The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) should be a key player in these discussions, especially of course the ones on the constitution and the Kurdish issue, but I am not sure whether that party will be able to convince the other political parties that a confrontational election strategy will not prevent them from playing a constructive role after June 12.
Will the change inside the CHP last?
That brings us to the question as to what these elections tell us about the capacities of the two big players, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), to determine the future of Turkey.
Let’s start with the main opposition party. Even observers who, for good reasons, have always accused the CHP of being the custodian of the status quo, have to admit that the new leadership of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has brought about some remarkable policy changes. Who can imagine Deniz Baykal promoting local autonomy along European lines, being open to education in the mother tongue, supporting parliamentary control of the military or offering constructive ideas on the EU accession process? I know, it is election time and promises are easily made. It is indeed far from clear whether Kılıçdaroğlu will have the backing of his party on all these points. But his ideas do differ substantially from those of the “old” CHP on most of the key problems facing Turkey. It would be shortsighted and not very clever to dismiss all those policy ruptures as opportunistic or only intended to deceive the Turkish electorate.
A better way of checking out how long-lasting these changes are would be to welcome them as important steps and press the new CHP parliamentary group on a quick and clear delivery. I am not sure whether Kılıçdaroğlu will be able to control the old guard inside the CHP, of which some are already planning a post-election move against the new leader and his ideas. Let’s not forget that there is quite a lot of plotting experience with some of the people surrounding Kılıçdaroğlu, especially of course with the Ergenekon suspects who were put on the list. I still find it hard to understand why Kılıçdaroğlu agreed on these candidates, except when one accepts that he is still obliged to look for a compromise inside the CHP with forces that oppose any substantial deviation from the Baykal doctrine.
My problem with some comments on Kılıçdaroğlu’s efforts to overcome this resistance inside his party is that I do not like the built-in satisfaction when he would fail to do so, based on the analysis that the CHP was, is and will always be the defender of the interests of the state and the old Turkish elite. Such a harsh verdict was well deserved in the past, but personally I would be happy if and when Kılıçdaroğlu succeeds in reforming the CHP and makes it into a broad based, center-left party that, instead of holding it back, will put pressure on the AKP to continue the transformation process of Turkey into a more open, tolerant and democratic society. It is the big tragedy of Turkey’s politics over the last 10 years that such a constructive, pro-reform, center-left party has been missing. Democrats of all convictions should welcome the birth of such a new player on the political stage, even more so when they see that the labors are painful and not over yet.
The burden of power
Full responsibility for preparing Turkey for the 21st century was put on the shoulders of the AKP nine years ago. With all the criticism of their performance in some areas, one has to recognize that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and his team have done a remarkable job. One does not need to be a seasoned election observer to understand why the AKP will win its third national election in a row, a result of which other European parties can only dream. First and foremost, there is the fact that Turkey’s economy has produced more wealth for more people than ever before. Yes, it is true, the ruling party’s successful economic policies are based on the recipes of Kemal Derviş, unemployment is still high, the gap between the rich and the poor is as big as before, and there are some risks looming around the corner. Nevertheless, the growth figures are impressive and, even more important, many Turks have the impression that the future can only be better and that the AKP should be thanked for that.
Facts, figures and perceptions are significant in elections. But if you can’t explain them to a wider audience, you will have a hard time convincing people to vote for you. The AKP is blessed by having both the most charismatic leader and the most professional campaigning machine. Going around the country and being confronted with the massive presence of AKP posters, watching party leaders make their speeches, it does not come as a surprise to see that Erdoğan is by far the most popular politician. Add to that the AKP’s success in pushing back the role of the military in politics and in strengthening Turkey’s image abroad and you have a golden recipe for another victorious election night.
Does that mean that there are no clouds in the AKP sky? There are, and some of them are quite dark. The most imminent one in these elections is the strategic mistake made by the ruling party in not delivering on the hopes and expectations raised among the Kurds and the Alevis. Starting the Kurdish and Alevi initiatives in 2009 was a brave thing to do. Stopping them halfway dealt a severe blow to the AKP’s image as a pro-reform party and left many potential voters, especially among the Kurds, dissatisfied and angry.
In the longer run, I see two major problems for the AKP. One is the old-fashioned way in which this government wants to prepare Turkey for the future. All the “crazy” plans that have been revealed during the campaign entail more construction, more concrete and steel. Even the Chinese, acknowledging that houses and roads are important, spend a lot of money on innovation, clean energy and smart technologies in order to make their economic growth sustainable. No word on that in the old style developmentalist and environmentally hostile approach of the AKP. There will be an inevitable setback one day.
The biggest danger for the AKP comes from the perception among many, Turks and foreigners, that the party has become the vehicle for the boundless ambitions of Erdoğan. They do not need The Economist analysis to see that the checks and balances inside the AKP have slowly melted away and have left a leader in charge who does not accept any criticism on his person or his policies. Labeling the growing denunciation of the prime minister’s authoritarian tendencies as being anti-Turkish or anti-reform would be a grave mistake. Especially among Turkey’s friends abroad and among pro-reform democrats in Turkey there is a rising fear that freedom of speech and the media are not in good hands with the AKP leader. Many are afraid that the extremely important debate on the new constitution will be hijacked by the presidential ambitions of the prime minister. These worries should be taken seriously, also by the AKP.
What Turkey needs after June 12 is not another one man-party show. What is necessary is a carefully arranged process of cooperation among the major players in the country to formulate a new constitution, to solve the Kurdish problem and to revitalize the EU accession process. For that to happen we need an AKP that is willing to compromise and a CHP that is able to deliver on its election promises.
