Replicating Favorable Economies and the “Turkish Model”
Strategic political decisions made on behalf of a country do not come from random ideas, but rather analysis based on the decisions and consequences of decisions made by other countries. When one country implements certain political polities that make it successful, it makes sense to want to harness that same success by replicating their system. Even though replicating a political system that works for one country in another country may seem smart, this act of “total replication” is simply not possible. Turkey, modern example of a country that was sought out to be replicated, shows why this is true. Because Turkey was able for so many years to successfully bring their country to economic success with their democratic and secular government, other Middle Eastern countries saw their political system as a model. It is impossible to replicate favorable political systems because the history of countries are different, resulting in a different political culture, and because countries that seem to have found the solution to a working political system may fail or change in the long run.
One major reason that it is impossible for the favorable political system of one country to be placed in another is because of the differing political histories that countries have. Political culture is very important in being able to establish certain political structures, and is also based greatly in part by what has happened in the past. For example, Turkey has deep roots in secularism, while its surrounding Arab countries do not. This model of “moderate Islamism” that Turkey inhabits was brought about firstly by the creation of a republic by Mustafa Kemal in 1923 and has been backed militarily ever since. This early establishment of democracy shows how Turkey was far ahead of its neighbors at the time in creating a government that gave power to the people. In other countries that surround Turkey such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, this history of secular, democracy in the governments has not been present until recent years. In fact, Tunisia just recently was offered a chance to reform its political system as their dictator fell, in turn allowing the idea of a despotic regime to tumble. Because Tunisia does not have a history of being a secular democracy still rooted in Islamic culture, it will be hard for them to create what Turkey had been building up for decades. Countries that witnessed a recent governmental downfall such as Tunisia have turned to Turkey to understand how it was possible to run a economically successful and secular Arab country. However, this recreation of Turkey’s political system that these countries wished for so greatly could not be easily replicated as they did not share the same history and political culture as their neighbor.
Another reason why replicating a so-called “favorable” political system established in another country is not reasonable is the fact that these systems are not always bound to be favorable. Though Turkey for many years was envied by its Arab neighbors for having a great economy while maintaining a secular democracy, its economy and political system have hit a downhill run in recent times. The country has become substantially less financially and economically stable, resulting in an increasingly politically polarized nation. Turkey has also recently deteriorated its “model Muslim democracy” status by severing ties with Russia and virtually all of its Middle Eastern neighbors. This failure that Turkey faces today proves that perhaps their governmental system was not all what it seemed. Tunisia, a country in Northern Africa that just recently lost its authoritarian political system, is a country that chose to follow the “Turkish Model”. They created a new type of government that was both democratic and not politically Islam. Although Tunisia’s new government follows Turkey’s model of being both democratic and secular, it still proves to be different as it has yielded different current situations for the country. While Turkey is currently in economic and financial turmoil, Tunisia is arguably becoming more prosperous than it was previously, being the only country to emerge from the Arab Spring. Because the now-similar political systems of Turkey and Tunisia ahem yielded different results in recent years, it is clear that Tunisia’s goal of “replicating” Turkey’s political system did not actually put these countries in the same position.
However favorable a country’s political system may look, it is nearly impossible to replicate the system. Not only do countries share immensely different political histories, but the political culture that resides among the citizens of a nation shape how a country’s people respond to how decisions are made. This means that just because a system of government works well for one country, it will not necessarily work for another as political decisions should be carefully subjective to the problems of the country at hand. Also, what works for a country in the short run is not always successful in the long run. It is important to decide political decisions on the basis of the history of many political policies and outcomes across the world, instead of with one country. Of course, it is still a good idea to examine the positive political actions of countries in similar situations as your own to solve problems, but replicating their exact political system is simply not possible.
Works Cited
Kenyon, Peter. “The Turkish Model: Can it be Replicated?”. npr.org. Last modified January 6th, 2012. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144751851/the-turkish-model-can-it-be-replicated.
Malik, Adeel. “”Turkish Democracy’s Secret Weapon”. thedailystar.net. Last modified October 8th, 2016. http://www.thedailystar.net/op-ed/politics/turkish-democracys-secret-weapon-1262956.
Piser, Karina. “How Tunisia’s Islamists embraced Democracy”. foreignpoilcy.com. Last modified March 31st, 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/31/how-tunisias-islamists-embraced-democracy-ennahda/.
“The Turkish Model: A Hard Act to Follow.” economist.com. Last modified August 6th, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/21525408.
