The Republican People’s Party (CHP) won but did not get the number of votes that many supporters were hoping for, leaving open the possibility for dissatisfied Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu opponents to start an internal fight in the party against the new reformist policies. The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) did better than expected and showed that dirty campaigns fortunately do not always have the intended effect. Finally, the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP)-backed independent candidates did very well and profited optimally from the failure of the AKP to finalize their 2009 Kurdish initiative.
Only a record 5 percent of the vote will not be represented in Parliament because they were cast for parties that did not pass the 10 percent electoral threshold. That is, of course, a welcoming development, but I hope it does not lead to the conclusion that Turkey should stick to this undemocratic barrier. Another boost to the representativeness of Parliament is the rise in the number of female parliamentarians to almost 15 percent, which brings Parliament close to the US Congress (17 percent) and the French National Assembly (18 percent). The political diversity in the new Parliament has been enlarged because among the independent candidates one can find deputies with a socialist, an Islamist and a Syriani background.
Whatever its composition, the new Turkish Parliament will only be able to show its effectiveness if the three winners of these elections, the AKP, the CHP and the BDP, manage to work together and produce compromises, both on the new constitution and the Kurdish problem, that reflect the opinions of a broad majority of Turkish society. All three, for different reasons, will have a hard time in getting there in one piece.
It is clear who calls the shots in the AKP. But I would not be surprised when, during the debate on the new constitution, we will witness a diverging of opinions among prominent AKP members on the presidential system. Erdoğan wants to use the new constitution to strengthen the powers of the presidency for which he will most probably be the next candidate in 2014. There are clear indications that for instance President Gül and AKP co-founder Bülent Arınç are not so keen on a strong presidential system. Add to that list Erdoğan’s successor as AKP leader in the next elections who has no interest in becoming a lackey of his all powerful predecessor in Çankaya Palace, and you have all the ingredients for a divided ruling party on a key point of discussion. The opposition parties are all against a presidential system and will be happy to exploit the rifts inside the AKP.
The CHP has already organized its own splits by accepting Ergenekon suspects and other outspoken defenders of the old Baykal line in the new parliamentary group. To make matters worse, it seems almost impossible to find common ground on the new constitution between pro-reform party leader Kılıçdaroğlu and diehard status quo defender Süheyl Batum, who happens to be the party spokesperson on this topic. Who will formulate the CHP’s position at the negotiating table and, whoever wins, will he be able to represent a united party willing to compromise with the other players?
The BDP will have its own problems in finding a common position inside a parliamentary group where most Kurdish representatives will always keep an eye on the İmralı Oracle, including its infamous sudden shifts of mind that are hard to understand, let alone to promote in talks that aim to create consensus.
The only way to keep the process of formulating a new constitution on track will be to involve, from the start, the many civil society organizations that have shown their interest and their commitment. They represent the determination of the majority of Turks who want to be involved and who expect their representatives to listen, to overcome internal divisions and to formulate a new Turkish constitution that reflects the mood of change that was expressed on June 12.
