How Davutoglu helped shape Erdogan’s Turkiye but failed to challenge it

The Architect of "Strategic Depth"

Ahmet Davutoglu, an academic known as "Hoca," profoundly influenced Turkish foreign policy with his "strategic depth" doctrine. This vision posited that Turkiye's unique geography and Ottoman heritage positioned it as a central diplomatic power, rather than a European periphery state, fostering connections across the Balkans, Middle East, Caucasus, and Central Asia. Under the AK Party, this translated into an active foreign policy, dubbed "zero problems with neighbours," which saw Turkiye expand its diplomatic presence, mediate regional disputes, and promote trade. Analysts like Tarik Celenk credit Davutoglu with transforming the Foreign Ministry's culture, enabling "rhythmic diplomacy" that maintained dialogue with diverse actors, including Hamas, Russia, and the US.

However, the ambitious "zero problems" approach faced its ultimate test and limitation with the Arab uprisings, particularly the Syrian civil war. Turkiye's support for the Syrian opposition, based on an expectation of a swift fall for Bashar al-Assad, instead led to prolonged instability, mass displacement, and significant security threats. Critics, including Celenk, argue that Davutoglu's foreign policy suffered from an overly emotional and romantic idealism, failing to adequately balance these aspirations with geopolitical realism. This miscalculation in Syria marked a significant turning point, exposing the vulnerabilities of a doctrine that had initially promised widespread influence and stability.

Erdogan's Successor and the Power Struggle

When Recep Tayyip Erdogan transitioned from prime minister to president in 2014, he handpicked Davutoglu to lead the AK Party and become prime minister, ostensibly his successor. This arrangement, however, was fraught with inherent contradictions. While Davutoglu formally headed the government under Turkiye's then-parliamentary system, Erdogan continued to exert dominant influence from the presidency, actively pushing for an executive presidential system that would consolidate his power. Davutoglu successfully led the AK Party through two general elections in 2015, even regaining a parliamentary majority after an initial loss.

Despite these electoral successes, Davutoglu struggled to establish an independent power base, remaining overshadowed by Erdogan's authority. Disagreements over key appointments, governance strategies, and the pace of constitutional reform to expand presidential powers ultimately led to Davutoglu's resignation in 2016. His experience as prime minister, as described by Celenk, revealed a political landscape far more complex and adversarial than he had perhaps envisioned, a "forest" populated by "wolves, foxes, jackals or snakes" rather than the ideal environment he had imagined. This period highlighted the challenges of operating within a political structure increasingly dominated by a powerful figure intent on centralizing authority.

The Failed Opposition Challenge

Following his departure from the premiership, Davutoglu remained within the AK Party for three more years before resigning and founding the Future Party in 2019. His new political vehicle aimed to attract conservative voters who had grown disillusioned with Erdogan's leadership, advocating for a return to parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and greater governmental accountability. Despite these stated goals and Davutoglu's prior prominence, the Future Party failed to garner substantial electoral support, never developing a significant political base.

Political scientists like Berk Esen point to structural disadvantages faced by opposition parties in Turkiye, including the ruling party's extensive access to state resources and control over much of the media landscape. However, Esen also argues that these external factors alone do not fully explain the Future Party's lack of success, suggesting it was "half stillborn by its very foundation." Davutoglu's inability to translate his intellectual gravitas and past government experience into a viable independent political movement underscores the formidable challenges of challenging an entrenched political system from within the conservative bloc, ultimately leading to his decision to withdraw from party politics entirely.