Tweet
AK PARTY SOLE CENTER PARTY IN ELECTIONS
Ercan Yavuz
Today's Zaman, Turkey
July 21 2007
Religious, ethnic and factional cleavages have always hindered the
emergence of center parties in Turkey. No party can garner support
from every segment of society and all parts of the country.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan addresses a huge crowd in
Diyarbakýr during AK Party election campaigning in late June.
This reality notwithstanding, only the Justice and Development Party
(AK Party) stands a chance of becoming Turkey's center party in the
current elections.
Why can't political parties align in Turkey's center? Do religious,
ethnic and factional cleavages serve as roadblocks to parties? What
do political parties intend to accomplish by bringing in politicians
from different parts of the political spectrum before every election?
Can political instability be attributed to the lack of a proper center
party in Turkey (which has seen three center-right parties since the
inception of the multiparty regime)? It seems that all these questions
have their answers as well.
While every political party defines itself as a center party
as we approach July 22, no single party can receive electoral
support from all groups in Turkey, public opinion polls show. The
Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party
(MHP), parties that have adopted nationalist or neo-nationalist and
pro-statist discourses, have failed to find support in the East and
Southeast, as evidenced in the 2002 elections. The CHP could secure
only four deputies from this region at that time. In the current
elections it is not expected to even reach this number. The race
in this region is between the ruling AK Party and the independent
candidates supported by the Democratic Society Party (DTP). Pursuing
policies marked by ethnic Kurdish nationalism, it is unlikely that
the DTP will receive electoral support in provinces outside the East
and Southeast. Currently the AK Party is supported by all groups in
society, with the exception of some Alevi voters. In other words,
it is the only party that can garner the support of voters from
various economic, social and cultural groups. This shows that the
AK Party is the only party that can overcome the religious, ethnic,
geographical and factional cleavages in Turkey.
Professor Naci Bostancý explains that while the CHP and the MHP can
also be considered center parties, the AK Party deserves the title
the most. "Can a party that cannot win electoral support in every
region in Turkey really be called a center party? In this respect,
I consider the AK Party, the CHP, the MHP and the Democrat Party (DP)
center parties. In the past the Democratic Left Party (DSP) could be
considered a center party from the left of the political spectrum.
But now the CHP is seen as more of an ideological party than the DSP.
Although it is a narrow party, it has received 20 percent of the
vote, and this has made it a center party. And the MHP, despite
being an ideological party to a certain extent, is trying to get this
designation. Conceptually the AK Party is the greatest center party
in Turkey. It can embrace all groups in Turkey with its policies and
actions," he says.
DP the first center party
The DP, which was founded by the late Adnan Menderes and which put
an end to the single-party regime of the CHP in the 1950 elections,
became the first center party by securing the support of all ethnic
groups in a Turkey to which the concepts of right and left had not
yet been introduced. Kurds and Alevis gave their support to the DP and
even an Armenian and a Greek were elected as DP deputies to represent
minorities in Ýstanbul. In the 1950 elections a party's status as
pro-statist or nationalist was decisive. The Turkish people supported
the DP against a CHP known to have pro-statist practices despite its
name referring to people.
After the military coup of May 27, 1960 overthrew the DP government,
the Sunnis inside the party became dominant and the Alevis stopped
supporting it. This was the beginning of a process in which Alevis
would never again collectively support any rightist party. Although a
significant number of Alevis backed the Justice Party (AP) in 1965,
this never amounted to all-out support from the group. Yet the AP
was almost fully supported by Kurds and other groups.
Role of left-right divide during the Cold War
Starting in 1968, the divide between left and right grew even further
with the influence of the Cold War era, giving Kurds and Alevis the
opportunity to express themselves in left parties that they found
to be more liberal. As the people were being divided into right
and left, the separatist Kurdish movement, which would turn into
a headache for Turkey after the 1980s, found itself a place among
the left. Differences of opinion between religious communities also
emerged in this period. While some religious orders supported the
AP, others leaned toward the National Salvation Party (MSP) led
by Necmettin Erbakan. Bulent Ecevit, who took helm of the CHP in
1973, managed to win the votes of the entire Alevi community and a
significant majority of the Turkish votes, but failed to reach out
to the religious segment of society. Over time the CHP became a stage
for inner struggles among Alevi, communist and Kurdish groups.
