Search

The initial optimism on the revival of civic activism in Turkey following the Gezi protests in 2013 was short-lived. The deteriorating legal and political environment has considerably narrowed the ...

Some elements of EU assistance to the countries of MENA have become more politicized in recent years. This is largely because sharper differences of opinion have emerged over EU funds being used to limit migration and for security aims. Contestation has intensified horizontally between different EU institutions and European governments. However, this politicization varies across different policy areas and different parts of the MENA region, and in some instances remains relatively muted. After outlining the general increase in salience and wider institutional engagement; we then contrast this with the more measured increase in the third dimension of politicization, namely polarization over the EU's MENA aid policies. We offer three examples of the way that internal policy-making dynamics have softened polarization and discuss implications for the broader analysis of EU foreign and security policy. We conclude that different kinds of dynamics both drive and limit politicization within the EU's external policies.

Despite growing critical literature on external funding, the link between EU funding to Turkish civil society organisations (CSOs) and their depoliticisation remains understudied. This article fills this gap. This article explores EU funds in Turkey and shows the incentives it creates for a depoliticised civil society. Drawing on an original set of interviews with 45 CSOs, this article analyses how Turkish CSOs interact with EU funding and how this support impacts on Turkish civil society. This article argues that EU funding's short-term, activity-based, measurable outcome and visibility-oriented structure contributed to the depoliticisation of those CSOs benefited from EU funds.

The EU’s entangled relationship with Turkey and its future direction has been puzzling many scholars and policymakers alike for some time now. On the one hand, the multi-layered relations are inext...

A new form of civic activism is taking root in many countries, which diverge from traditional civic actors with their structural and membership patterns. This article focuses on the relationship between the new and the traditional civic actors in Turkey, investigates the alliances established between them and discusses how these alliances contribute to civic activism. The discussions in this article are informed by existing conceptual debate in the literature on alliances. This article contributes to this literature by showing how the respective strengths of the new and the traditional activists complement each other. New civic activists’ closer ties to grassroots and their flexible organizational structure allow for quick reaction, more visibility and legitimacy. Traditional civic actors complement this with their stable structure that enables them to sustain their campaigns, engage in and follow up the legal struggles and act as a transmission belt to relations with public institutions and governance.

The professionalization effect of foreign funding is one of the prominent issues in the critical literature on donor/recipient relations. Despite growing attention on this topic, the link between European Union (EU) funding to Turkish civil society organizations (CSOs) and their professionalization remain understudied. This article fills this gap. Drawing on an original set of interviews with leaders of 45 CSOs in Turkey, this article finds that EU-funded projects have not led to the professionalization of Turkish CSOs. This article suggests several reasons for this and also discusses the broader impact of EU funds in relation to CSO’s professionalization.

The twists and turns of Turkish foreign policy under Justice and Development Party (AKP) rule have been a matter of interest not only in the scholarly literature, but also in common discourse. This article traces the unfolding of this policy in Turkey’s neighbourhood and in relation to its quest for EU membership, particularly since 2006, and also discusses the milestones that have been shaping it. Drawing upon the categories of change Charles Hermann identified, this article illustrates the magnitude and direction of change in Turkish foreign policy during this period and critically evaluates its implications for this policy today.

‘Golden goose’ of European integration for some time now, EU’s civil society policy displays a vivid example during Turkey’s accession. This article queries the impact of this policy in the Turkish context, ultimately showing its limited extent on Turkish civil society organizations (CSOs) and illuminating its real constraints in the Turkish context. Drawing on interviews with CSOs, this article argues that the EU could not accomplish its expected objectives set within its civil society policy in Turkey due to its neo-Tocquevillian conceptualization that overlooks at the constraints on civil society actors and disregards civil society’s political nature and its CSOs’ autonomous character.

The renaissance of civil society during the late 1980s has entailed a resurgence of interest in this concept not only among political scientists and social theorists, but also among the political leaders of, and the activists in, newly democratizing countries. However, the growing body of literature in academic studies and the wide usage in political discourse of the concept of civil society thus far has mainly considered this concept from the angle of democratization and its promotion. Accordingly, the civil society debate has been restricted to the liberal-democratic context, within and for which the empowerment of civil society organizations is a dominant issue.

This chapter addresses how civil society organizations in Turkey respond to, and how the Turkish context mediates, the instruments of EU civil society policy by looking into the thematic field analyses of in-depth interviews conducted with civil society organizations and the transformation of the legal and institutional environment in Turkey.

Chapter 4 showed that the EU instruments have not always been successful in securing support for as well as interest in and involvement from civil society organizations in Turkey’s accession to the EU. Furthermore, the impact of these instruments on strengthening civil society organizations and improving the environment within which they operate has been rather limited. Hence, with their unexpected and controversial results, these instruments have, to a large extent, failed to serve the purposes set out by EU civil society policy. Having shown the troubles of EU civil society policy and its instruments, the question remains as to what is wrong with this policy. This book suggests two interrelated reasons, which are elaborated in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.

The European Union (EU) has long recognized the importance of civil society and has increasingly been interacting with key civil society actors in EU member states by means of their active participation in EU institutions. Recently, however, the EU has begun to acknowledge civil society as a main element of its enlargement strategy and, accordingly, has been developing what I call a ‘civil society policy’.