Elif Shafak: Why has EU given in to the most divisive man in Turkish history?

They came from everywhere in Turkey. Among them were students, engineers, doctors, teachers, housewives. Some were Turks, others Kurds. Women and men, young and middle-aged. What united them was their shared belief in co-existence and democracy. They were determined to protest over the escalation in the conflict between the Turkish state and Kurdish militants. They carried signs that said, “It’s Peace that We Need, not War” and “We Missed Looking Up at the Sky Without Seeing Blood Around”.

It was this peace rally in Ankara — the capital of Turkey — last Saturday that two suicide bombers turned into a bloodbath. The worst terrorist attack in the country’s history left 97 dead, hundreds injured, devastated families and a badly polarised country.

As every analyst will point out, Turkey has been visibly polarised in recent years. But now it is clear that its society cannot unite even in grief. The aftermath of the horrific attacks has not been a time of collective soul-searching and national unity — just the opposite. Pro-government papers covered the tragedy very differently from the rest of the media. They accused the Kurds of involvement. Meanwhile the Kurds accused the “deep state”. Conspiracy theories abound and there is mistrust on all sides.

What makes the situation in Turkey right now even more complicated is the juxtaposition of domestic and regional turbulence. The unrest inside Turkey has been affected by the general unrest beyond its borders. The country is home to two million refugees, mostly from Syria. Turkey is inundated by the influx. Yet at the same time the refugee crisis is Turkey’s biggest card at the moment vis-à-vis its relations with Europe. In yesterday’s negotiations with EU ministers the government played that card.

As a result of those negotiations, EU ministers agreed a deal with the president of this fragmented country, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to persuade him to discourage even more Syrian refugees from making for the EU from Turkey. They made huge concessions, financial and diplomatic, apparently oblivious to the likely effect this will have on the Turkish elections on November 1. Yet Turkey is not united under Erdogan; far from it.

The most widely used word in the Turkish lexicon today is “they”. The division between “us” and “them” runs very deep. Erdogan’s party, the AKP, has increasingly alienated itself from at least half of society.

There is still a considerable segment (around 40 per cent) who vote for the party, and will probably continue to do so in the elections. But there is an even bigger population that feels disappointed and increasingly frustrated. A deep sense of injustice runs through society. No one trusts the institutions and the gap between the pro and anti government factions is too wide to bridge.

The man at the centre of the debate, Erdogan, is the most divisive politician in Turkish history. “The master”, according to his admirers, “the dictator” in the eyes of his critics. The Turkish constitution requires the office of president to be neutral, constructive, above politics and non-partisan. Erdogan is anything but. Using incendiary rhetoric against anyone who dares criticise him, including the young people in the Gezi Park protests in 2013, he aggravated the existing divisions and created new divisions instead of trying to bring people together around common values.

Today’s gloom is far from the mood that was prevalent in the country after the June elections. In the last election four political parties entered parliament. This was an opportunity to build up a pluralistic, all-inclusive democracy, to restore the rule of law. But instead of working hard for a healthy coalition, the Government pushed for yet another election.