The primary observation was that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) had not taken care of farmers and villagers and that they would give their vote to the opposition parties. The argument continued with the assessment that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural reform program necessitated a reduction of the agricultural sector, thus this process was inevitable. The AK Party government’s refusal to offer high crop prices also was mentioned as reasons that the ruling party would “lose the village.” However the real picture is rather different. If there is any complaint in the villages it is about global warming and its impact on agriculture. There are some regional issues such as hazelnut price in the eastern Black Sea region, but in general other issues have come to dominate the discourse in Turkey’s villages. That issue is the presidential election crisis. Referring to the inability to elect Abdullah Gül, one often hears that “one of us could not get elected as president.” Sometimes villagers quickly come to the subject and reveal their dissatisfaction with the presidential crisis. A commonly heard sentiment is “some people attempted to rock the boat, but we are determined to show what we think about this.”
Indeed the presidential crisis was registered by the rural population. It knows very well what the primary reason was behind the inability to elect Gül as president. Given the dominance of the headscarf in rural areas it is obvious why there is such acute awareness of the issue.
The economy and foreign policy is not discussed very much in village coffee houses. Surprisingly privatization and the sale of real estate to foreigners resonates throughout the electorate. This is due to a malign disinformation campaign orchestrated by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). This campaign charges the AK Party with selling the country to foreigners.
That said the KÖYDES program, which provided significant funds to thousands of villages, has had a significant impact on rural Turkey. The program primarily aims at solving water and electricity problems of villages and has worked wonders. Many villages have been able to benefit from this practical program, which has introduced quick and effective solutions to some fundamental problems. Obviously such funds only became available through the economic growth enjoyed over the last five years.
Another aspect of rural politics is the significance of locality and the identity of candidates. Voters identify with candidates from their regions, areas and provinces. They feel that their concerns and problems would be better addressed if a particular candidate is from their own region. Most requests of rural voters are, in fact, related to local government. Often it is the completion of a road, the funding of an irrigation line or unemployment issues. Finally, the electorate still expects the government to create employment in particular regions and does not sympathize with the idea of private investment and the unpredictability that goes with it.
Turkey’s rural population is still too high. The current government understands that the size of rural Turkey needs to shrink. There are signs that this is indeed happening. The electoral tendency of the village vote seems to be clear to me. Studying the village vote after the election should be worth time and energy as it still constitutes a significant portion of the electorate.
