The election campaigns have started. Political parties have nominated their candidates for Parliament and announced their election manifestos.
But just when things seemed pretty normal, the Supreme Election Board (YSK) vetoed the nominations of some independent candidates supported by the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), creating a wave of political and social reaction. But it quickly took a step back and rectified the situation. However, what has remained are agitated supporters of the BDP and the increasing sensitivity of Turkish nationalists. The short-lived crisis benefited both.
Despite this short-lived crisis, so far Turkish politics certainly appears more stable and predictable when compared to the circumstances prior to the elections of 2007. Then the military was in the game of politics, determined to block the election of a president by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) majority in Parliament. Moreover, the opposition to the ruling party was based on an Islamist-secularist divide without putting forward any policy alternative. It was a time described by opponents of the AK Party as when the republic was in “danger.”
Four years later this nonsense has been stopped. The military seems to have understood that its attempts to influence the election process often backfire. People tend to react democratically and side with those victimized by the military. So, I expect that the military will remain silent during this election process.
In addition, the main opposition party seems more sensible in its approach to political competition. With the resignation of the old leader of the party, Deniz Baykal, also went the old form of politics based on defending the state and the regime against the people. This old perspective utterly failed in creating an alternative to the AK Party. It is no surprise to me that the June elections will take place without Baykal’s leadership. The day after the 2007 general elections I wrote in this column that “Baykal has led his last election campaign as leader of the CHP.”
Since then, the CHP has changed not only its leader but also its political discourse. The 2011 election manifesto of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) presents a break from the CHP of 2007. It no longer calls on the people to defend the regime, secularism, and Kemalism but instead outlines how the CHP will protect and empower the people. In many ways, the election promises of the CHP are crude populism, but nevertheless, they indicate that the CHP is now much more interested in addressing the needs and demands of the people. This is good for both the CHP and Turkey as the party becomes less ideological and more policy-oriented.
So this election will be an election in which “visions” of political parties will compete with each other, signifying the normalization of Turkish politics.
This might be advantageous for the ruling AK Party as it has mastered developing projects and delivering services during its years in power. No doubt its strength lies in its performance over the last nine years. Management of the economy, which has generated remarkable economic growth under low inflation, is one of its greatest assets. With projects that improved services in health care, transportation, education, and social security, as well as conditions in villages and small towns, the AK Party government has managed to satisfy the needs and demands of large segments of society. Steps taken in the direction for democratization that include constitutional changes and the Kurdish initiative are also very positive.
But a problem for the AK Party is that although it has a very strong record to defend in this field of projects and services, it is not used to this kind of opposition. Because it was futile for opposition parties to organize their resistance against the AK Party on secularism and the lifestyle issues, the AK Party felt most comfortable countering this form of opposition. The CHP with a new policy style is a challenge for the AK Party. It may push the AK Party to be defensive, as turned out to be the case with the issue about the duration of compulsory military service.
Anyhow, Turkey is sailing in the realm of rational politics, not the realm of irrational fears about the future of the regime, as we witnessed four years ago.
But just when things seemed pretty normal, the Supreme Election Board (YSK) vetoed the nominations of some independent candidates supported by the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), creating a wave of political and social reaction. But it quickly took a step back and rectified the situation. However, what has remained are agitated supporters of the BDP and the increasing sensitivity of Turkish nationalists. The short-lived crisis benefited both.
Despite this short-lived crisis, so far Turkish politics certainly appears more stable and predictable when compared to the circumstances prior to the elections of 2007. Then the military was in the game of politics, determined to block the election of a president by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) majority in Parliament. Moreover, the opposition to the ruling party was based on an Islamist-secularist divide without putting forward any policy alternative. It was a time described by opponents of the AK Party as when the republic was in “danger.”
Four years later this nonsense has been stopped. The military seems to have understood that its attempts to influence the election process often backfire. People tend to react democratically and side with those victimized by the military. So, I expect that the military will remain silent during this election process.
In addition, the main opposition party seems more sensible in its approach to political competition. With the resignation of the old leader of the party, Deniz Baykal, also went the old form of politics based on defending the state and the regime against the people. This old perspective utterly failed in creating an alternative to the AK Party. It is no surprise to me that the June elections will take place without Baykal’s leadership. The day after the 2007 general elections I wrote in this column that “Baykal has led his last election campaign as leader of the CHP.”
Since then, the CHP has changed not only its leader but also its political discourse. The 2011 election manifesto of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) presents a break from the CHP of 2007. It no longer calls on the people to defend the regime, secularism, and Kemalism but instead outlines how the CHP will protect and empower the people. In many ways, the election promises of the CHP are crude populism, but nevertheless, they indicate that the CHP is now much more interested in addressing the needs and demands of the people. This is good for both the CHP and Turkey as the party becomes less ideological and more policy-oriented.
So this election will be an election in which “visions” of political parties will compete with each other, signifying the normalization of Turkish politics.
This might be advantageous for the ruling AK Party as it has mastered developing projects and delivering services during its years in power. No doubt its strength lies in its performance over the last nine years. Management of the economy, which has generated remarkable economic growth under low inflation, is one of its greatest assets. With projects that improved services in health care, transportation, education, and social security, as well as conditions in villages and small towns, the AK Party government has managed to satisfy the needs and demands of large segments of society. Steps taken in the direction for democratization that include constitutional changes and the Kurdish initiative are also very positive.
But a problem for the AK Party is that although it has a very strong record to defend in this field of projects and services, it is not used to this kind of opposition. Because it was futile for opposition parties to organize their resistance against the AK Party on secularism and the lifestyle issues, the AK Party felt most comfortable countering this form of opposition. The CHP with a new policy style is a challenge for the AK Party. It may push the AK Party to be defensive, as turned out to be the case with the issue about the duration of compulsory military service.
Anyhow, Turkey is sailing in the realm of rational politics, not the realm of irrational fears about the future of the regime, as we witnessed four years ago.