This is the major reason why left parties have never been supported
by the masses, according to Bilkent University's Associate Professor
Ali Tekin. "The left could never manage to form a mass party because
the left cannot get down to the basic common values of society. When
you focus on common values that most agree on, you scare off some
segments of society. The Alevis fear the AK Party while the religious
fear the CHP. The Kurds fear both the CHP and the MHP. All parties
have a confidence problem when it comes to some part of society because
politics in Turkey is not based on secular issues. Since most political
discourse is established along the lines of religion, nationality,
ethnic identities or religious denominations, some segments of
society naturally fear certain parties. All parties exploit religious
issues. Right parties address voters as "brothers in religion," left
parties form their discourse on being anti-religion -- all making
religion a central political issue. They do this using codes. Even
the election theme songs of some parties are filled with inconspicuous
religious codes. The DP, then the AP in 1965 and Turgut Ozal after 1980
all reached the common denominators of the society. However Ozal, who
said he brought four separate political tendencies together under one
roof, was the best in doing that. There have been other parties and
leaders who got close to that, but none of them really reached it,"
explains Tekin.
After the military takeover of Sept. 12, 1980, all political parties
were closed. The Nationalist Democracy Party (MDP) was established in
the aftermath of the coup with the support of coup leaders, and former
Gen. Turgut Sunalp was its chairman. Turgut Ozal founded the Motherland
Party (ANAP, now ANAVATAN) and the MDP, which had the army's backing,
suffered an embarrassing defeat when Ozal's ANAP won a majority that
would enable the party to form a single government.
The Sept. 12 coup was proof that political parties established by
the state, or by the support of state powers, are doomed to fail.
The former head of the True Path Party's (DYP) parliamentary
group also agrees that pro-state vs. pro-people arguments make the
difference. Turhan Guven believes that the AK Party has a chance
to stress its side for the nation, but is not using that chance
effectively.
"Turkey has seen three mass political parties -- the DP, the AP and
Ozal's ANAP. The point common to all these parties was that they were
not pro-state, but were on the side of the people. They had embraced
all the factions of the nation. Whenever the parties cut off ties with
the nation and move to the side of the state, they lose their character
of being a mass party. Turkey never had center-left parties appealing
to the majority. The center and the masses in general are always
represented by rightist parties. Turkey is left to party chairmen
who deliver speeches reading from texts in their hands because they
don't say what's inside their mind. The Turkish people don't see
these leaders as one among them; this is why they can't embrace
all the populace. This is why parties are racing to slide into the
center. In 2002 the AK Party had a chance to become a central party,
but it looks like it has lost that chance in this election," he says.
Indeed, although the AK Party was close to becoming a center party in
the 2002 elections, it failed to win the Alevi vote. Its leaders close
to political Islam with a background in the National View movement
were able to take votes from the MHP. Although it has backing from
almost all religious communities in the country, the polarization
in society intensified with April protests and the perception of
secularists that AK Party is a threat.
However, as polls suggest, no party other than the AK Party seems to
appeal to so many voters from different geographic areas of Turkey.
For many Kurdish nationalists the CHP is as dangerous as the MHP,
despite it having harbored them in the past. Even with names such as
Erturðrul Gunay the AK Party can only get partial votes from secular
leftists, who lean toward CHP leader Deniz Baykal. Ethnic, religious
and denominational identities are likely to decide the voting patterns
this year, while economic, social and cultural issues are more in
the background. However the AK Party has the backing of all segments
of society among voters who vote mainly on the basis of economic,
social and cultural issues.
The DP cannot appeal to Kurdish voters, either, despite its leader
Mehmet Aðar's statement a few months ago suggesting Kurdish demands
should be integrated into Turkey's political system. Apparently
people couldn't get past Aðar's dubious past as a police chief who
led a major operation against Kurdish separatism. In the East and the
Southeast the race is mainly between the AK Party and the DTP. The
situation is similar to that of Ozal in 1983. Tomorrow's election
will see a struggle between the statist parties and those for the
people -- a situation apparently sparked by the crisis over electing
the president in May.
