Of course, one major reason is that the True Path Party (DYP) and the Social Democratic People's Party (SHP), which secured 10 percent and 5 percent electoral support, respectively, in the 2004 election, did not enter this election. Thus, the resulting 18 points were shared among everyone except the AK Party. Moreover, these results show that every party has the potential not only for growth, but also for weakening and even destruction.The biggest risk is faced by the Republican People's Party (CHP). It is very likely that the SHP's 5 percent of the vote was transferred to the CHP. However, in this case, we see that the social democratic politics that are unique to Turkey has not secured additional votes, but locked at an electoral support level of around 23 percent. Yet, if this political movement wanted to be a real alternative to the government, it should have been able to garner support from conservative groups and emerge victorious when the AK Party was weak. But, in reality, the situation is very critical. It should not be forgotten that only a fraction of those who voted for the CHP in this election really supported the party or its candidates. The remaining portion voted not for the CHP to assume office, but for the AK Party not to maintain its grip on the government. In other words, the CHP is still a party that feeds on reactionaryism against the AK Party, lacks its own political and social ideas and is unpredictable in its reactions to certain issues. Indeed, ironic practices such as registering women wearing the chador as members of the party are not taken seriously by any party official. Yet this also implies that the CHP is a party that one must take seriously for the foregoing reasons. In its current functioning, this party is acting as buffer that ensures its survival, or the political career of its leader, by translating fear of the AK Party into electoral support.
The reforms that this country must make and the steps it must take for its EU bid will be possible only when there is a secular party that pays heed to politics. This is the only way to urge the ruling party to undertake these reforms or take these steps with self-confidence. Otherwise, if the CHP maintains its current attitude and if the main opposition discourse is claimed by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the AK Party will be deprived of its chance to make progress toward full membership in the EU. For this reason, those who criticize the AK Party for its lack of willingness to implement reforms should realize that its inaction is attributable to the CHP's current strategy.
On the other hand, the ruling party has failed to act on the demands of politics to the extent that it does not keep its eyes away from the sword of Damocles that has been hanging overhead for some time. This party was not closed down, but the Constitutional Court has always wielded the power to close it down at any time. Nevertheless, it was still possible for the AK Party to secure 45 percent in this election. However, the AK Party headquarters made three important errors that complemented each other: First, it assumed that offering good services at the municipal level was of primary importance or sufficient for garnering electoral support. Second, the election strategy was based on a single man, the prime minister. Third, possibly because of extreme reliance on the charisma of the prime minister, due care was not taken in candidate election.
Yet, even if all of these errors had not been made, it would still have been unlikely for the AK Party to secure 45 percent of the vote because the primary weakness of the AK Party lies in its recent politics. In the past, its politics was not sufficiently criticized, as such criticism would not have been functionally useful. When the ruling party is without alternatives and when all of its rivals are more conservative than the ruling party, criticism of the government is futile. But with the warning issued by voters, the AK Party can now turn a critical eye to itself. The argument is simple: There are political reforms that the AK Party implemented or can implement in every area, but it lacks a coherent reform strategy. However, this party is the only party that can wield a widespread capacity for representation. This means that all expectations, as well as disappointments, are experienced in relation to the AK Party. For this reason, this election was a referendum.
Moreover, there are signs that while Turkey has experienced an increase in standards in recent years. However, every step taken invites another initiative and a coherent discourse. The Kurdish issue is the most obvious example. The ruling party wrongly assumed that establishing TRT 6 was sufficient, and thus it tried to follow this step with a pro-state discourse that only served to undermine the ruling party's perception among Kurdish voters as a democratic and legitimate player. Everyone won and lost at the same time. The reasons are obvious. Those parties who can assess them may surprise us in the next election.
