How Davutoglu helped shape Erdogan’s Turkiye but failed to challenge it | Politics
Ahmet Davutoglu Withdraws from Turkish Politics After a Controversial Career
Ahmet Davutoglu, a prominent Turkish politician and academic, has announced that his opposition party, the Future Party, will cease all political activities, marking his withdrawal from party politics. Once a key architect of Turkey’s foreign policy and a close ally of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Davutoglu has become a vocal critic of the political system he helped establish. He described his decision not as a retreat but an attempt to distance himself from what he termed Turkey’s “polluted political climate.”
Davutoglu’s departure leaves a complex legacy as an intellectual who redefined Turkey’s diplomatic strategy but struggled to create a sustainable political movement.
Academic Roots and Diplomatic Ambitions
Born in 1959 in Taskent, located in central Turkey’s Konya province, Davutoglu pursued his studies in economics and political science at Bogazici University, later becoming a respected academic. He taught in Malaysia and at Turkish universities, where he earned the affectionate nickname “Hoca,” meaning “teacher.”
Davutoglu rose to prominence with his “strategic depth” doctrine, which argued that Turkey’s unique geography and historical ties could elevate it to a pivotal diplomatic role, transcending its European boundaries. Following the accession of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to power in 2002, he became Erdogan’s chief foreign policy adviser, stepping into the role of foreign minister in 2009 and entering parliament in 2011.
During his tenure, Turkey expanded its diplomatic footprint, establishing new embassies and promoting trade and cooperation with neighboring countries under the policy dubbed “zero problems with neighbors.” This approach prioritized dialogue across diverse regional actors, leading to what Davutoglu termed “rhythmic diplomacy.”
However, contentious events such as the Arab Spring, particularly the ongoing conflict in Syria, challenged his vision. Turkey’s support for the Syrian opposition did not yield the expected results, leading to significant instability and humanitarian crises.
A Leadership Role Amidst Contradictions
In 2014, when Erdogan transitioned from prime minister to president, he appointed Davutoglu as his successor. However, this arrangement resulted in inherent contradictions within Turkey’s political framework. Although Davutoglu officially led the AKP and the government, Erdogan maintained significant influence over party affairs and the push for an executive presidential system.
Davutoglu navigated the AKP through two elections in 2015, regaining parliamentary majority but failing to establish a solid independent power base. Disagreements regarding governance and appointments culminated in his resignation as prime minister in 2016. He remained with the AKP for three additional years before founding the Future Party in 2019.
Challenges for the Future Party
The Future Party aimed to attract conservative voters disillusioned with Erdogan’s leadership, promoting parliamentary democracy and accountability. However, it struggled to gain traction and failed to develop substantial electoral support. Analysts highlighted the systemic challenges opposing parties face in Turkey, where state resources and control over media heavily favor the ruling party.
Political scientist Berk Esen noted that Davutoglu’s party was hampered by internal divisions, particularly when he and former AKP member Ali Babacan established separate opposition parties. The Future Party’s candidates were later integrated into the lists of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) during the 2023 elections, exposing its reliance on a larger political entity.
Critics, including Celenk, argued that the Future Party became “stuck in the past,” lacking a coherent identity while Davutoglu’s contributions to Turkish conservative thought were not adequately recognized by his peers.
Reflections on Legacy and Future
As he exits the political arena, analysts express skepticism about Davutoglu’s potential to influence Turkish politics while Erdogan remains in power. Nonetheless, they acknowledged the relevance of Davutoglu’s critiques regarding the state of Turkish politics, recognizing the authoritarian trends and challenges faced under the current government.
Davutoglu’s departure signifies not only the closing chapter of his political career but also prompts ongoing discussions about the ideas and diplomatic strategies he advocated. Despite failing to establish the conservative democratic alternative he envisioned, some of his principles may endure, ensuring that debates about his legacy continue beyond his exit from active politics.