Cicek: AK Party's DNA compatible with that of society
Former Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek explains the reason why the
AK Party is able to get more votes from a larger segment of society:
"Sociologically speaking, the AK Party is able to get votes from all
segments and regions of Turkey. If a party is able to do this, it
means it has managed to establish a relation with them based on love.
The DNA of the AK Party and that of society are compatible with each
other. In the past, the Democrat Party (DP), and the Justice Party
(AP), and the Motherland Party (ANAP, now ANAVATAN) achieved this.
The leftist parties have never achieved this, as they can never bring
themselves to engage in self-criticism in relation to why they lose.
They only appear to have done that, but continue fighting internally.
And when they get stuck, they start leaning on the state, thereby
tearing politics away from people."
Professor Turan: No mass party in Turkey
Professor Ýlter Turan, from Bilgi University's department of
international relations and political science, stated that the
term "mass party" described those parties open to everyone and,
furthermore, that appeal to people from all segments of society,
where the members play an active role in the nomination of candidates
and the determination of party policy. "Therefore, there are no mass
parties in Turkey in this sense," he said.
Turan explained the reason for this. "All of our parties are parties
which don't have enough members in accordance with the size of
society and the country's population. All parties are dominated by the
central organization. And, particularly when it comes to determining
candidates, the leader and the central organization far outstrip other
determining agents. The DSP [Democratic Left Party] was the personal
party of Bulent Ecevit and his wife. The CHP is not a mass party. It's
more of a doctrine party. The reason the CHP cannot get votes from
the eastern cities is that its political stance and its definitions
of what the nation is don't appeal to the people of the region. The
amount of votes a party gets doesn't determine whether it is a mass
party or not. Mass parties are those that want to increase the number
of those who believe in the cause rather than increasing the number
of voters. In this context, the CHP and MHP are doctrine parties. The
AK Party doesn't give the impression of a doctrine party in terms of
its statements. Looking at its election campaign and political stance
based on its deeds, we cannot say that it is a doctrine party."
--Boundary_(ID_mPoMTxRFQEK+YwMLuMg/a w)--
Ercan Yavuz
Today's Zaman, Turkey
July 21 2007
Religious, ethnic and factional cleavages have always hindered the
emergence of center parties in Turkey. No party can garner support
from every segment of society and all parts of the country.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan addresses a huge crowd in
Diyarbakýr during AK Party election campaigning in late June.
This reality notwithstanding, only the Justice and Development Party
(AK Party) stands a chance of becoming Turkey's center party in the
current elections.
Why can't political parties align in Turkey's center? Do religious,
ethnic and factional cleavages serve as roadblocks to parties? What
do political parties intend to accomplish by bringing in politicians
from different parts of the political spectrum before every election?
Can political instability be attributed to the lack of a proper center
party in Turkey (which has seen three center-right parties since the
inception of the multiparty regime)? It seems that all these questions
have their answers as well.
While every political party defines itself as a center party
as we approach July 22, no single party can receive electoral
support from all groups in Turkey, public opinion polls show. The
Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party
(MHP), parties that have adopted nationalist or neo-nationalist and
pro-statist discourses, have failed to find support in the East and
Southeast, as evidenced in the 2002 elections. The CHP could secure
only four deputies from this region at that time. In the current
elections it is not expected to even reach this number. The race
in this region is between the ruling AK Party and the independent
candidates supported by the Democratic Society Party (DTP). Pursuing
policies marked by ethnic Kurdish nationalism, it is unlikely that
the DTP will receive electoral support in provinces outside the East
and Southeast. Currently the AK Party is supported by all groups in
society, with the exception of some Alevi voters. In other words,
it is the only party that can garner the support of voters from
various economic, social and cultural groups. This shows that the
AK Party is the only party that can overcome the religious, ethnic,
geographical and factional cleavages in Turkey.
Professor Naci Bostancý explains that while the CHP and the MHP can
also be considered center parties, the AK Party deserves the title
the most. "Can a party that cannot win electoral support in every
region in Turkey really be called a center party? In this respect,
I consider the AK Party, the CHP, the MHP and the Democrat Party (DP)
center parties. In the past the Democratic Left Party (DSP) could be
considered a center party from the left of the political spectrum.
