CIAO DATE: 11/2008
Volume: 7, Issue: 2
Summer & Fall 2008
Ramin Ahmadov
The election results on November 3, 2002, which brought the Justice and Development Party into power, shocked many, but for varying reasons. Afterwards, some became more hopeful about future of their country, while others became even more doubtful and anxious, since for them the “republican regime” came under threat. These opposing responses, along with the perceptions that fueled them, neatly describe the two very different worlds that currently exist within Turkish society, and so it is important to think through many of the contested issues that have arisen as a result of these shifting political winds.
Revisiting the Profile of the American Voter in the Context of Declining Turnout (PDF)
Bulat Akhmetkarimov
The phenomenon of declining voter turnout in U.S. national elections has been one of the major perplexing issues that political scientists have attempted to explain in recent decades. Today we are face to face with a participation rate that has fallen nearly one-quarter of its initial value since 1960.
My article has aimed at redrawing the profile of the American voter in the second half of the 20th century. Reliable data for the period of 40 years presented a valuable opportunity to add to the picture of the turnout phenomenon in the tradition of a behavioral approach. In the first part of this work I have tested test the notion that the overall level of life satisfaction affects the individual’s decision whether or not to participate in elections. Known to be directly related to the well-being of its citizens, the economic performance of the entire state was another criterion to be tested as to its effect on the voter turnout over last 40 years. Hence, in this section, I have checked for the impact of macroeconomic indicators such as the minimum wage, unemployment, and inflation rates, as well as the announced percentage of the population temporarily receiving financial assistance from the government. Next, I referred to societal factors and analyzed whether the sense of insecurity or the level of crime has discouraged people to vote. Finally, concerning institutional factors, I measured the changes in the overall turnout since 1960, controlling for an increased population due to foreign-born immigrants.
Test results support the general wisdom about political participation in the period in question and lead us to look for causes in the traditional literature, particularly in partisanship ties, schemas, and candidate evaluations. The life-satisfaction of people and the origins of the ‘added’ population were shown to have had no real effect on turnout. ‘Economic variables’ failed to explain the phenomenon as well. Crime rates and the assistance for needy families, however found some empirical support. People become more dissociable as they get frightened; thus they participate less. The repercussions of tax payers, however, were dominant in government policies regarding assistance for needy families. As the number of people receiving government assistance increased, turnout tended to decline.
After having discussed the above factors, I redraw the profile of the “American Voter” and argue whether or not it fits the classic view. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, my estimation of the future of voter turnout concludes this study.
Russia and Azerbaijan: Relations after 1989 (PDF)
Murat Gül
The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union has, on several levels, brought about many novel complexities to world politics. On the global level, the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the bi-polar world politics in the dangerous confrontations between Soviet ideology and power and that of the United States. The impact of the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) has been seen at the regional level as well. In particular, Central Asia and Caucasus, Eastern and Central Europe, and Baltic countries have escaped from direct Soviet domination, and so new competitions for domination have arisen. However, the most important and challenging changes have been witnessed at the individual level, insofar as fifteen new independent states have emerged post-collapse. After escaping from the domination of the USSR, these emerging states have been perplexed by the challenges of nationhood, identity politics, and state-building, re-reformulating their economic system, and entering into a global situation as independent but weak states. Thus, the collapse of Pax Sovieticus has raised a series of new foreign and security challenges, posing various obstacles and dilemmas for them.1
Among these many challenges, relations with other states, especially with the Russian Federation, have posed some of the most problematic issues. Newly independent states were faced with a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, they were still dependent on Russia as their new neighbor and the old center of the industrial and economic network, and therefore they needed healthy relations.2 On the other hand, they wanted to avoid a new system of redomination by Russia, where a similar situation to the one left behind would be in place. Their fears were seemingly realized upon Russia’s immediate establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1992, with an invitation to the ex-Soviet republics to join.
