The Tribune

TO many people, Turkey is something of an unknown quantity. But it is in the news at present because of last Sunday’s parliamentary and presidential elections. These are said to be the most pivotal polls in the nation’s history and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s toughest challenge since he first came to power in 2003.

At the time of writing, with over 90 per cent of the votes counted, the election remains indecisive as neither party reached the required threshold of 50 per cent of the votes, though Erdogan is in a narrow lead with 49.5 per cent against the opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu’s 44.89 per cent. There will, therefore, be a run-off within two weeks, and the received wisdom seems to be that another such election may be trickier for the opposition than for Erdogan.

By way of background, Turkey is famous for the historical and modern delights of Istanbul, formerly the great city of Constantinople, which is now the most heavily populated city in Europe with some 16 million inhabitants. This metropolis, which is renowned for its Blue Mosque amongst so many prominent features, also has one of the world’s largest covered markets, and it is claimed to be as captivating a city as Rome or Athens. What is more, some people enjoy Turkey as a country for cheaper Mediterranean holidays and crave its delicious candy called Turkish delight – and others used to watch enthusiastically Istanbul’s football team called Galatasaray when it was prominent in European competitions.

On a more serious note, Turkey is also well known as an earthquake zone and for possessing a strong military that is the second largest in NATO of which Turkey is a member. Currently, the country is suffering severe economic difficulties - with soaring inflation as Erdogan refuses to raise interest rates - while also reeling from two serious earthquakes as recently as February.

More broadly, because of its geographical position straddling Europe and Asia across the Bosphorus Strait, historically the country has been a crossroads between East and West and a blend of the two, playing an important role as a land bridge between continents, including being a major hub on the Silk Road trade route from east to west which historians say was well travelled for some 1,400 years. Its unique location has given it influence both within the region and more widely in the world. Furthermore, President Erdogan, who has led the country - initially as prime minister - for nearly two decades, is a familiar figure internationally and helps to give this nation of 85 million people a well-deserved identity on the world stage, reflecting also its strategic importance as a NATO member.

It is said that, under the regime of political strongman Erdogan, Turkey has become more illiberal and authoritarian. While professing support for democracy, he has sought to control his critics and restrict press freedom; and he dramatically increased his powers after putting down a military coup in 2017. The experts consider that he now adheres less to Western ideological and political values while embracing militant Islamism as a framework to make Turkish society, politics and cultural identity more in line with a conservative view of what it means to be Turkish. At the same time, he advocates a so-called multilateral stance which includes close ties with Russia and China and an offer to mediate in the Ukraine war.

Some commentators judge that Erdogan has sought to reassert what he sees as Turkey’s national interest; namely, to exercise power and influence while also pursuing in the longer term a form of great power status. To many, this latter ambition looks to be unrealistic, but there is no denying that Turkey is influential, mainly because of its geographical position.

A brief look at the nation’s history shows that, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire after the defeat of Turkish forces in the First World War, a new leader, Kemal Ataturk, succeeded in creating a new westernized, secular and industrial republic. He was regarded as a visionary statesman and to be modern Turkey’s founding father who prepared the nation for the challenges of the 20th century.

Adopting a cautious foreign policy, Turkey remained neutral in the Second World War. By its end in 1945, the US, which saw the country as a key bulwark in limiting the then Soviet Union’s access to the Mediterranean, ensured that it would not be absorbed into Moscow’s hostile orbit while the Turks themselves were wary of being encircled by the Red Army, and, along with Greece, joined NATO in 1952. This formalized its alignment with liberal capitalist democracies which regarded Turkey as an important anchor to check Soviet influence in the region.

At the current elections, Erdogan has been faced by the combined forces of six opposition parties who picked Kilicdaroglu as their unity candidate. The opinion polls showed that the race would be tight, and that turned out to be the case. Erdogan was vulnerable mainly because of the poor state of the economy but also as a result of his government’s widely criticized handling of the search and rescue efforts after the February earthquakes and its earlier failure to enforce building codes.

The opposition Nation Alliance led by Kilicdaroglu made it clear it wanted to restore Turkey’s parliamentary system and reform the presidency. In addition, it promised to kick-start the country’s decades-long bid to join the European Union and restore “mutual trust” with the US after years of fractious relations under Erdogan. Kilicdaroglu also said he would prioritize relations with the West more generally while also continuing to maintain regular discussions with the Kremlin.

So, the outcome of last week’s election could still be a major turning point in Turkey’s history. The two rivals offered dramatically different paths going forward – either more of the same in consolidation of existing authoritarian powers in support of Turkey’s identity but also, partially, a multilateral approach internationally or widespread domestic reform and bringing this NATO state back to a more pro-Western and democratic stance. All eyes will surely be on the run-off election on May 28 – the result of which both sides have said they will respect.

