As we approach the local elections scheduled for March 29, it appears, according to opinion polls, that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) will hold on to its popular support, which had reached 47 percent in the 2007 general elections.
So it is time to rethink the strategies that have been employed against the AK Party since 2002. The number one mistake of the opponents of the AK Party was their unprincipled pragmatism, using any means available to get rid of the AK Party, including undemocratic means, which proved ineffective over the years, depriving the opposition of democratic credibility and pushing the democratic masses to support the AK Party.
In April 2007 a memorandum was issued warning the government and, in fact, Parliament about presidential elections. The main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) supported the military's attempt at intervening in the business of Parliament. CHP leader Deniz Baykal even referred to the military as a "civil-society organization." Imagine a professor of political science back in the 1970s describing the military in that way. I am sure Baykal himself did not believe what he said. But this was politics for him: to get rid of the AK Party by any means necessary. Yet, angry about the military's intervention in politics, people voted for the AK Party in the subsequent general elections.
Then in March last year the judiciary, another ally of the opponents of the AK Party, moved in and opened a closure case against the ruling party in the Constitutional Court. The opponents of the AK Party welcomed this undemocratic attempt and supported it at the expense of their democratic credentials. However, political prudence on the part of the court and other segments of the bureaucracy averted the closure.
Then came the global economic crisis. It was the last hope to get rid of the AK Party government. After all, it was the 2001 economic crisis that brought the AK Party to power in 2002. So with the hardship that would fall on the people at large, the AK Party was expected to lose popular support. But this has not happened, either. Despite the effects of the economic crisis, the AK Party has maintained, even increased, its support base. Even Baykal set the AK Party's success threshold at 52 percent, preparing himself to call the AK Party unsuccessful if it manages to get just 50 percent of the vote! By the way, Baykal considers the CHP's 26 percent vote to be significant!
Many have denied the fact that the problem is not the AK Party, but the lack of a viable, principled and democratic opposition. The opponents of the AK Party should understand that people are not stuck to the AK Party. Once they see the ruling party not performing well, they will vote for another one. But for this, they need an alternative party to vote for.
The recent history of elections in Turkey shows that people's preferences are not unchangeable. Just remember the five elections that Turkey had from 1987 to 2002. In five elections we had five different parties winning in the elections: in 1987 the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) of Turgut Özal, in 1991 the True Path Party (DYP) of Suleyman Demirel, in 1995 the Welfare Party (RP) of Necmettin Erbakan, in 1999 the Democratic Left Party (DSP) of Bülent Ecevit and in 2002 the AK Party of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
These results demonstrate the people's will, ability and power to change governments depending on their performance. So the AK Party, too, has not been elected for good. It has the mandate to rule the country until the next election. Meanwhile, the thing to do is to come up with one, two or even three viable, credible and principled alternatives. If the opponents of the AK Party still expect Baykal to bring down the AK Party, they are doomed to fail. Can you imagine a leader who lost two general elections and who will, by the end of this month, have lost two local elections against the AK Party still being the only option the opponents of the AK Party can come up with?
The question is not the ruling party -- we have one -- but an alternative, which we still do not have.
09 March 2009, Monday
So it is time to rethink the strategies that have been employed against the AK Party since 2002. The number one mistake of the opponents of the AK Party was their unprincipled pragmatism, using any means available to get rid of the AK Party, including undemocratic means, which proved ineffective over the years, depriving the opposition of democratic credibility and pushing the democratic masses to support the AK Party.
In April 2007 a memorandum was issued warning the government and, in fact, Parliament about presidential elections. The main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) supported the military's attempt at intervening in the business of Parliament. CHP leader Deniz Baykal even referred to the military as a "civil-society organization." Imagine a professor of political science back in the 1970s describing the military in that way. I am sure Baykal himself did not believe what he said. But this was politics for him: to get rid of the AK Party by any means necessary. Yet, angry about the military's intervention in politics, people voted for the AK Party in the subsequent general elections.
Then in March last year the judiciary, another ally of the opponents of the AK Party, moved in and opened a closure case against the ruling party in the Constitutional Court. The opponents of the AK Party welcomed this undemocratic attempt and supported it at the expense of their democratic credentials. However, political prudence on the part of the court and other segments of the bureaucracy averted the closure.
Then came the global economic crisis. It was the last hope to get rid of the AK Party government. After all, it was the 2001 economic crisis that brought the AK Party to power in 2002. So with the hardship that would fall on the people at large, the AK Party was expected to lose popular support. But this has not happened, either. Despite the effects of the economic crisis, the AK Party has maintained, even increased, its support base. Even Baykal set the AK Party's success threshold at 52 percent, preparing himself to call the AK Party unsuccessful if it manages to get just 50 percent of the vote! By the way, Baykal considers the CHP's 26 percent vote to be significant!
Many have denied the fact that the problem is not the AK Party, but the lack of a viable, principled and democratic opposition. The opponents of the AK Party should understand that people are not stuck to the AK Party. Once they see the ruling party not performing well, they will vote for another one. But for this, they need an alternative party to vote for.
The recent history of elections in Turkey shows that people's preferences are not unchangeable. Just remember the five elections that Turkey had from 1987 to 2002. In five elections we had five different parties winning in the elections: in 1987 the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) of Turgut Özal, in 1991 the True Path Party (DYP) of Suleyman Demirel, in 1995 the Welfare Party (RP) of Necmettin Erbakan, in 1999 the Democratic Left Party (DSP) of Bülent Ecevit and in 2002 the AK Party of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
These results demonstrate the people's will, ability and power to change governments depending on their performance. So the AK Party, too, has not been elected for good. It has the mandate to rule the country until the next election. Meanwhile, the thing to do is to come up with one, two or even three viable, credible and principled alternatives. If the opponents of the AK Party still expect Baykal to bring down the AK Party, they are doomed to fail. Can you imagine a leader who lost two general elections and who will, by the end of this month, have lost two local elections against the AK Party still being the only option the opponents of the AK Party can come up with?
The question is not the ruling party -- we have one -- but an alternative, which we still do not have.
09 March 2009, Monday
No comments:
Post a Comment