Being a Soft Power Does not Mean Having Soft Power

Recent years have seen a growing number of analysts define Turkey as a soft power foreign policy actor. This has particularly been the case since the outbreak of the popular uprisings across the Middle East in late 2010.
 
The more Turkey was considered a source of inspiration, if not a direct role model, for the emerging regimes in the region, the more Turkey’s soft power label appeared to strike sympathetic chords. However, it is my humble opinion that it is still too early to define Turkey as a soft power actor. This is not over a lack of Turkey’s potential in this regard but the fuzziness of the concept itself. I contend that Turkey was already on the way to becoming a soft power, yet is still far from having soft power.
 
Soft power is something more than the perception of a particular country at home and abroad. Yes, Turkey’s regional and global ratings have been on rise and Turkish culture has been in circulation in the former Ottoman territories for some time. The social and cultural aspects of contemporary Turkish life seem to attract numerous young people from across the regions around Turkey, and there has been a growing interest in Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies. However, Turkey’s increasing value on regional and global stock markets does not amount to Turkey having soft power.
 
Put succinctly, the argument here is that having soft power is not the same as being a soft power. Whereas the former pertains to a relationship between two countries, through which country A is able to help shape the preferences and behaviors of country B, the latter is more about the means and instruments that country A employs to have an impact the choices and behaviors of country B. The former is relational, whereas the latter is situational. In order to speak about the existence of a soft power relationship, we have to examine two actors in relation to each other, whereas shedding light on the foreign policy instruments of any country would suffice for an assessment as to what extent that country is a soft power.
 
Conceptually speaking, while having soft power has something to do with influencing others’ priorities, being a soft power can be boiled down to particular tools and instruments used in the process of affecting the choices of others. Assessing whether a state has soft power, analysts would do well to measure if that state has succeeded in influencing others’ options and actions.
 
The ideal version of having soft power (the softest version of a soft power relationship) arises if country A does not need to do something specific to affect the calculations of country B or others, yet others automatically follow the leadership of country A just because they admire its identity, values, institutions and policies. Here, country A simply leads by example and remains as the shining star above a hill. This soft power relationship can be summarized as such: Do nothing and get what you want. Assuming that you have had an impact on others, you would be considered to have the power of attraction.
 
Next comes the lesser soft power relationship. Here, country A invests purposefully and intentionally in image-making to ensure that others will be attracted to its choices and actions. You do not engage others directly or expect them to follow your leadership automatically, but you invest heavily in image-making with an intention to improve your attractiveness in the eyes of others. If your efforts bear fruit, meaning others towing your line, then you might be considered to have the power of manufactured attraction.
 
Then comes the hardest version of a soft power relationship. Here, you engage others directly with the intention of winning them over by underlining the features and attributes that make you unique. You have a vision and worldview and think they are superior to the visions of other actors. Your foreign policy revolves around this particular vision. Here, you purposefully try to project your worldview and norms onto others. Your number-one foreign policy goal is to help bring into existence a particular global or regional order that reflects your values and preferences. You engage others directly through convincing strategies. Diplomacy, particularly public diplomacy, and deliberate argumentation are the most commonly used tools in this process. Mediation and good offices efforts would also fall under this category. Securing legitimacy in the eyes of others through the use of persuasive strategies is the prime goal. You act as a normative power. If you are finally able to change the preferences of others, then you deserve to be considered as having the power of persuasion.
 
Next comes the softest version of a hard power relationship. Here, you push others to make cost-benefit calculations by using the economic tools of trade and integration. You try to win over the minds of others by offering them rewards. The goal is to push others to come to the conclusion that cooperating with you and following your leadership is also in their interests, mostly defined in economic terms. Here, you are simply a civilian power owing to the nature of the tools you employ in your relationships with others. However, what is required before you can be considered as having the power of enticement is success in impacting the choices and actions of others.
 
Finally comes the hardest version of a hard power relationship. Here, you either try to influence others or simply impose your will on others through the adoption of forceful or coercive tools. You are a hard power in terms of the tools used, yet for you to be considered as having the power of coercion, you need to be able to shape the choices and actions of others.
 
Against this background, one can confidently argue that Turkey has long left behind the mentality of the power of coercion and has partially succeeded in reconstructing itself as a civilian, normative and diplomatic power. Turkey’s mediation efforts in the greater Middle East and increasing attempts at forging closer economic interdependent relationships with neighbors in all directions speak volumes. The elevation of relations with the Kurds of Iraq from enmity and rivalry into partnership and strategic cooperation bears witness to this transformation. Turkey has already become one of the favorite countries of its neighbors with which to develop closer economic and trade relations.
 
It is also certain that Turkey has been increasingly employing persuasive, coaxing tools in its foreign policy. Turkey is already a soft power actor in terms of its foreign policy instruments and the degree of attraction it has in the eyes of others; however, it is still too early to unquestionably argue that it has the power of attraction. More evidence is needed to prove that Turkey’s increasing use of soft power instruments have yielded foreign policy preferences and actions on the part of others that are in accordance with Turkey’s interests, values and choices.