In this paper, I will address some of the problematic issues introduced above specifically in the context of the relations between the Russian Federation and one of the independent ex-Soviet republics, the Republic of Azerbaijan. I will analyze the salient issues in three sections. First, I will discuss the evolution of Russian foreign policy tools while considering in general Russian conceptions of the ex-Soviet countries. Second, I will discuss the determining factors regarding the relations between Azerbaijan and Russia. Third, I will discus the resulting issues and themes that have emerged between the two countries.
PAK-TURKEY RELATIONS: On the Common Ties (PDF)
Munir Hussain
After a decade of stagnant relations, Pakistan-Turkey relations seem to be improving in the right direction. Both countries have traditionally enjoyed close and cordial relations. The manifold commonalties between the two countries have been reinforced by the firm resolve of their leadership to further deepen mutual cooperation in all fields.
For over half century, Turkey and Pakistan remained close friends. Their multidimensional relationship showed the same spirit of brotherhood as prevailed during centuries-old ties between Indian Muslims and the Ottoman Empire, later the Republic of Turkey.1 Ideologically, however, they were poles apart – Turkey, when it became a Republic, pursued secularism while Pakistan adhered to the Islamic ideology as the centrepiece of its nationhood. But these differences of ideology, with their corresponding reflections on their respective external outlook, never hampered the course of friendly bilateral ties.
In the last few years, the perceptions and interests of Turkey and Pakistan have started to converge on a number of important issues. The paper provides a brief historical overview of Pak-Turk relations and the various dimensions of the relationship in the present time. It will also attempt to draw attention to the areas of divergences and convergence that have surfaced between Pakistan and Turkey in the post-Cold War era and recommend new approaches to the future fostering of these ties. But before that, it is important to note the strategic importance of the two countries in the light of events that unfolded in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks on the US.
The geo-strategic location of both Pakistan and Turkey are unique and similar to a greater extent. Turkey’s geo-strategic importance stems from its central location at the crossroads of the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, which were major regions of instability and conflict in the post-Cold War era.2 With the war against Iraq, Turkey was once again exposed to the grim realities of its geographic proximity with a large Iraqi Kurdish region adjacent to its own Kurd-inhabited areas. Turkey has a huge population of ethnic Kurds in its South East bordering Iraq, in view of which Ankara has been keen on checking any Kurdish fissiparous tendencies within Iraq. Similarly, Pakistan is geostrategically placed at the crossroads of Central Asia, West Asia and South Asia, right next to Afghanistan that has faced decades of war, with ethnic affiliations on both sides of the Durand line. Post-9/11, Pakistan became the frontline state in the war against terrorism that brought the international community to Afghanistan. Both Pakistan and Turkey are playing important roles in their respective conflict-ridden regions, specifically in view of the fast changing developments in the post 9/11 international relations.
The Turkish Project Of Globalization And New Regionalism (PDF)
Nilgun Onder
The world is simultaneously globalizing and regionalizing. The double processes of globalization and regionalization appear to be paradoxical. This seemingly paradoxical phenomenon has raised the question of whether regionalism contradicts or complements globalization and whether it obstructs or reinforces globalization. The paradox of the resurgence of regionalism amidst globalization has attracted considerable scholarly attention.
