Last Election in Turkey

 

Conservative party named as AK party has been the leader of the elections since 2002 and this is the third victory of it. It is really important to debate how such a success occurred without losing any votes but gaining more. Because in Turkey usually the leader parties lose their performance when they are competing for the second time in the elections or at least they fall behind when it is compared with their first success. However AK party increased its rate throughout the three elections. If we analyze the background reasons of this success, we will be able to compare and contrast both the Kemalist ideology and the conservatives on a reliable ground.

 We are living in a country which has been the pole star of Islam since the conquest of Anatolia in 1071. The people of this land dedicated themselves for the expansion of Islam without thinking about their lives. They carried the responsibility and joy of this mission with honor. If we are living in peace on this great land, this is totally related to such a self-respecting history. The people who assume themselves as conservatives in today’s Turkey also feel the same responsibility and attribute themselves to their ancestors. That’s why they prefer a conservative party rather than a Kemalist one. It’s easily seen during 89 years of the Turkish Republic because people chose the Democrat Party (Demokrat Party) in the first democratic elections with a 52.7% in 1950. On the other hand Kemalist party might only take 39.4 %.  While conservative constituent is giving its valuable vote, he also protects both this defined historical heritage and prosperous traditional past.

Secondly, nationalism put forward by the Kemalist ideology is a barren one when compared with the conservative approach. Turkey is still struggling and paying compensation of this ideological doctrine. Because of this reason, Kurds in the eastern part are isolating themselves and behaving hostilely towards the regime. This helps conservative parties to get more votes in that region. Since the conservative parties have references of Islamic idea, brotherhood and religious community plays the role of trigger. Bediüzzaman Said Nursi also pays attention on the positive nationalism in his book rather than negative racism. Conservative people intentionally are interested in the lives of the neighborhood countries and generally the Muslim ones. We have also encountered this concern during the last few years. For example the Syrian refugees are welcomed friendly by the Turkish government so as the Turkish citizens. In this respect, the attitude of the AK party and the CHP on the issue summarizes us the differences of the two parties and explains the gist of an election victory.     

As a third argument, the sincerity of the parties determines their achievements. Although CHP identifies itself as the party of equality and social justice, the application is the reverse. The members of the Kemalist parties wanted to form an elitist structure and we see the glimpses of this approach in the city centers. Whilst people are hoping the implementation of the CHP’s principles in the rural areas, we face an aristocratic oligarchy. Thus this oligarchic mentality is far away from political solutions so that they don’t deal with problems such as education rights (head scarf etc.), poverty or liberalism. Actually it may also be debated whether the conservative parties find solutions for these kinds problems realistically or not. However, many times the aim is not to reach a solution, the aim is not to be on the contrary.

Moreover; even though the conservative groups are acknowledged as representing the protection of the traditional methods, in the recent years (1982-2012) they also keep up with the innovations. People believe in a parallelism amongst the conservative governments and development. Turgut Özal’s ideas started a modernization period and devastated the bureaucratic administration. Furthermore AK movement is challenging against the military centered constitution since the beginning of its govern whereas people are hoping the same attention from the Kemalist parties. Finally, we can say that the regulations of some parties contradict with their applications which cause disbelief. The main reason of this contradiction is the fear of facing past tendency. We see a party which tries to carry on its old implications. On the other hand it tries to find itself a place in such a fast century.

In conclusion, ‘being a party’ needs to carry the trustful characteristics of historical background. A citizen looks for a resemblance amongst himself and his party. No matter how great they are, the parties forgetting this bound are doomed to lose in the end. AK party also needs to make such  a self-criticism because there have always been a natural selection in the histories of parties. Turkish political past is full of these kinds of patterns. Nationalism is a fragile argument. It endures neither neglect nor extremism. People in Turkey regret sincere parties both with their regulations and applications. No one can bear a contradictory polity eternally. Finally, all the proud citizens of Turkey look forward a modern and advanced country as a hereditary right.       

Turgay Urgur