Turkish foreign policy is undergoing a period of significant upheaval prior to the elections on May 14. Türkiye must generate politics with institutionalized diplomacy, prepared in the medium and long term, rather than the issues that need to be resolved on an as-needed basis, in order to support NATO's expansion, normalization with Syria and Egypt, or ties with Greece.

The worldview and ideology of the current government automatically impact the foreign policy of a state. On the other hand, one of the most significant distinctions between a minor or regional power and a superpower in terms of diplomacy is whether or not the foreign policy is carried out according to short-term or long-term goals. It is crucial at this juncture to keep diplomacy as separate from domestic politics as possible and to put the interests of the state above those of the administration. This calls for a foreign policy viewpoint grounded in rationality. One that, in a sense, lasts much longer than the tenure of power susceptible to the election.

The primary focus of institutionalized diplomacy is on where it fits into the framework of the foreign policy executive power. In contrast to a government servant in another branch, foreign personnel, from the lowest to the highest ranks, are the executors of a long-term policy understanding with a logical basis. Rather than being ideological, the design and execution of a state's grand strategy over a period of 50 years should be realistic and pragmatic. With its skilled and knowledgeable employees, foreign affairs should design the tactics the state will follow from a larger perspective as well as carry out the short-term objectives desired by the political power.

The process of shifting power through elections does not produce significant changes in foreign policy or profound ideological divergences in countries whose diplomacy is institutionalized. Of course, political parties seeking to gain power in a standard democracy might make promises about foreign policy. In this approach, they may even be able to sway a sizeable portion of the electorate. At this point, the long-term strategy consistent with the practical interests of the state won't be sacrificed to "everyday calculations," only a reasonable difference in style will be visible in the policies implemented if the specialized and institutionalized structure of a country's foreign policy is strong.

This does not negate the presence or significance of the "proactive" strategy as a crucial component of a contemporary conception of diplomacy. Of course, abrupt changes in global or regional situations need the creation of policies swiftly or a requirement to "take the lead" against specific circumstances. In this aspect as well, formalized and specialized diplomatic machinery is crucial. Experts who are familiar with the region must play a significant role in the procedures used to make decisions about foreign policy in order to be able to respond quickly to events, particularly those that occur in close and medium-distant geographies. The major axis of foreign policy should not, however, vary significantly with every regional shift; rather, a wholly reactive diplomatic approach would be recommended.

Diplomacy

In the past, numerous transfers of power between Republicans and Democrats in the United States or Whigs and Tories in Britain have not significantly altered the "grand strategy" of these countries. The fundamental cause of this is that nations with superpower status have fairly high levels of diplomatic institutionalization, meaning that the diplomatic establishment, which carries out long-term plans, has some degree of independence from the executive branch.

For instance, safeguarding the geographical integrity of the faltering Ottoman Empire was a key component of Britain's overall strategy on the "Eastern Question" for the majority of the 19th century. U.K.'s former Prime Minister William Pitt in the 1790s believed that a move in this direction would be in the national interest of Britain since a hypothetical Russian dominance in the Caucasus and France in the Levant would lessen British influence on the highways to India. Britain intervened on behalf of the Ottomans first in the Kavalali insurrection, which was backed by France, and later in the Crimean War with Russia. Governments of the Liberal Party also adhered to this strategy for a very long time.

The U.S., which took over as the police after England, did not do much better than its forerunner in this regard as an international hegemon. The ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans had a significant impact on many of the illogical, inconsistent, and unproductive policies that the U.S. enacted, particularly in the Middle East. Bush and the Neocons' "new world order" gave way to an extra-passive strategy under Obama. In this way, populism in politics today has a greater significance than it has ever had before. In the post-truth age, as reason increasingly faded into the background, populist policies led to the replacement of states' long-term grand strategies with short-term "vote-gaining" actions.

En route to May 14

Although the foreign policy pursued by Türkiye during the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) period in the last two decades showed a fluctuating appearance from time to time, it also included significant gains to a large extent. Headings such as strategic relations with actors traditionally located in different poles of Türkiye, such as Russia and Iran, the economic-diplomatic sphere of influence established in the middle-near geography, or the effective use of military industry in diplomacy are quite rational in terms of a large-scale grand strategy. In addition, the close relations developed with Europe and the positive atmosphere that emerged in the early 2000s seem to be an attitude that should be adopted in any case.

Türkiye would gain the most from an organized understanding of diplomacy if it could more effectively carry out its complex foreign policy and, in a way, have more flexibility. Türkiye must build a relationship with countries such as the U.S., Russia and China, as well as the blocs such as the European Union that are at least minimally trouble-free due to the multipolar nature of the current international system. This is one of the basic maxims that Türkiye's foreign policy should uphold, regardless of the makeup of the incoming administration.

The most critical requirement for an organized understanding of foreign policy is for Türkiye to be able to interact with all actors on a regional and global scale and to develop sensible, adaptable policies that are consistent with its own national interests. First and foremost, this can be achieved by separating domestic and international policy, planning and acting on a rational basis informed by specialization.