In the literature on regionalism and globalization, one can identify three main perspectives on how regionalism relates to globalization. First, there is the view of regionalism as a project of resisting globalization. This view popularly articulates regionalism as a “stumbling block” to globalization. Regionalism is a project driven by the desire of governments and domestic private interests to defend national economic and social institutions and policy instruments against the homogenizing forces of accelerated globalization through regional-level cooperation. Defensive or resistance regionalism may also be an attempt by governments to counter the negative effects of globalization, such as greater inequality and environmental degradation, through collective action on a regional scale. The second perspective conceptualizes regionalism as complementary to globalization. In this view, regionalist schemes are “stepping stones” or “building blocks” to economic globalization. They seek to facilitate better or more advantageous engagement of member countries with the processes of globalization. They serve as a platform that enables member economies to participate in the growing global flows of trade, finance and FDI as well as to improve their competitiveness in markets outside the respective region. Thus regionalism promotes or facilitates rather than obstructs globalization. One can identify a third, though less influential, perspective in the literature while the main debate has been between the first and second perspectives. The third alternative perspective attributes a more pro-active agency role to national governments than do the former perspectives that conceives of regionalism as either a defensive reaction to globalization or an adaptive response to the requirements of globalizing capitalism. In the third perspective, in the contemporary era of globalization, a regionalist project can be aimed at selective, strategic integration with global markets. This type of controlled-globalizing regionalism is based on the strategy of active state role on a regional scale in order to promote member countries’ development or other politico-strategic goals in the broader world order. Whereas controlled-globalizing regionalist projects are not aimed at insulating national/regional economies from global market forces, their mode of engagement with economic globalization departs from the currently dominant neoliberal model of limited economic role for the state and open markets. Controlled-globalizing regionalism can involve a regional industrial policy, selective incentives and/or protections for local industries and a strategic trade policy.
Perceptions Of The War Against Terrorism (WAT): A Malaysian Case Study (PDF)
Abu Daud Silong, Zaharah Hassan, Steven Eric Krauss
Though terrorism has existed for more than 2,000 years, the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. brought international repercussions unlike any previously experienced. In response to the attacks, the U.S. immediately attempted to build a broad-based anti-terrorism coalition in what is known as the “War against Terrorism” (WAT) or “War on Terrorism.” Malaysia has its own experiences with terrorism, such as during the ‘communist emergency’ of the 1950s. In light of Malaysia’s unique history in overcoming terrorism and the present-day WAT, this study aimed to explore Malaysian’s perceptions of the WAT. Findings from the study indicate that Malaysians hold mostly negative views on the WAT, i.e.: they doubt the intentions of the US government; they view the WAT as a fight against Muslims and as a means for US control; they view the military approach as ineffective; they perceive a conscious effort to link terrorism to Islam; they view the Western media as being insensitive to non- Westerners and they believe that the WAT has had little impact on reducing terrorism due to hidden political agendas. Qualitative findings from the study stress the need for counter-terrorism policy makers to identify the root-causes of terrorism in order to develop appropriate socio-economic programs for the poor, marginalized, discontented and discriminated groups in societies.
US Policy towards the Islamic World (PDF)
Enayatollah Yazdani
US relations with the Islamic world are a part of its international relations that cannot be overlooked. Here the main questions are how America has instituted its policy towards the Muslim world? How has the US global hegemony affected the Islamic World? How US policy towards the Islamic World may be influenced by the radical Islamic movements? And what is the influence of the war in Iraq on perceptions of US relations with the Islamic World? This paper aims to answer these questions.
Actually, the USA has not kept a single policy towards the Islamic nations during and after the Cold War. In other words, American relationships with the Muslim World varied from time to time and nation to nation. During the Cold War, for instance, in some countries the USA had been a supporter of some Islamic movements as an instrument in the fight against the Soviet Union or the pro-Soviet governments in the Muslim countries. Whereas, in other countries America had been acting against the same movements. In the 1980s, Washington openly backed the Afghan Mujahedin in their struggle against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.i However, after the Cold War in late 1990 America strived to overthrow the Taliban regime, which its people more or less belonged to the Mujahedin. Whilst, in Iran the CIA overthrew the moderate constitutional government of Mohammed Mosadeq backed by the Islamic movement in 1953, followed by years of support for the brutal government of the Shah, this led directly to the rise of the Islamic revolution in 1979 2.
The main argument in this paper is that although US has followed a double standard policy towards the Islamic World, its relationships with the Muslim nations has been based on a kind of hegemony which had taken shape in the Cold War age and has continued in the post-Cold War era.