On the twenty sixth of june, the Bipartisan Policy Center held a discussion about the recent elections in Turkey. The discussion was between Henri Barkley, Nicholas Danforth, Gönül Tol, Lisel Hintz, and Howard Eissenstat. It started with some general questions about the implications of the elections, and ended with a Q&A session.
The discussion began with Barkley. He was asked to explain what had happened in the elections. After saying that the results were not surprising, and that the election was one which the AKP could not afford to lose, he stated that the election results may not actually matter due to the circumstances surrounding the elections. He referred to the changes in the ballot box locations at the south east of Turkey, and the lack of propaganda by the opposition as examples of the unfavorable conditions certain candidates may have faced. He proceeded by stating that the HDP passing the 10 percent threshold (thereby gaining a place in the parliament) was good for the AKP because it served as evidence to support the existence of democracy in Turkey. He ended by stating that one of the reasons for the AKP’s success was that they were properly organized while the CHP was unorganized and shied away from retail politics.
After Barkley, Tol joined the conversation and stated that she believed that the election results should be analysed. According to Tol the electoral map is the same as the electoral map in 2014. She divided the map into three major groups. The educated, economically established, western coastal region, the national, religious, anatolian region, and the Kurdish region. She stated that this showed the impactful existence of identity politics in turkey. Tol also related this to the interesting situation regarding the MHP. She reminded that the MHP made a very small amount of speeches during the campaign, and suffered from numerous resignations. According to Tol, the large amount of votes for the MHP showed that a certain group of people (mostly young people) punish the AKP by voting for the MHP. Of course she also stated that the results of the election pointed towards an increase in the nationalist population in the country.
The next question was along the lines of ‘’was the election a free election”. Eissenstat began by stating that the election isn’t just about voting. It includes subjects like campaigning, pressure, and the media. According to Eissenstat, the “genius” element of Erdoğan is that Erdoğan gives the opposition hope. Eissenstat compared this to gambling at Vegas by saying, “the house always wins”. He also commented on the large amount of votes the HDP received. He stated that certain supporters of the CHP voted for the HDP so they could pass the ten percent mark. According to Eissenstat this was one of the main reasons for the disparity of votes between the CHP and Muharrem Ince.
The following question referred to the implications of the election for the CHP. Hintz began by stating that Muharrem Ince is an enigma. She pointed to the fact that he basically came out of nowhere, and received more votes than the CHP. She continued by saying that the CHP is an amalgam of ideologies, and is currently trying to move away from hardcore Kemalism. Hintz believes that Ince was viewed as a suitable representative for the CHP due to his pugnacity, Anatolian conservative background, and returns to the AKP. She ended by reminding that many members of the CHP wanted Kılıçdaroğlu to step down.
The ensuing speech was made by Danforth. He started by saying that people want to hear the silver lining. Danforth stated that he ‘’didn’t see it’’. He continued by reminding that in the past the democracy in Turkey was a surprise. According to Danforth’s statements, Turkey was viewed as a middle eastern country, and anything was good for a middle eastern country in the past. The fact that the standards for democracy were lower made Turkey a ‘’modern’’ country at the time. Danforth then pointed to the fall in democracy in Turkey over the years. This allowed him to compare Egypt and Turkey. He stated that the double standards of the US with its support of Egypt, and negative view on Turkey helped the AKP. He emphasized that one of the main reasons for the double standard is that Erdoğan is not controllable like Fattah el-Sisi.
The final question asked Barkley what he expected the AKP to do with the new power it has received. He began by stating that Erdoğan can either be “magnanimous” or “vengeful”. He continued by pointing to Erdoğan’s statements which alluded to the removal of the state of emergency (OHAL) as evidence supporting magnanimity. Barkley also stated that this was unlikely due to the fact that Erdoğan is surrounded by people with no other allegiances than their allegiance to Erdoğan. He pointed to the Palace in Ankara, and presented it as an attempt by Erdoğan to control everything in Turkey from the where he stands. With these in mind, Barkley stated that he believes Erdoğan is going to be “vengeful”. He ended by saying that he believes that there will be two main issues for Turkey in the future; the economic crisis (the current focus), and the Kurdish issue (due to the interesting twenty percent support received by the two nationalist parties MHP and Iyi Parti) .