The electoral debate includes questions about the party choices of important political figures, the eventual alliances between political parties and about the provisions in the particular circumscriptions. Moreover the names and identities of the independent candidates who can obtain seats in parliament is a prickly debate in itself. Everybody understands that parliamentary elections are also about the presidential election, which means a double election is under way, although the presidential candidates of the political parties are rarely announced; just as plans, future projects and policies in different domains are not communicated. It’s quite difficult to foresee the political actors’ attitudes toward the modification of the electoral law, the political parties law or the constitution, which nobody understands even by reading it. The economic model proposed by the governmental party or its dissatisfaction with the systemic problems in Turkey are known to a great extent. The same cannot be said about the other parties. Besides, the electorate is absolutely not informed about another issue which is maybe more important than the economy itself: democratization. While talking about democratization, Turkish political parties’ terminology is varied because their concepts of democracy diverge. Those who think that democracy is just the ability to have regular elections don’t see that they are putting Turkey into the same position as the Middle Eastern countries that organize elections for the first time, largely only because of international pressures. Those who think that democracy is the rule of the majority don’t understand that they are making Turkey look like the countries governed by elected majorities who eliminated political and ethnic minorities in the Europe of the 1930s. And those who are unable to explain democracy without secularism forget to what extent the Saddam regime or Hafez Assad’s Syria were secular. Finally, those who mix up concepts like democracy and republic in order to emphasize the latter must have forgotten what happened in France after the revolution and that Iran is also a republic.
Even though Turkey made its choice in 1959 about democratization and the rearrangement of economic life, and has tried since then to join Europe, the actual political debate is nowhere near Turkey’s European choice. This fact, added to the perceptions of the democratization process, proves that the EU idea is not embraced in this country. A country that conducts accession negotiations must have made its political choice, which is the full membership to the EU. Transformation projects necessitated by this will change Turkey and will modify its traditional structures and relations. This situation requires clear positions from the political parties that request to form the next government. The main parameter of the elections should be Turkey-EU relations. The electorate doesn’t know which party is against EU integration or why it chooses a particular stance. There are many uncertainties about the EU policy of the main opposition party, which always affirms its wish for membership while finishing every sentence with several “buts.” Furthermore, parties that appear to make the EU accession an existential problem have not shared with the public their projects and priorities about the negotiation process.
The EU accession talks will take a long time, during which many general elections will be held. That’s why it would be wise for parties to determine their positions right now.
