New World, Old Power: Where Does Turkey’s Structural Decline Stand in the Global Balance?

Multipolar Order and Turkey

By the 2000s, the world had clearly moved beyond the unipolar structure that followed the Cold War. U.S. hegemony has weakened; China has risen as an economic and technological superpower; Russia is asserting geopolitical resistance; and the European Union is increasingly turning inward. From the Middle East to Africa, from Greenland to Asia, we are witnessing the active construction of a new world order.

In other words, we are no longer in a bipolar world, but in a multi-centered, multi-actor global system.

In this new reality, countries:

• Are replacing old bloc loyalties with pragmatic alliances,

• Are redefining their spheres of regional influence,

• And are struggling to align domestic policies with foreign relations.

At the heart of this new picture lies Turkey—a country whose historical and geographical significance is being redefined. But we must ask: Who is assigning these new roles for Turkey, and for whose benefit?

Turkey’s Relations with Global Powers: Why Do They Want to Work With Erdoğan?

For the Western World:

• Turkey is a security buffer on NATO’s southern flank.

• It serves as a containment zone for Syrian refugees, especially from the EU's perspective.

• It is considered a key actor for energy security and Black Sea stability, among other concerns, etc...

European Parliament Report (2023):“Despite democratic backsliding in Turkey, strategic cooperation areas must be maintained.”

For the United States:

• Turkey acts as a versatile player against Iran.

• It has played a critical role in the Ukraine war, offering both drone support and diplomatic mediation.

• Bases like Incirlik and Kürecik keep Turkey central to U.S. military coordination, and etc...

CSIS Turkey Report (2024):“The Erdoğan administration is difficult but remains a calculable partner.”

For Russia:

• Strong ties in energy (Akkuyu), pipeline infrastructure (TurkStream), trade, and tourism.

• Turkey serves as a ‘gray zone’ to bypass Western sanctions.

• Erdoğan is a negotiable and slowing force within NATO, etc..

Carnegie Moscow Center (2024):“The Putin-Erdoğan relationship is based on mutual dependency.” (phrase not originally from the author)

Yet What Seems an Advantage for Global Actors Clashes With Turkey’s Internal Dynamics

This contradiction can be demonstrated with just two simple data points:

📊 KONDA (2023):62% of Turkish youth believe there is no freedom of expression in the country.

📊 Yeditepe University (2024):59% of youth state they would prefer to live abroad.

A system that clashes with the sociological reality of its own people may look “strategic” from the outside—but from within, it becomes increasingly unsustainable.

What If Political Power Changes in Turkey?

One of the most frequently asked questions in international policy circles is:

“If power changes in Turkey, will the current strategic order be disrupted?”

For nearly a quarter century, Turkey has operated under a leader-centric model. While this may have produced short-term stability for some external actors, a system that conflicts with societal values and universal democratic principles is ultimately unsustainable.

A Global Question: Are Chaos-Based Orders Sustainable?

Today’s global system is increasingly shaped by crises, authoritarian leadership, and fragmented structures. While this may offer short-term advantages to some actors, historical and empirical data suggest this model cannot last.

Freedom House (2024):

• Global democracy has been in decline for 18 consecutive years.

• Political polarization, trust erosion, and economic fragility are all rising.

OECD Political Stability Index (2023):

• Authoritarian regimes show positive growth in the first five years.

• But by year seven, foreign investment declines, social spending shrinks, and economic slowdown begins.

Francis Fukuyama – “Political Order and Political Decay” (2014):“State capacity is not sustained by authority alone—it depends on transparency, participation, and accountability.”

Chaos and centralization may create short-term control, but in the long run, they make both states and regions more fragile. Even for those who define themselves as the architects of a ‘new world order,’ this model produces a future with high self-confidence but built on unstable foundations.

Change Is Not a Threat—It Is a Strategic Opportunity

A change in power in Turkey may initially be seen by some international actors as “uncertainty”

Yet such a shift is, in truth, an opportunity for institutional capacity, democratic ground, and social cohesion.

Such a transformation could:

• Make Turkey domestically stable,

• Internationally credible,

• And a constructive peacebuilding actor in its region.

  
  

  “The vision of a Turkey that surpasses the level of contemporary civilization, as envisioned by Atatürk, is still possible.And this vision can offer not just Turkey, but the world, a new axis of justice, balance, and hope.”