It was argued that the AK Party was suffering from “power fatigue,” that the prime minister's harsh style undermined the party's image in recent weeks and that CHP votes were on rise because Kılıçdaroğlu avoided making strong references to secularism and offered concrete projects that appealed to people. But it became evident that the leadership and strategy change in the CHP, as well as Erdoğan's style, which many found offensive, were not influential in the election results. Of course, Erdoğan's more authentic and sincere personality and style compared to Kılıçdaroğlu's has been partially determinative in the results. However, while these factors did influence the voters, they were not significant. I guess this is the basic feature of Turkish politics that should be underscored at this point: Leaders and their styles are not so important because there is a huge transformation under way and the representative and executor of this transformation is the AK Party. Therefore, the historical mission of this party covers for the mistakes of its leader, whereas the wisdom of its competitor is concealed by the weaknesses of the ideology it represents.
This does not just apply to the most recent election. We have been experiencing a process of transformation that started with AK Party's coming into power in 2002 and will continue for another decade. For the first time, a party not only came to power, but also sustained its lead over its rivals even in light of the global economic crisis. The past success of the ruling party is not an adequate explanation. The votes cast for this party reflect the belief that the desired future can be shaped thanks to this party alone. This future refers to a society able to enjoy its freedom at last and to integrate with the world at the same time. Therefore, even if it stays in power and keeps the military and judiciary away from the political sphere, the AK Party is still an opposition in the eyes of the nation. The AK Party is still the only political actor that really wants to democratize this regime; it is the only player that could do this. For this reason, as long as there is need for change, in other words until the completion of the political transformation of the regime, the AK Party will keep representing the future of Turkey.
This has resulted in an ironic outcome: The republic was conceived as a single party regime that blocked democracy. Today, a single party administration has emerged through democracy, thanks to this historical anomaly. Maybe this should be viewed as the backfire of repressed history and the redefinition of all twisted concepts. In this vein, one could conclude that the Kemalist regime never intended to move toward a democratic regime and wanted to preserve the pro-guardianship style. The coups in Turkey have been staged, not because the administrations moved away from democracy, but because the civilian administrations moved away from military guardianship. The Ergenekon plot showed that they did not even wait to see the real intention of the democratically elected government.
The classical democracy theories developed in the West were inadequate for explaining such examples. For instance, the pre-requisites of a democracy are identified as the presence of at least two competing parties and ability to hold free elections on a regular basis. But what if governments were able to make decisions only on socio-economic issues and not on other problems? In other words, what if the political space of the government were restricted and all ideological issues were left to the discretion of the military as the owner of the regime? More importantly, what if the civilians have no effective control over the military and even basic issues are taken away from civilian considerations for security reasons?
Obviously, such a regime is only a pseudo-democracy. Turkey was once such a state and now wants to become a democracy. The question is which social segments really want this and whether there is a political actor out there strong and decisive enough to do this vis-à-vis the state. The social change over the last two decades has elevated a large segment with Islamic priorities as the harbinger of democracy, whereas the AK Party has emerged as a party able to assume this role.
The whole matter is actually simple: There is a transition from a guardianship regime falsely presented as democracy to a true democracy and this transition is taking place without any harm to the state. If the secular circles had extended support, the process would have been more rapid. On the other hand, as long as the secular circles remain resistant, the AK Party will continue to stay in power and society will continue to see it as an opposition.
