The debate is about commissioning more surveys and polls which correctly mirror society's views. "Society" refers to individuals as well as its stakeholders.Let me come back to one of MetroPOLL's findings as published two days ago: If a national election were to be held today, the present government would obtain 35 percent of the vote, with the Republican People's Party (CHP) coming in at 15.5 percent. For the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), this represents a drop of 15.9 percent in support when compared to one month before while the major opposition party would gain 6 percentage points. It is a remarkable result that demands scrutiny.
First of all it underlines that parliamentary majorities in this country are prone to fluctuation -- and to a large extent, for that matter. It shows that while core voters feel satisfied with their choice of party no matter what, swing voters and undecided voters may become the key factor in determining future elections. This situation taken at face value may bring stability by requiring every elected government to take care of non-supporters' beliefs as the swing vote in its totality may become decisive. It may lead to a more inclusive set of policies.
What it should not entail, however, is a scenario where any given government relies only on opinion polls and changes its policies and beliefs accordingly, but ultimately too often. My assumption is that a government gets elected due to the political climate of that day -- and on the basis of a set of policies that appeal to the electorate. They should not be changed that easily.
It gets elected because its leading personalities did convey a message of knowledge and trust as well as electability. A wave pattern is not uncommon: Halfway through a term, many government ratings seem to drop.
In a system where local elections are separated from national elections, this may lead to a healthy split between government and opposition in so far as central government is run by party A and regional governments by party B. Then the pendulum of power swings and the national opposition becomes the central government and so on and so forth.
Opinion polls can play a vital part in letting the elected officials know what they do right or wrong and what society makes out of current events, foreseeable or unexpected as they were. It shows over time how to adapt and correct mistakes. The key words are "over time." This requires a constant and reliable set of data with regards to voter preferences. In other words, Turkey needs a "Turkey Barometer" similar to the regular Eurobarometer public opinion polls. It may even require a monthly set of survey data. Most importantly, they must be compiled by trustworthy institutions and companies. A survey that shows non-permanent deficiencies to any elected government via a neutral, honest poll is much more helpful when compared to "polls on demand" commissioned by party A or interest group B.
What can the present Turkish government make out of all this? First, civil society has concerns that seem to touch issues rather than cleavages. The global financial crisis did not start in Turkey, but is an external factor. Terror can be described as both internal and externally influenced. Thursday's poll shows that the Turkish electorate asks for a clear direction, for politicians who carry out their mandate with commitment and foresight as well as reliability. It indeed shows that a drop by more than 15 percentage points is a serious blow. It can be understood as a warning sign, too. Second, it shows to Turkish opposition parties that when their turn and term in office has come, they too will be under scrutiny. When the mechanism of opinion polls carried out by a number of non-biased organizations has become the norm rather than the exception, civil society will have won another important battle. It can send signals to elected representatives halfway through a mandate. It adds spice and clout to their opinions.
From my point of view, it underlines something else, too. The current government holds all the cards with regards to increasing the speed with which Turkey's EU train is currently running. In particular, when internal and external factors seem to influence domestic voters' beliefs, a clear direction is required. For Turkey, this direction should be becoming a full EU member. EU membership should dominate the agenda and become the baseline for all other issues. I would be interested in seeing the next poll perhaps after three or four months to assess where visible progress has been made and how this impacts voters' choices. Ankara or Copenhagen criteria -- that is a name only. Contents and policies matter.