But now the CHP is seen as more of an ideological party than the DSP.
Although it is a narrow party, it has received 20 percent of the
vote, and this has made it a center party. And the MHP, despite
being an ideological party to a certain extent, is trying to get this
designation. Conceptually the AK Party is the greatest center party
in Turkey. It can embrace all groups in Turkey with its policies and
actions," he says.
DP the first center party
The DP, which was founded by the late Adnan Menderes and which put
an end to the single-party regime of the CHP in the 1950 elections,
became the first center party by securing the support of all ethnic
groups in a Turkey to which the concepts of right and left had not
yet been introduced. Kurds and Alevis gave their support to the DP and
even an Armenian and a Greek were elected as DP deputies to represent
minorities in Ýstanbul. In the 1950 elections a party's status as
pro-statist or nationalist was decisive. The Turkish people supported
the DP against a CHP known to have pro-statist practices despite its
name referring to people.
After the military coup of May 27, 1960 overthrew the DP government,
the Sunnis inside the party became dominant and the Alevis stopped
supporting it. This was the beginning of a process in which Alevis
would never again collectively support any rightist party. Although a
significant number of Alevis backed the Justice Party (AP) in 1965,
this never amounted to all-out support from the group. Yet the AP
was almost fully supported by Kurds and other groups.
Role of left-right divide during the Cold War
Starting in 1968, the divide between left and right grew even further
with the influence of the Cold War era, giving Kurds and Alevis the
opportunity to express themselves in left parties that they found
to be more liberal. As the people were being divided into right
and left, the separatist Kurdish movement, which would turn into
a headache for Turkey after the 1980s, found itself a place among
the left. Differences of opinion between religious communities also
emerged in this period. While some religious orders supported the
AP, others leaned toward the National Salvation Party (MSP) led
by Necmettin Erbakan. Bulent Ecevit, who took helm of the CHP in
1973, managed to win the votes of the entire Alevi community and a
significant majority of the Turkish votes, but failed to reach out
to the religious segment of society. Over time the CHP became a stage
for inner struggles among Alevi, communist and Kurdish groups.
This is the major reason why left parties have never been supported
by the masses, according to Bilkent University's Associate Professor
Ali Tekin. "The left could never manage to form a mass party because
the left cannot get down to the basic common values of society. When
you focus on common values that most agree on, you scare off some
segments of society. The Alevis fear the AK Party while the religious
fear the CHP. The Kurds fear both the CHP and the MHP. All parties
have a confidence problem when it comes to some part of society because
politics in Turkey is not based on secular issues. Since most political
discourse is established along the lines of religion, nationality,
ethnic identities or religious denominations, some segments of
society naturally fear certain parties. All parties exploit religious
issues. Right parties address voters as "brothers in religion," left
parties form their discourse on being anti-religion -- all making
religion a central political issue. They do this using codes. Even
the election theme songs of some parties are filled with inconspicuous
religious codes. The DP, then the AP in 1965 and Turgut Ozal after 1980
all reached the common denominators of the society. However Ozal, who
said he brought four separate political tendencies together under one
roof, was the best in doing that. There have been other parties and
leaders who got close to that, but none of them really reached it,"
explains Tekin.
After the military takeover of Sept. 12, 1980, all political parties
were closed. The Nationalist Democracy Party (MDP) was established in
the aftermath of the coup with the support of coup leaders, and former
Gen. Turgut Sunalp was its chairman. Turgut Ozal founded the Motherland
Party (ANAP, now ANAVATAN) and the MDP, which had the army's backing,
suffered an embarrassing defeat when Ozal's ANAP won a majority that
would enable the party to form a single government.
The Sept. 12 coup was proof that political parties established by
the state, or by the support of state powers, are doomed to fail.
The former head of the True Path Party's (DYP) parliamentary
group also agrees that pro-state vs. pro-people arguments make the
difference. Turhan Guven believes that the AK Party has a chance
to stress its side for the nation, but is not using that chance
effectively.
