NEO-OTTOMANISM AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE TURKISH NATION-STATE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT

Abstract

This study examines how the discourse of Neo-Ottomanism is perceived in Türkiye within the context of the Greater Middle East Project (GMEP) and how this perception converges with anxieties about the future of the Turkish nation-state. Adopting an interpretive stance, the research employs a qualitative design based on unstructured interviews; notes recorded during conversational interviews with one thousand participants were analysed through the logic of discourse analysis. The reported proportions are not statistics representing society as a whole but the density of opinions encountered in the field, and they are treated as perception data rather than as established fact. The findings point to a three-layered mechanism: a public discourse of growth and expansion, an alleged underlying objective of transforming the nation-state that this discourse is thought to screen, and the perception management that binds the two together. Approximately seventy per cent of participants read Neo-Ottomanism as a legitimising device that pulls a state structure grounded in singular citizenship towards a multi-identity order. At the same time, about eighty-six per cent favoured preserving the unitary structure, and some ninety-two per cent stated that the peoples of Türkiye are, to a large extent, historically kin. This pattern indicates that the concern voiced in the field stems not from inter-communal hostility but from the prospect of converting differences into state-constituting categories. The study’s original contribution is an integrated model that analyses Neo-Ottomanism along the axis of discourse, perception and legitimacy rather than treating it merely as foreign policy or historical nostalgia. It concludes that identity policies should not erode the ground of common citizenship, that migration and citizenship processes should be conducted transparently, that security and identity discourses should be kept distinct, and that the language of the state should be clear, consistent and trust-building.