How Davutoglu Helped Shape Erdogan’s Turkiye but Failed to Challenge It

Ahmet Davutoglu’s departure from party politics marks a significant moment in Turkey’s ongoing struggle for democracy. As the architect of Turkey’s ambitious foreign policy and a darling of conservative intellectual circles, Davutoglu’s legacy is complex and multifaceted.

Davutoglu’s impact on Turkish foreign policy was undeniable. His “strategic depth” doctrine, which posited that Turkey’s geography and history made it a central diplomatic power, offered a refreshing alternative to the country’s traditional Eurocentric approach. Under his guidance, Ankara expanded its presence in Africa and the Middle East, mediated regional disputes, and promoted trade and visa-free travel with neighboring countries.

This approach, dubbed “zero problems with neighbors,” was initially seen as a major success story for Turkey’s diplomatic culture. However, the Arab uprisings, particularly the war in Syria, exposed the limits of Davutoglu’s vision. Turkey’s support for the Syrian opposition and its anticipation that President Bashar al-Assad’s government would fall quickly proved to be misplaced.

The conflict brought mass displacement, security threats, and prolonged instability, forcing Davutoglu to confront the harsh realities of his idealistic approach. His tenure as prime minister was also marked by a fundamental contradiction: he formally headed the government but Erdogan continued to dominate the governing party and exercise authority from the presidency.

This arrangement led to tensions between the two leaders, culminating in Davutoglu’s resignation in 2016. The establishment of the Future Party in 2019 was seen as an attempt by Davutoglu to reclaim his position as a leader of Turkey’s conservative opposition. However, the party struggled to develop substantial electoral support and failed to establish itself as a credible alternative to Erdogan’s AK Party.

The Future Party’s reliance on external support delivered seats in the 2023 elections but exposed its lack of autonomy and credibility as a truly oppositional force. Davutoglu’s inability to build a strong grassroots movement was a significant weakness, one that ultimately contributed to his party’s failure.

Davutoglu’s departure raises important questions about the unfinished business of Turkish democracy. Can Turkey move beyond Erdogan’s polarizing figure? Can the country reconcile its conservative traditions with democratic principles? The answer lies not in Davutoglu himself but in the broader context of Turkish society and politics.

The legacy of Davutoglu’s foreign policy will continue to shape Turkey’s international relations for years to come. His “strategic depth” doctrine may have been an exercise in idealism, but it also opened up new possibilities for Turkey’s role in regional and global affairs. The challenge now is to build on this foundation while confronting the harsh realities of power politics.

In the end, Davutoglu’s departure from party politics marks a turning point in Turkish democracy. It serves as a reminder that even the most ambitious plans can fall short without a deeper understanding of the complexities of politics and society. As Turkey looks to the future, it would do well to remember the unfinished business of its own democratic development – and to tackle it with courage and conviction.