The Turkish stock market is slumping and the Turkish lira is declining against the dollar, but the ruling elite in Ankara is acting as though this is happening in another country. Seemingly unruffled by the economic slide, they have left the whole matter to the central bank in the belief that it would check the racing prices of foreign currencies. But this was not to be and as the fiscal attrition continues Turkish authorities insist that the phenomenon is perfectly normal and that there is no need to worry. Perhaps they thought their coolness was a confirmation of the robustness of the country's economy and that this, in itself, would help the currency market return to its senses. In tandem, however, the press establishment and especially the public and private satellite news networks, had no difficulty in interpreting the unmistakable signals emanating from Ankara telling them to stop fussing about the lira and to focus exclusively on the Egyptian question, even if that meant dropping the subject of Syria for a while. It is no exaggeration to say that the Egyptian crisis came as a lifeline to the ruling Justice and Development Party after a series of stunning blows received as the result of having slid into the brutal Syrian quagmire thanks, in part, to a rosy foreign policy chiefly designed by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and that was paradoxically dubbed “Zero Problems”. The powers that be in Ankara, determined to capitalise to the fullest on this lifeline, have launched a massive campaign to defend the “downtrodden” in Egypt whose “dream was destroyed and whose legitimacy was usurped by the tyranny of a military junta”. Since, apparently, no one else in Anatolia is as qualified as he to champion this campaign, the unrivalled Recep Tayyip Erdogan leads the charge with a vitriol that grows fiercer by the day and that has long since surpassed the bounds of reason, let alone all internationally accepted diplomatic conventions. This self-appointed spokesman for Egyptians who “yearn to see their sole elected civil president” has, without having been solicited by anyone, gripped the reins of the drive to free Mohamed Morsi and reinstate him in office. Of course, his every call is dutifully echoed by Davutoglu and his good and generous Qatari ally, as was the case a week ago on Wednesday. For 50 days now, not an occasion has passed without the Egyptian situation being made the centrepiece of his rhetoric. The most recent instances of this occurred in the Black Sea cities of Trabzon and Rize, the ancestral home of the Erdogan family before it moved to Istanbul in the mid-20th century. Speaking to a crowd of hundreds, who had marched to Trabzon Airport to hear their leader, bearing the flags of the ruling party and placards displaying the black on yellow Rabaa Al-Adaweya hand with four fingers raised, and to a similar crowd in downtown Rize the following morning, the Turkish prime minister behaved as though he had taken an oath to be the Egyptian Muslim Brothers' saviour regardless of all costs. All squares in Turkey are to become other “Rabaas”, the symbol of democracy, while the millions in Tahrir Square, in Erdogan's mind, have been reduced to “fascist abettors of the coup”. He is an impassioned speaker, to the extent that his eyes brim with tears when paying tribute to the “martyred” daughter of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Al-Beltagui who died from a treacherous bullet fired by Egyptian security forces in the massacre that killed hundreds during the breakup of the sit-in at Rabaa by force of arms on 14 August. Meanwhile, on another corner of this far-flung country where an eerie silence awaits the moment of an explosion of anger, a segment of the Turkish populace observe his performance with their mouths agape. And they wonder: Why did Erdogan not shed a single tear over the lives of his five fellow Turks who had died during the forceful breakup of the sit-in at Gezi Park that was carried out in accordance with his own instructions? Erdogan's desperate ardour for the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt perplexes domestic opinion in Turkey more than it does opinion abroad. How can this phenomenon be explained? Surely no rational person in Anatolia can believe that this is a battle for democracy that, under Erdogan, has taken alarming strides backwards in Turkey. Turkey, today, has more journalists in jail than some of the countries that are ranked as the world's most dictatorial nations. In spite of his hatred for the generals in his country, towards which end his party introduced legislation and constitutional amendments to clip their wings, he has retained an arsenal of repressive laws that he has wielded frequently to eliminate opposition and tame the press into obedience. When opponents call him a dictator he remains smug and jeers at them, calling them “weaklings who do not want to see their country stable and strong” and he warns that he will confront them with the force of law. Political activists see this “law” in action every day in the form of the riot police, water cannons and teargas that are routinely unleashed to break up peaceful protests. When questioned about such tactics, his response is gruff. “They should wait until elections. Then they can have their say.” The message is clear. To Erdogan, the ballot box is all that democracy is about and he will lash out angrily at anyone who disagrees with him. When his actions at home were met with the reproach by some Western nations that “democracy is more than the ballot box,” his response was swift: “The ballot box is everything as it represents the popular will.” He then warned that any broader concept would lead to dictatorial regimes. Then, with the encouragement of his team of aides and sycophants who reminded him of his intimate relations with the Europeans and Americans, he added a word of advice: Westerners should rethink those long-held concepts about freedom that are no longer valid. Erdogan's smugness in his convictions stems from his great confidence in his ability to sweep any elections, the first being municipal polls scheduled for March 2014. He has some cause to believe this. After all, he has succeeded in curtailing the influence of the military establishment and asserting his control over the judiciary and the press, as well as a good part of the university establishment. But does this mean that the path to electoral victory is strewn with roses? It would certainly be premature to respond with an unqualified “yes”. Many analysts foresee a rocky road ahead for him, one laden with the dangers of the anger and democratic yearnings of the Facebook and Twitter generation. Will he be able to withstand their assault? Does this help explain his focus on the Egyptian situation and his hostility toward the same generation in Egypt?
