https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2767-3649
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper seeks to uncover what drives European Parliament (EP) discussions on a privileged partnership for Turkey. In line with Habermas’s Communicative Action Theory, it scrutinizes the justifications used by the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the Plenary Sessions between 2005–2012, i.e. from the start of accession negotiations until the privileged partnership’s falling into disuse in EP discussions. The research reveals that the alleged benefits of privileged partnership in contrast to the costs of Turkey’s full membership constitute the backbone of the right-wing groups’ arguments whereas the objection to a privileged partnership is justified by MEPs from left-wing groups for being against the EU’s official commitments to Turkey. In disputing Turkey’s full membership, the members of the right-wing parties reconstruct a European identity in which Turkey is the constitutive other.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Selin Türkeş-Kılıç is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Yeditepe University in Istanbul. Her research focuses on the argumentative processes in the policy making of the European Union and Turkey. Her publications have appeared in various international edited books and journals. Recently, her article entitled ‘Political party closures in European democratic order: comparing the justifications in DTP and Batasuna decisions’ was published in Journal of European Public Policy.
ORCID
Selin Türkeş-Kılıç http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2767-3649
Notes
1 Börzel, “Europeanisation Meets Turkey,” and Yilmaz, “From Europeanization.”
2 Noutcheva and Aydin-Düzgit, “Lost in Europeanisation,” and Yilmaz, “It is Pull-and-Push.”
3 Aydın-Düzgit and Tocci, Turkey, 49; Karakas, “EU-Turkey”; and Nas and Özer, “Introduction,” 4.
4 Habermas, Moral Consciousness, 44ff.
5 Munter, “Fact Sheets.”
6 Aydın-Düzgit, “European Parliament.”
7 Aydın-Düzgit, “De-Europeanisation through Discourse.”
8 Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future.”
9 “Macron Tells Erdogan,” BBC News.
10 Atilgan and Klein, “EU Integration Models”; Aydın-Düzgit and Keyman, “EU-Turkey Relations”; Grigoriadis, “Turkey’s Accession”; Hakura, “Partnership”; Karakas, “Gradual Integration”; Karakas, “EU-Turkey”; Köksal, “A Comparative Approach”; and Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future.”
11 İçener, “Privileged Partnership,” and Pope, “Privileged Partnership.”
12 Arısan and Eralp, “What Went Wrong”; Hale, “Human Rights”; Yilmaz, “From Europeanization”; and Hürsoy, “On the Edge.”
13 Steunenberg et al., “Between Reason,” and MacMillan, “Privileged Partnership.”
14 Dedeoğlu and Gürsel, Türkiye, and Öner, “Influential Internal and External.”
15 Braghiroli, “Looking at Ankara”; Braghiroli, “Je t’aime”; and Yuvaci, “The Voting Behavior.”
16 Yuvacı, “A Comparison, ” and Yuvacı, “Views on Turkish Accession.”
17 Aydın-Düzgit, “European Parliament.”
18 Gürkan, “The Role of the European Parliament,” and Ozcurumez and Hoxha, “Conditional Deliberation.”
19 Ozcurumez and Hoxha, “Conditional Deliberation,” 645.
20 The Council of the European Union, “EU-Turkey Negotiation Framework,” 5.
21 Ugur, “Open-Ended Membership,” 968.
22 Today’s Zaman, August 12, 2010, and Hürriyet Daily News, January 13, 2018.
23 Aydın-Düzgit and Keyman, “EU-Turkey Relations,” and Yaka, “Why Not EU?”
24 Turkish support for EU membership in 2017 as reported to be 57.8 percent by Kadir Has University survey and 78.9 percent by Economic Development Foundation survey. The polls also reveal that the percentage of respondents who believe that Turkey will become an EU member in the near future is 38.5 and 31.2 percent respectively.
25 Yanaşmayan, “Oppositional Usages.”
26 Grigoriadis, “Turkey’s Accession,” 154.
27 Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union states that ‘Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union’. The privileged partnership alternative is based on the argument that Turkey is not a European but a neighbor country, thus is not eligible for EU membership.
28 Bürgin, “Cosmopolitan Entrapment,” 41.
29 EU Observer, 2006.
30 BBC News, December 31, 2012.
31 Hürsoy, “On the Edge.”
32 Karakas, “EU-Turkey,” 14.
33 Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Türkiye Temsilciliği, 2014.
34 Guttenberg, “Preserving Europe.”
35 Pope, “Privileged Partnership.”
36 Atilgan and Klein, “EU Integration Models,” 12.
37 Habermas, The Theory, 18.
38 Habermas, Justification, 9.
39 Habermas, The Theory, 86.
40 Risse, “Let’s Argue!”
41 Habermas, Between Facts.
42 Habermas, Justification, 10.
43 Fossum, “Constitution-Making,” 112.
44 Sjursen, “Why Expand?” 495.
45 Ibid.
46 Riddervold, “‘A Matter of Principle’?”, 582.
47 Fossum, “Constitution-Making,” 112.
48 Finnemore, “Constructing Norms.”
49 Lerch and Schwellnus, “Normative by Nature?”, 307.
50 Habermas, The Theory, 101.
51 McElroy and Benoit, “Policy Positioning in the European Parliament,” 154.
52 Yuvacı, “A Comparison.”
53 Braghiroli, “Je t’aime,” 14.
54 Braghiroli, “Looking at Ankara,” 11.
55 İçener, “Privileged Partnership” 428.
56 Habermas, Justification, 11
57 Grigoriadis, “Turkey’s Accession;” Hughes, Turkey; Pahre and Uçaray-Mangitli, “The Myths.”
58 Habermas, The Theory, 281.
59 Kuzmanovic, “Civilization and EU-Turkey Relations,” 41.
60 Öner, “Turkey’s Membership,” 251.
61 Habermas, The Inclusion, 26.
62 Eriksen and Weigard, Understanding Habermas, 77.
63 For a thorough analysis of the European identity construction in the discourses of right-wing parties in the European Parliament, see Aydın-Düzgit, “European Parliament.”
64 See, for instance, Diez, “Europe’s Others”; Kosebalaban, “The Permanent ‘Other’?”; Rumelili, “Constructing Identity”; Suvarierol and Aydın Düzgit, “Limits of Cosmopolitanism?”; Tekin, Representations and Othering, Wood, “Turkey and Europe.”
65 Neumann, “Self and Other in International Relations.”
66 Habermas, The Inclusion, 30.
67 Eriksen, “Towards a Cosmopolitan EU?” 254.
68 Sjursen, “What Kind of Power?” 244–5.
69 Habermas, The Inclusion, 30.
70 Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, 183.
71 European Council, “Helsinki European Council.”
72 Braghiroli, “Looking at Ankara.”
73 Yuvacı, “Views,” 111.
74 Georgiadou, “Mapping.”
75 Halikiopoulou and Vlandas, “Risks, Costs and Labour Markets.”
76 The literature on norm compliance owes a lot to the work of Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, “Governance by Conditionality.”
77 Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey’s Future.”