British academy, Colin Hay on board for two years and could benefit from his genius, which is very much appreciated. David Bailey, although he is a late comer to my Ph.D process, became an important asset for my Ph.D. with his smart comments and has always gave tremendous academic and humane support. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank Chris Rumford and Laura Shepherd for their corrections and precious comments during the examination process. My thesis would be next to nothing without their contributions. This acknowledgment would be incomplete without thanking Tanja Hillberg for her existence in my life. I would not be as sane (well, that‘s debatable...) without her who always stabilised me and balanced my delirious restlessness. We laughed, cried, got witty and grumpy together, but most important of all, we learned how to cope with life as it is. And, I am sure we will continue to learn. I would not be able to survive in my final year if I did not have my dear flatmates, Barbara Morazzani and Asmaa Salman with me. Without bottles of wine consumed with Barbara while watching ‗Friends‘, and long reflection conversations with Asmaa, I‘d probably be lost-I love you the queens of Hubert Mansion!!! Actually, all POLSIS people made my life more enjoyable and funny. I am so happy to have known Linda Ahall, Liam Clegg, Rachel Davies, Laurence Cooley, Osman Hassan, David Norman, Ben Taylor, Caroline Kenny, Ken Searle, Oscar Pardo, Flor Gonzales, Ivan Farias and Mike Adkins, who saved me from having a nervous breakdown on my thesis submission day. I can never forget the moments I shared with Ioanna Kotsani, Özlem Katısöz, Yeşim Ölçer, Alper Kaliber, Esra Kaliber, Doğa İstanbulluoğlu, Dicle Dövencioğlu, Ali Kemal Yenidünya, Eleftherios Plakidis and Yiannis Koutsonas who made my Ph.D life more bearable and enjoyable (let‘s finish the metaxa!!!). I also would like to thank Mustafa Kemal Bayırbag and Berkay Ayhan for their comments for the earlier versions of this thesis. The queen of the politics department at METU, Hacer Fidan cannot go unnamed here who made this world a better place with her patience and kindness. Any other page of acknowledgement is needed to express my gratitude to my beloved friends, Ümit Sönmez and Merve Özbalcı, who never gave up encouraging me and increasing my belief in goodness, virtue and friendship in the world. My indebtedness to IV my family is too deep to mention here and their endless love is the most precious thing I have in life. Throughout this venture of 5 years, I was extremely lucky to have all these named and unnamed people and serendipitous encounters in my life that made me who I am. I wish they will still be a part of my story. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 Roads and stories ...................................................................................................................... 1 The thesis: a summary of the project ................................................................................. 4 The contribution of the project ........................................................................................... 5 Limitations of the project .................................................................................................... 7 Scope of the project .............................................................................................................. 9 Analytical toolkit ................................................................................................................ 10 Theoretical framework....................................................................................................... 12 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12 Locating the thesis within the field: engagement with the relevant disciplinary literature…………………………………………………………………………………..13 Reflexivity of the project: Dialogue with the Europeanisation literature.....................18 Thesis outline………………………………………………………………………….......19 Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………………………….23 Europeanisation literature and the use of ‘Europe’ at the domestic level ........................ 23 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 23 2. The evolution of the Europeanisation literature: from European integration studies to enlargement .................................................................................................................... 31 3. Europeanisation: neither a camel nor a bird ............................................................... 36 4. ‘Europeanisation’ as a misfit between the domestic and European levels ................ 40 5. Europeanisation literature and its references to political frontiers and discourses . 42 6. Europeanisation literature and Turkey ........................................................................ 44 7.Earlier Criticisms of the Europeanisation Literature.……………………………….47 8. Recent Criticisms of the Europeanisation Literature: a Possible Dialogue with Discourse Theory? ................................................................................................................. 49 9. Conclusion: why Europeanisation literature? ............................................................. 55 Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................. 57 Different theoretical perspectives on discourses on ‘Europe’ and political frontiers: pitfalls and inputs ................................................................................................................... 57 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 57 2. ‘Is discourse what we make of it’?: Social constructivism and the discourses on ‘Europe’ ............................................................................................................................... 59 2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 59 2.2. Main premises of social constructivism ......................................................................... 61 2.3. ‘The political’ in the social constructivist account ....................................................... 65 3. Structuralism, post structuralism and discourse theory: what purchase for understanding political frontiers? ..................................................................................... 67 3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................