Historical Legacies as Deep Conditions of the EU Impact

One of the main analytical questions that inform the thesis is how to explain variation in the impact across different issue areas in the context of civil society. In

this context, explanations for variation in the EU’s impact offer insights into the conditions under which the EU can influence civil society development. The previous sections have shown that domestic conditions have not been adequately studied and operationalized in the studies of the Europeanization of civil society. This section introduces the concept of historical legacies as an important domestic factor of the EU’s influence. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 show how historical legacies matter for understanding the EU impact. This will inform the empirical chapters of the research.

In this section, I discuss how I perceive historical legacy, and the ways in which research can incorporate historical legacy in the Europeanization of civil society in Turkey. This is important in two ways. First the literature on Europeanization offers different explanations, but historical legacies have largely been neglected as explanatory factors in these studies. Explaining variations in civil society will turn my attention to historical legacies and their differential impact on civil society. Second, in the case of civil society, current domestic factors such as state capacities, capacities of social actors, institutional capacities, levels of societal mobilization and political tradition can all be linked to historical legacies. Therefore, historical legacy is an important domestic factor, which matters for civil society. In this context, I argue that Europeanization outcomes shaped by complex interaction between EU driven and domestic legacy factors.

The literature provides two main ways to conceptualize historical legacy. The first camp conceptualizes historical legacies as path-dependent processes, while the second camp follows more an agency-oriented approach in the conceptualization of historical legacies. In the second understanding, selected aspects of the past are reconstructed to adapt to new circumstances (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010:

430). In analyzing the EU’s impact on civil society in Turkey, I conceptualize historical legacies as path-dependent processes. In this particular context, legacies are path-dependent processes, therefore, “once set in motion by contingent choices or critical junctures particular patterns of institutional or cultural development will logically reproduce themselves beyond the control or intervention of individual actors” (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010:430). Therefore, in this study, historical legacies are conceptualized as continuities of institutions and practices over time.

Whether they are conceptualized as path-dependent or agency-oriented approaches, in broad terms, legacies can be defined as “the inherited aspects of the past relevant to the present” (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010: 426). Evaluation

of the continuity or change between the past and the present is the key characteristic of legacy-based explanations. The term historical legacy is defined in a variety of ways in different fields and regions⁷ and can act both as a facilitating and a constraining factor (Ekiert and Hanson 2003: 92). Historical endowments do not only constrain but also enable the current outcomes. For example, as I show in Chapter 5, while legacies have functioned as facilitating domestic factors in women’s civil society, Chapter 7 illustrates that historical legacies have played a constraining role in human rights civil society.

As Wittenberg (2013:6) argues “there is no consensus on what counts as a legacy, what kinds of legacies there are, or how to study them”. How can one identify historical legacies in Turkish civil society? Wittenberg (2013) has laid out three conditions for a phenomenon to be considered as a legacy: (i) existence of a phenomenon minimum two time periods, divided by conventionally-defined demarcations; (ii) occurrence of the same phenomenon between the past and the present time; and (iii) transmission of the phenomenon from the past rather than solely replicated in the latter period. Even though Wittenberg centers a discussion on pre-communist, communist and post-communist legacies, his criteria on what counts as legacies is useful for identifying legacies in other contexts.

By using these three criteria, Chapter 4 identifies “which past matters most” in the case of civil society in Turkey. I pointed out six key legacies that matter for the analysis of EU impact: the lack of resources and dependency where civil society has been chronically underfunded in terms of resources, a restrictive environment characterized by the absence of autonomous space and opportunities in terms of rights, Europe as an important symbol of framing, a weak state with a strong state tradition, an ideologically divided civil society sphere in terms of internal networks, and the presence of diverse connections with external networks. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 extensively evaluate historical legacies in different sectors of civil society and their roles in the Europeanization of civil society. I argue that these legacies of the past still

7 Historical legacies have been studied in various regions and fields. There has been expansive literature on communist legacies in the field of Comparative Politics. Some important pioneering works on legacies: Crawford and Lijphart (1997); Ekiert and Hanson (2003); Elster et al. (1998); Jowitt (1992); Kopstein (2003); Pop-Eleches (2007); Wittenberg (2006). Authoritarian legacies have also been examined in Western Europe, see Pinto (2010) and Latin America, see Hite and Cesarini (2004).

