The AK Party's tenure is increasingly described as authoritarian in western countries. This criticism implies that the new Turkey has lost its model role. Moreover, recent repercussions against the AK Party and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are assigned a particular meaning: to discipline new Turkey.
The discourse of "new Turkey" has repeatedly appeared during historical turning points of the Turkish Republic. It is used for the sake of different interests by local and foreign circles. As an example, the new Turkey was a means of empowerment and legitimization adopted by the elites wishing to intensify their authority in internal politics. It is known as a path to a new vision and an objective.
In conjunction with international politics it has been turned into a rhetorical phrase encouraging Turkey to take a new position. The "dark side" of new Turkey discourse comes out when it is claimed that things are not on track in Turkey. More explicitly, Turkey is perceived as an authoritarian country diverging from the West with an aggressive foreign policy. It is also an extension of the strategy of disciplining Turkey. Therefore, the assertion that Turkey's government is "authoritarian" represents the anti-politics approach of the warded elites in internal politics. As mentioned before, it has been used as a means of forcing Turkey into the intended regional and international equation.
In western societies, the radical and secular reforms of the early Turkish Republic were presented as a model modernization move adopted by the Islamic world. At that time, local and foreign circles were satisfied with Turkey's new and pro-western position. Turkey in the 1950's was welcomed as a positive example with a multi-party democratic regime by the U.S. and the NATO. However, the second half of 1950's was depicted as an authoritarian period under the Democrat Party with Adnan Menderes. This "authoritarian period" in search of new relations with the Soviet Union was ended with the 1960 military coup. Turkey was encouraged to take a critical role in the integration of the Central Asia, the Balkans and the Caucasus with the West by the end of the Cold War. The discourse of new Turkey came to the forefront.
The former President Turgut Özal described the new agenda as a door opening new horizons. Turkey would become one of the 10 leading countries worldwide in 21th century.
In the second half of 1990's, Turkey was worn out with an economic crisis, terrorism, political unsustainability and the postmodern military coup. Apart from that, the terrorist organization PKK and unresolvable Kurdish issue brought back the dark side of "new Turkey."
When the AK Party came to power in 2002, Turkey received significant support by prioritizing the International Monetary Fund and the EU.
The new foreign policy search based on "the zero problem policy with neighbors" was positively accepted at first. The AK Party was said to establish a new Turkey. We waited until the Davos Summit in 2009 to see the dark side of this discourse. The AK Party was considered to be reform-weary and said to rapidly wear out. The AK Party's new foreign policy was criticized with the discussions on the shift of axis.
The shift of axis includes some sub-arguments: diverging from the western alliance, getting closer to the Middle East, more authoritarian Turkey (civil dictatorship, Putinism and De Gaullism), more conservative internal politics and Islamic foreign policy along with adopting the models of Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan.
Turkey has started to follow politics as an actor on its behalf. Additionally, Turkey is taking the risks followed by the disagreement and tension between the U.S. and other western countries with its support of Iran's nuclear energy project and criticizing Israeli policies. The secular circles in Turkey emphasized the authoritarian discourse with the AK Party's transformation and possibility of its continuance.
The Arab Spring brought the model role of Turkey into the curr
