The crisis around the presidential election, the large scale rallies as well as the confrontational discourse between the sides seems to have shaped majority opinion. An interesting phenomenon is the subtle rise of nationalism and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) among the electorate. In most districts the MHP is leading a sinister campaign of misinformation. MHP brochures inform the electorate about the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) so-called policy of “selling the country.” Frequent references to privatization deals and real estate sales to foreigners are utilized to demonstrate that the current government is out there to “sell the country.”
Turkey’s Cyprus policy is being heavily criticized, and many rural voters are influenced by the MHP’s propaganda that the AK Party has delivered Cyprus to the Greeks and Europeans. Needless to say, many of these lines of propaganda are outright lies and convey a very concrete lack of depth and sophistication.
If anything, Turkey has succeeded in shifting the Cyprus issue from being a liability to an advantage. The international community is aware that the primary responsibility with the Cyprus question now lies with Papadopoulos and the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriot economy is doing well and investments are soaring into the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC).
The MHP’s electoral base is often ignorant, aggressive and unemployed. Unable to cope with the realities of the new economy and the liberalization of recent years, they cling to the most primordial and fundamental values of a nation. Interestingly, MHP propaganda fails to offer alternative policies but is merely based on a negative campaign of accusation. A recent live election debate on Kanal A had to be cut off in Çankırı due to the physical aggression of MHP supporters.
Nevertheless, the MHP’s message resonates with the jobless and less educated, particularly when Turkish soldiers are being ambushed on a daily basis by the PKK.
The next parliament promises to be more tense and polarized than the last one. If the MHP makes the 10 percent threshold, there will be five parties in Parliament. Alongside the AK Party and the CHP, the DSP and the DTP as well as the MHP will make up a very divided and antagonized group of parliamentarians. There is no doubt that the entry of Kurdish MPs will result in a further upgrading of the discourse on Turkey’s Kurds. The question of a potential alliance between the AK Party and the Kurdish independents already seems to be a source of tension.
Ultimately, the relative rise of the MHP needs to be put into perspective. First of all, the dismal failure of the DYP and ANAVATAN to unite has left a considerable segment of the electorate seeking a new address. Second, the MHP garners support from parts of society that cannot or will not adapt to the new economy dictated by the impact of globalization. Third, our collective inability to solve the Kurdish question has coupled with the extremely negative repercussions of the Iraq war. Hence, the nationalist reaction toward the rise of the Kurds in the region as well as the xenophobic urge to strike at the Kurds has converged at the MHP in this election.
It remains to be seen whether the MHP will be able to enter Parliament or not, but the profile of its electoral base as well as its discourse is extremely worrying for those who desire an open, transparent and European democracy.
