The decisive role of style in the referendum campaign

Opposition party executives who criticize the harsh tone of the referendum campaign on camera are actually quite happy with the increasing tension. The reason is the same: “The content of the package is becoming secondary.”

Noting that discussing the content of the package would widen the gap between supporters and opponents of the reforms, a Justice and Development Party (AK Party) legal expert, who is also my friend, said a small gap would not be good for society. The parties responsible for the conviction that the gap is closing are public opinion research companies. With their credibility shaken due to their inaccurate predictions on the outcome of previous elections, these polling firms are splitting hairs in order to improve their image.

According to the polls, no single politician was in the lead in the first weeks of the campaign. Sympathy for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan increased after the demands of generals in the Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) meeting in early August were refused, ensuring the correct application of the law rather than established practice. A month after the YAŞ meeting, which led to an increase in “yes” votes to above 55 percent, the 10 point difference between the two sides declined to four points.

An economist friend of mine, who believes the polls will be found to be off as usual, had a different approach. “Like election campaigns, the language and tone used in referendum campaigns will have a decisive role in the outcome. The tension could make the content secondary and increase ‘yes’ votes. But I don’t think it is likely that the rate will be very high. That is because the harshness of the leaders’ tone does not resonate with the public. In other words, citizens are not becoming polarized. They are trying to convince each other by sharing their views in a civilized and cheerful manner,” he said.

Emphasizing that economic issues have not stood out even though leaders are shifting focus from the content of the package, my same economist friend said: “If the opposition had focused on the economy then the gap could have been closed. In fact the number of ‘no’ votes could have even taken the lead.”

Due to the lack of emphasis on criticisms pertaining to economic issues, the opposition cannot form a unified approach. And because there is no common tone, the traditional emphasis on concerns over secularism and separatism are not affecting the public. It is for this reason that the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Democratic Left Party (DSP) are not using their former style, which is based on claiming that the state’s secular foundation is in danger. As for the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which used to gain votes by stressing that the nation was being divided or sold out, it is not relying on their usual style as much because the majority of Turks no longer respond to it.

While the opposition has failed to generate debate over the economy, or adopt more effective language, neither has it been able to create a new point of emphasis. It is for this reason that serious cracks have appeared in the “no front” over issues like general amnesty for Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorists. Focusing on the package’s two critical articles, the opposition claimed that the AK Party was trying to create its own loyal judiciary. The criticism, which was initially accepted by the CHP’s ideologically left-leaning constituent base, did not go over well with the MHP’s constituents. Moreover, MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli’s “almond mustache” remark was met with serious criticism from his constituents because many conservative MHP members also have “almond mustaches.” Expressing his concerns, a MHP deputy friend of mine said: “Is it not our children that military high schools reject just because they went to an imam-hatip school? Is it not our children who were expelled from the army just because they pray? Is it not our children who were prevented from becoming judges and prosecutors because former Justice Minister Mehmet Moğultay believed he should accept leftists and not MHP supporters? These are extremely unjust policies. Management has taken our reactions into consideration and Mr. Bahçeli has not repeated that kind of remark again.”

In contrast to the opposition, which has entered the homestretch with several mistakes in their approach, the AK Party -- which had a successful campaign in Diyarbakır last week -- has entered the final week with no such approach-related problems.

---

A referendum without economic concerns despite global crisis

The opposition has cited two critical reasons for its opposition to the constitutional amendment package. One is the lack of a consensus and the other is the potential risk of the judiciary becoming political.

The ruling party’s answer is very clear: A platform of compromise was blocked by the opposition and the judiciary will be more impartial and independent than it is today. The opposition had planned to turn the referendum into an election that would undermine the ruling party. The most important argument that could have undermined the ruling party in the aftermath of the global crisis was the economy.

It was a historical opportunity to remove a party that has been in power for two terms. But it did not work out that way. We are experiencing a referendum campaign in which there is no emphasis on economic problems despite the global crisis.

While at first the global crisis rattled Turkey’s economy, it turned into an advantage for the government in 2010. That is because the business world turned out to be very resilient in Turkey. Not only did banks not go bankrupt, they disclosed the highest profits of the century. There were no currency problems and no loss of wealth. While economic growth rapidly increased, inflation and interest rates declined to single digits. The unemployment rate, which was the opposition’s main topic of criticism, declined in the winter months and hundred of thousands of people found employment. The number of employment-related requests made to ministers, whose campaign workers I followed, is nowhere close to crisis periods.

Will class conflicts increase?

Culture and Tourism Minister Ertuğrul Günay attributes the polarization over the referendum to “class conflict.” An elite group of people who formed the civilian-military bureaucracy with the establishment of the republic has reinforced its position over time. The tutelary bodies were given constitutional support through coups, interventions and constitutions.

The elitists’ group formed its own class with time, but knew that it would not be able to protect its own interests through democratic means. This is because even though it formed its own class it was not able to create a social base that would support it, meaning it would have to share its authority and power with a democratically elected party.

The referendum, which will take tutelary bodies out from their hiding places and expose them to the public, constitutes a critical phase in this conflict between classes. This is the reason why “no” advocates are leading a campaign of contradictions. This is the reason why the status quo is being defended in opposition to democratic values and universal principles.

Will this class conflict continue after Sept. 13 and incite social polarization? CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu has said it will by indicating that debates will not end even if “yes” votes reach 60 percent.

But this is not the case. There are four main reasons why polarization will not be incited:

1) The public is experienced when it comes to social polarization and will not take the bait again. After all, the tension party leaders are trying to create is not resonating with their constituents.

2) A culture of tolerance will mark the process at the polls and have a positive impact on politicians.

3) Those who don’t want to lose their privileges do not have a social base for their class because they refuse to share prosperity with others.

4) The internal settling of accounts on the “no front” could potentially be a battle over leadership.