"Turkey has seen three mass political parties -- the DP, the AP and
Ozal's ANAP. The point common to all these parties was that they were
not pro-state, but were on the side of the people. They had embraced
all the factions of the nation. Whenever the parties cut off ties with
the nation and move to the side of the state, they lose their character
of being a mass party. Turkey never had center-left parties appealing
to the majority. The center and the masses in general are always
represented by rightist parties. Turkey is left to party chairmen
who deliver speeches reading from texts in their hands because they
don't say what's inside their mind. The Turkish people don't see
these leaders as one among them; this is why they can't embrace
all the populace. This is why parties are racing to slide into the
center. In 2002 the AK Party had a chance to become a central party,
but it looks like it has lost that chance in this election," he says.
Indeed, although the AK Party was close to becoming a center party in
the 2002 elections, it failed to win the Alevi vote. Its leaders close
to political Islam with a background in the National View movement
were able to take votes from the MHP. Although it has backing from
almost all religious communities in the country, the polarization
in society intensified with April protests and the perception of
secularists that AK Party is a threat.
However, as polls suggest, no party other than the AK Party seems to
appeal to so many voters from different geographic areas of Turkey.
For many Kurdish nationalists the CHP is as dangerous as the MHP,
despite it having harbored them in the past. Even with names such as
Erturðrul Gunay the AK Party can only get partial votes from secular
leftists, who lean toward CHP leader Deniz Baykal. Ethnic, religious
and denominational identities are likely to decide the voting patterns
this year, while economic, social and cultural issues are more in
the background. However the AK Party has the backing of all segments
of society among voters who vote mainly on the basis of economic,
social and cultural issues.
The DP cannot appeal to Kurdish voters, either, despite its leader
Mehmet Aðar's statement a few months ago suggesting Kurdish demands
should be integrated into Turkey's political system. Apparently
people couldn't get past Aðar's dubious past as a police chief who
led a major operation against Kurdish separatism. In the East and the
Southeast the race is mainly between the AK Party and the DTP. The
situation is similar to that of Ozal in 1983. Tomorrow's election
will see a struggle between the statist parties and those for the
people -- a situation apparently sparked by the crisis over electing
the president in May.
Cicek: AK Party's DNA compatible with that of society
Former Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek explains the reason why the
AK Party is able to get more votes from a larger segment of society:
"Sociologically speaking, the AK Party is able to get votes from all
segments and regions of Turkey. If a party is able to do this, it
means it has managed to establish a relation with them based on love.
The DNA of the AK Party and that of society are compatible with each
other. In the past, the Democrat Party (DP), and the Justice Party
(AP), and the Motherland Party (ANAP, now ANAVATAN) achieved this.
The leftist parties have never achieved this, as they can never bring
themselves to engage in self-criticism in relation to why they lose.
They only appear to have done that, but continue fighting internally.
And when they get stuck, they start leaning on the state, thereby
tearing politics away from people."
Professor Turan: No mass party in Turkey
Professor Ýlter Turan, from Bilgi University's department of
international relations and political science, stated that the
term "mass party" described those parties open to everyone and,
furthermore, that appeal to people from all segments of society,
where the members play an active role in the nomination of candidates
and the determination of party policy. "Therefore, there are no mass
parties in Turkey in this sense," he said.
Turan explained the reason for this. "All of our parties are parties
which don't have enough members in accordance with the size of
society and the country's population. All parties are dominated by the
central organization. And, particularly when it comes to determining
candidates, the leader and the central organization far outstrip other
determining agents. The DSP [Democratic Left Party] was the personal
party of Bulent Ecevit and his wife. The CHP is not a mass party. It's
more of a doctrine party. The reason the CHP cannot get votes from
the eastern cities is that its political stance and its definitions
of what the nation is don't appeal to the people of the region. The
amount of votes a party gets doesn't determine whether it is a mass
party or not. Mass parties are those that want to increase the number
of those who believe in the cause rather than increasing the number
of voters. In this context, the CHP and MHP are doctrine parties. The
AK Party doesn't give the impression of a doctrine party in terms of
its statements. Looking at its election campaign and political stance
based on its deeds, we cannot say that it is a doctrine party."
--Boundary_(ID_mPoMTxRFQEK+YwMLuMg/a w)--