EUROVISION SONG CONTEST – A TASTE OF UKRAINE IN HEART OF MERSEYSIDE

The superlatives have been flowing like an unstoppable torrent – a wonderful, amazing, fantastic, unbelievable and mind-blowing show and extravaganza; and these sentiments were expressed not only in the emotion of Saturday’s spectacular finals but in the cold light of the following day with some people saying in the UK press that this was perhaps the best ever night for the Eurovision Song Contest in its 67-year existence.

For sure, with the emphasis on youth this was a night of joy and exuberance – though, doubtless, the performers from some of the 26 countries participating in the finals who fared less well in the scoring at the end will have been somewhat less enthusiastic.

It was a statement of unity and goodwill in front of a live audience of some 6,000 ticket holders inside the large arena and tens of thousands watching on big screens across the UK. There was also a global TV audience estimated to be 180 million. The evening was hosted by Liverpool, one of Britain’s greatest cities, which, with its famous cultural and musical background including being home to the Beatles, provided an appropriate backdrop to create the perfect venue.

Of course, as everyone knew, Ukraine won the event in 2022 and was therefore due to host the contest this year. But it was unable to do so because of the war. So Liverpool stepped in on Ukraine’s behalf and did it superbly well while receiving much praise for the way it helped out this beleaguered country so willingly and so effectively.

Reportedly, the excitement and energy of staging this Eurovision event have shaken - in a positive manner - and stimulated the whole city while also, of course, providing a substantial boost to the local economy. The city and the region are now home to a large number of Ukrainian refugees so Liverpool’s efforts were even more appropriate and watchers were treated to TV coverage of the activities of the new Ukrainian local community for whom this was a big week.

For those interested in the history of the Eurovision Song Contest, it is organised annually by the European Broadcasting Union and dates back to 1956. Those in the know say that in the early years performances varied from the good to the mediocre. But the event gradually became popular as it changed and developed into today’s entertainment extravaganza with the incredible back-up for the singers of separate dancers and new production devices including the sophisticated lighting and sound effects that it now enjoys.

The 37 original participants were whittled down to 26 in the finals by competition earlier in the week. The scoring by national juries in each capital - followed, for the first time, by public voting mainly online - produced massive drama. Unfortunately for the UK, its entry came second to last despite being, in the view of many before the night itself, a good song well delivered by singer Mae Muller. But the voters obviously did not agree.

Eventually, Sweden emerged as the winner, narrowly beating Finland, with singer Loreen’s performance gaining the most votes. She thus made history as the first woman to have won the competition twice. Sweden will host the song contest next year which happens to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Swedish group ABBA’s victory in 1974 with their hit “Waterloo”. Some critics say that this year the voting was “fixed” in order to fit in with this. Be that as it may, fans like me who have enjoyed much of the group’s subsequent work will look forward with relish to that anniversary.

So there seems to be almost universal agreement that Saturday’s finals in Liverpool produced a wonderful evening - a fine, well organised music festival with an emphasis on young people that released passion and energy and surely unites Europe in a way few other things are capable of doing.

BENIN BRONZES SET TO BE RETURNED TO NIGERIA

The return to their country of origin historical artefacts transferred to Britain during colonial times has been a controversial issue for many years. For obvious reasons this is a subject of considerable interest to historians. Best known are the Elgin Marbles and the Kohinoor Diamond.

The former, also known as the Parthenon Sculptures, were removed - some say looted - from Greece by Britain and are now held in the British Museum. Greece claims they are a vital part of its national heritage. As for the Kohinoor Diamond, it was said to have been acquired by the British legally as part of a local treaty with India in the 1850s. It was mounted in the crowns of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary and then, in 1937, reset in the crown worn by Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - and India wants it back.

Another controversy that has been raging for over a decade relates to the Benin Bronzes. These are a group of thousands of metal castings, sculptures and artwork from the ancient Kingdom of Benin in southern Nigeria which date back to the 16th century. The historical evidence is that they were looted by British soldiers in 1897 and are now mainly in museums in Europe and the US.

Nigeria has been demanding their return for some years and, recently, some have been shipped back to Benin. But this restitution saga took a new turn last month when Nigeria’s outgoing President Muhammadu Buhari made public his decision in March to recognise the Oba, or king, of Benin as the owner of the famous Benin Bronzes and that they should be handed over to him.

It appears that this decision has caused confusion since it has blindsided Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments which has been handling negotiations over the return of looted artefacts in the colonial period. But reports suggest that, unlike the Elgin Marbles that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has recently described as “a huge asset to the UK” and should be kept there, all the Benin Bronzes may eventually be handed back to Nigeria – at least those held by museums in Britain.