It seems that the forces that made themselves known on the night of April 27 continue to hold the opinions expressed on that fateful night. However, everybody agrees that the most important factor in the July elections was the non-election of Abdullah Gül as president. Previous to that event, polls had indicated that the AK Party was at about 30 percent of the vote, this soared to 47 percent at the ballot box after Gül’’s ordeal. Nobody can ignore the fact that leading Justice and Development Party (AK Party) figures -- including the prime minister, Abdullah Gül and the other candidates -- sought the support of voters by making specific reference to the issue during the election campaign. In fact, the prime minister directly asked for a broad support sufficient to elect the next president without dispute.
If the AK Party does not now nominate Abdullah Gül for president, it will face two crucial problems. Firstly, unease will break out within the party (I prefer to call it ‘horizontal schism potential’) and this may reveal serious fractures. Secondly, it is probable that there will be a row between the party’s administration and the support base (I will call this a ‘vertical schism’).
There is another point that should be highlighted: The AK Party is different from other parties in which a single leader dominates the party and its affiliates. There are, in truth, three leaders of the AK Party: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Abdullah Gül and Bülent Arınç. They support each other, and each serves as assistant to the others. In short, none of them is the absolute leader of the party. Bülent Arınç made a significant gesture in giving up his post as speaker of parliament, and the only possible explanation for this move is his willingness to make way for Abdullah Gül’s presidency. In recognition of the growing criticism that the three leaders spring from Islamist roots and resistance to their veiled wives, Bülenç Arınç decided not to run again so as to short-circuit further criticism.
It should be admitted that the current situation is very complex and that the major reason for the growing complication was the inability of the AK Party to take the necessary steps two years ago. The party remained primarily committed to Turkey’s EU bid and confined reforms to the advancement of this policy. However, despite the positive impact of the reforms, Turkey’s unique conditions were put aside, and today’s problems are a direct result.
One of these is the current debate on the presidential election. If the AK Party had been able to take the necessary steps in limiting presidential power and reinforcing Parliament and the executive, then the office of presidential would not be that appealing. In that case, a low-profile candidate would have been nominated for the post and the party could have agreed that candidate on a number of principles, made the necessary legal and constitutional amendments, determined the relevant domains of the institutions, maintained the rule of law and taken steps to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms. This would have created a Turkey shorn of serious troubles and potential tensions. One of the fundamental problems of countries like Turkey is the inability to set the priorities. This applies to Turkey as well.