Historical legacies have also been explored in international relations literature. A recent study has examined the legacies of empire, Halperin and Palan (2015). This is by no means an exhaustive list but gives an indication of the many studies taking place on historical legacies.

shape civil society, its relations with different actors and the influence of the EU. In other words, this is critical because historical legacies influence the Europeanization of civil society.

Then, the key question is how are legacies used analytically in the studies of Europeanization? Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning (2010) propose a framework of analysis to examine the role of legacies in Europeanization. This study is a turning point in historical legacies literature because it proposes three different ways in which legacies could be incorporated into the Europeanization processes as explanatory factors. The theoretical framework of Europeanization is mainly dominated by rationalist and sociological institutionalism. The analytical framework does not argue that these approaches should be completely abandoned by legacy-based explanatory models. Rather, legacy-based explanatory models are considered to complement and interact with these explanations.

Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning (2010) have offered three different ways to incorporate legacy-based explanations in Europeanization studies: (i) legacies as deep conditions; (ii) legacies as enduring conditions; and (iii) legacies as encompassing conditions. In the first model, legacies complement explanations of Europeanization and give them more historical emphasis as explanatory factors. Domestic conditions attain intermediate steps in the causal path from legacies to contemporary outcomes (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010: 431). Historical legacy is not the main cause of the Europeanization outcomes; rather, historical endowments is a deep condition which shapes various contemporary factors. For instance, as I show in Chapter 7, cooperation between human rights organizations and the state largely depends on the state’s approach to civil society, and these approaches are to a great extent shaped by historical experiences. Civil society actors in general, and human rights NGOs in particular are perceived as a threat to the survival of the state and hence any activities that are seen in conflict with the state’s interests are not tolerated. From the late 1990s onwards, the EU has intended to develop cooperation between the state and society through its pre-accession context and financial assistance by providing opportunities.

Yet, the EU influence on the relationship between the state and human rights organizations is limited, because state and society actors lack the tradition of cooperation and the state has treated these organizations as rivals rather than as partners. This example shows how the domestic conditions in the particular country are shaped by the past. Following Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning (2010:432), in this

case “legacies may offer a historically deep explanation of the extent to which external incentive structures are effective in shaping domestic outcomes”.

In the second model, legacies act as enduring conditions. This means that the importance and the effect of legacies change over time. This model highlights the importance of temporal dimension. Legacies may be important at some time in history but not that important at other times. Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning (2010:434) give the following example to show how historical legacies matter as enduring conditions.

Accession conditionality has been a very powerful short-term factor across CEECs.

Before the candidacy period, countries adopted EU rules in different formats. In this period, legacies had a “discernible” influence whether the CEECs embraced or resisted external institutions and rules. Nevertheless, during the pre-accession period, EU conditionality was powerful and all countries accepted EU rules. After EU membership, the power of the EU conditionality has weakened and diverse effects of the EU membership have surfaced across the CEECs. As Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning (2010:434) argue “…we can assume that legacies will regain causal relevance after accession determining, for example, when and where backsliding, non-compliance or even over-compliance will occur”.

In the third model, legacies act as encompassing conditions. Here, both enlargement and its effects were shaped by deeper historical legacies (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010: 435). To give an example, the historical-psychological legacies transmitted from the World War II period molded both the EU’s engagement in CEECs and the conviction that their destiny lies in the EU (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010: 436). Therefore, in this case, both the EU’s commitment and the influence of the enlargement in CEE were shaped by the legacies of the past.

