How to Analyze the Complexity of Turkish Foreign Policy-Making? – Özgür Özdamar

---

Scholars studying Turkey’s foreign affairs have traditionally taken historical and case-study approaches to analyze Turkish foreign policy (TFP). These studies have usually taken actor-general approaches in which Turkey is treated as a unitary actor with a single choice of foreign policy course representing ‘the national interest’. These studies have usually taken the form of policy-oriented work with an atheoretical approach.

Some
other traditional studies have used International Relations (IR) theories in a
non-hypothesis-testing manner to account for Turkey’s foreign policy. These
studies, mostly claiming to use a ‘political realist’ framework, used
theoretical approaches in a rather ‘loose’ manner, only employing them as a ‘framework
for analysis’ rather than empirically testing specific hypotheses. These
studies also focused only on the systemic level of analysis of Turkey’s
bilateral relations. Studies on Turkey’s foreign policy during the Cold War,
its decision to join NATO vis-a-vis Soviet threats, Turkey’s relations with the
EU, or its bilateral relations with Greece are primary examples of this type of
research.

These
studies dominated the literature on Turkey’s foreign policy, especially during
the Cold War. However, with the end of the Cold War, we also observed other
actors becoming relevant in Turkish foreign policymaking, including the
bureaucracy, civil society, and individuals, in addition to the traditional
political and military elite. This was a development similar to the rest of the
world. The democratization and opening of the political regime in Turkey during
the 1990s have shaped the actual foreign policy decision-making and the studies
attempting to explain it. In this period, we observed the first kind of studies
establishing linkages between domestic factors such as public opinion and
Turkey’s relations with the EU.

Starting
from the early 2000s, the studies focusing on Turkey’s foreign policy had to consider
many other political, economic, and sociological factors due to the changing
nature of Turkish foreign policy under successive AKP governments, such as the influence
of trade coalitions and business interests. Especially in the post-2010 period,
Turkish foreign policy discussions focused almost solely on domestic and
individual level factors such as governing elite’s ideology, leader-level
factors, or the country’s shift from a parliamentary to a presidential system
and institutional changes accompanying it.  

My
suggestion for students of TFP studies to better explain the complexity of
Turkey’s foreign policy is to take a ‘foreign policy analysis’ or ‘foreign
policy decision-making’ approach. I believe such an approach to TFP studies is
warranted for many reasons. First, studies focusing on Turkey’s foreign
relations should take into account all three traditional levels of analysis in
IR. That is, TFP studies must consider the individual level decision-making
factors and state level (domestic level) political, economic, and social
factors beyond the system level explanations. Any study excluding the other two
levels of analysis is bound to be misleading. In other words, I invite students
of Turkish foreign policy to engage in multi-factorial, multi-level analysis in
their work, creatively connecting micro-level and macro-level factors. Relatedly,
TFP studies should also shift from actor-general to actor-specific analyses. In
our analyses, we should eliminate heuristics such as ‘state’ and recognize that
various factors contribute to foreign policy decision-making within any given
state, including Turkey.

Furthermore,
TFP studies should eliminate gross generalizations and abstractions in the
forms of IR theories such as polarity, distribution of power and capabilities,
international regimes, or social structures of IR but focus on what we call
mid-range theories and aim for mid-level generalizations. Therefore, focusing
on the agency instead of the structure is paramount. In addition, Turkish
foreign policy studies must take the course of empirical analyses. Training our
students and academics toward using objectively collected data to make
inferences about foreign policy decision making should be the preferred way to study
Turkish foreign policy.

Specifically,
I invite students of TFP to focus on leader level variables such as individual
decision-making, leaders’ beliefs and personality traits, decision-making
models and constraints on human decision-making and cognition, rationality and
boundedness of rational decision-making, psycho-biographies, and pathologies of
leaders. In addition, focusing on small-group decision-making and the limitations
of such a decision-making environment is essential. Especially after the 2017 constitutional
referendum and shift to the presidential system, individual and small-group
decision making dynamics have become even more critical.

At
the domestic level of analysis, there are countless factors, the influence of
which we can study on TFP. The most relevant ones seem to be ideological and
ideational factors, especially those related to faith, religion, ethnicity, and
nationalism. Effects of a political party system, parliamentary politics, and
opposition appear as essential variables. Elite level conceptualizations of
Turkey’s foreign policy roles and the conflict and contestation about those
roles constitute an important area of study. Public opinion on foreign policy
initiatives of governments, especially on important issues like the use of
force abroad, foreign aid, refugees, and MENA politics, come next. Other
research areas include economic factors, trade policy and coalitions, the business
world, and foreign policy. Studying the role of civilian, military, and
intelligence bureaucracy in Turkish foreign policy decision making is also a
major area of study.

To
conclude, understanding and explaining the complexities of Turkish foreign
policy is not an easy task and requires immense effort and training. Focusing
on all three levels of analysis (system, state, and individual) and making the
necessary connections between those factors objectively and empirically is
required. A commitment to the agent-based study of decision-making is needed to
create realistic analyses. Opening the ‘black box of state’ and daring to
account for multiple factors shaping foreign policy decision-making is of the greatest
importance. Using mid-range theories to make mid-level generalizations and
explanations of Turkish foreign policy in an empirical manner is the way
forward for TFP studies.

---

---

To cite this work: Özgür Özdamar , “THow to Analyze the Complexity of Turkish Foreign Policy-Making?”, Panorama, Online, 10 June 2023, https://www.uikpanorama.com/blog/2023/06/10/oo-2/

---

Copyright@UIKPanorama. All on-line and print rights reserved. Opinions expressed in works published by the Panorama belongs to the authors alone unless otherwise stated, and do not imply endorsement by the IRCT, Global Academy, or the Editors/Editorial Board of Panorama.