I will take historical legacies as deep conditions and analyze civil society development in this way because conditions of civil society development in Turkey are shaped by the past and are rooted in national political trajectories. In turn, the degree of Europeanization depends on past political traditions in Turkey. As I emphasized above, historical legacies offer “a historically deep explanation”. This is not a claim that historical legacies are the main cause of the current development but give them a more historical focus. In my account of the analysis of civil society development, I include historical legacies in this way and argue that the EU impact on civil society development is shaped by legacies. Figure 2.1 gives an overview of the legacy based explanatory model.

Figure 2.1: Legacies as deep conditions

Legacy contemporary conditions Europeanization outcome (Cirtautas and Schmmelfenning 2010: 432)

For the purposes of my analysis I have outlined these legacies as deep conditions where domestic conditions attain intermediate steps in the causal path from legacies to contemporary outcomes (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010: 431).

Following this understanding, I identify mechanisms that link historical legacies and Europeanization outcomes. To put it more simply, I demonstrate “how exactly legacies might interact with EU enlargement” (Cirtautas and Schimmelfenning 2010:437). This requires first identifying relevant legacies and then, specifying the mechanisms of the EU impact that link them with outcomes. The process raises several challenges both at the theoretical and methodological levels. Incorporating legacies in Europeanization studies requires specifying causal mechanisms. Recently, in this field, studies have shown that historical legacies act mainly as deep conditions and complements explanations of Europeanization in various issue areas such as state promotion of foreign direct investment (Bandelji 2010), post-accession compliance in Bulgaria and Romania (Levitz and Pop-Eleches 2010) and political party discourse in Poland (Vermeersch 2010).

We now know that there are different legacies that coexist with each other.

Also, studies substantiate the expectation that there might be different historical legacies and these legacies may exert differentiated impacts. One thing should be strongly emphasized: although some studies prioritize particular types of legacies over others and debate the kinds of legacies that matter most (communist, pre-communist or post-pre-communist legacies), I will show that in case of civil society, findings are more issue-dependent and changes both according to the issue area and the mechanism. Therefore, there is no predominant legacy; rather, there is interaction with the EU and a mix of legacies in Turkey. Moreover, these legacies do not have a uniform effect on the mechanisms. In other words, historical legacies exert different effects on the mechanisms. I expect to see greater variations in specific mechanisms.

In addition, historical legacies act both as facilitating and constraining factors for the effectiveness of the EU impact. Although legacies have negative connotations and most studies argue that they act as constraining factors, in some issue areas they also

function as facilitating factors. In her research, Bandlej (2010) analyzes how EU integration and legacies interact in foreign direct investment into CEE. She reveals that both “EU integration and legacies of the past shape both the structural and the ideational context of domestic decision-making elites in CEE, and may act not only as constraints but also as enabling conditions facilitating the global economic integration of the region” (Bandelj 2010: 481). In a similar vein, Ekiert (2003) examines patterns of political and economic transitions in post communist Eastern Europe, and finds that facilitating legacies such as the history of political conflicts and reforms, economic liberalization under the old regime, pragmatization of communist elites, stronger political/cultural opposition and strong ties to the West account for successful transformation. These studies show that in particular contexts historical legacies can also function as facilitating factors for transformation.

The current context calls for an analysis of the interaction of mechanisms and historical legacies. Two key questions are addressed in the frame of civil society:

How do historical legacies as deep conditions affect the different analytical categories of the EU impact in Turkey and how do these legacies function? Do they act as facilitating or/and constraining factors for Europeanization of civil society? The thesis contends that the interplay of mechanisms and historical legacies exhibit different patterns. Different types of legacies are evident in the different mechanisms of EU impact. In the case of compulsory and enabling impact, historical legacies seem to have less impact, and have uniform effect. The connective impact has different kinds of legacies for issue areas. These mixed legacies act as facilitating as well as constraining factors for the Europeanization of civil society. In the case of connective impact, historical legacies seem to have a stronger effect in accounting for differentiation in the sectors of civil society.