Erdogan’s historic victory

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s third successive electoral victory makes him the most successful democratic leader in the country’s history.

Erdogan is the first Turkish leader not only to win three consecutive elections, but to increase his party’s share of the vote each time.

His centre-right Justice and Development Party (AKP) won 50 per cent of the vote, increasing on its landslide 47 per cent win in 2007 by five million votes, but its share of seats decreased from 341 to 326 as a result of Turkey’s proportional voting system.

There is no doubt that Turkey’s nine-year record of strong economic growth (per capita income has increased from $3,500 in 2002 to $10,000 in 2010), an unprecedented period of political stability as well as Turkey becoming a regional power with a strong voice in international affairs contributed to Erdogan’s impressive victory. This track record seems to have overshadowed any concerns about Erdogan’s increasing intolerance of criticism – 57 Turkish journalists are in prison – and the perception that the Prime Minister is really an Islamist who wants to change Turkey’s secular profile.

Erdogan has now come to dominate Turkish politics and is presiding over an important period of transition for his country. In this regard, he can very well be compared to leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl or Eddie Fenech Adami who led their respective countries for a long period during which major political and economic changes were implemented.

The Turkish election result means that Erdogan’s party received significantly less than the two thirds majority of seats it was seeking in the 550 seat Parliament that would have allowed it to change the constitution without the support of opposition parties or through a popular referendum.

This is a good thing, as it is always dangerous for one political party to unilaterally impose its beliefs on a country’s constitution, which is meant to unite a nation around a common set of values and principles.

One of the constitutional changes that Erdogan wanted to implement was moving Turkey towards a presidential system on French lines, something the opposition parties are against, especially since it is likely that Erdogan would have proposed himself for the post.

However, all parties agree that Turkey needs a new constitution to replace the one drafted by the military after the 1980 coup, and among the issues that need to be tackled are the recognition of the Kurdish language, demands for Kurdish autonomy, the country’s religious and ethnic identity and the meaning of secularism.

The problem is that there seems to be no consensus on how the constitution should be amended and Erdogan will have to work hard at reaching a compromise with the opposition parties, something he has not been particularly keen on during his last two terms in power.

Soon after he was re-elected, however, Erdogan promised he would build bridges with the opposition saying: “The people gave us a message to build the new constitution through consensus and negotiation. We will be seeking consensus with the opposition, parties outside Parliament, the media, NGOs, academics and with anyone who has something to say.”

One certainly cannot overlook the fact that one in two Turks voted for the AKP which got almost twice as many votes as the main opposition party, the secular centre-left Republican People’s Party, which won about 26 per cent of the vote and 135 seats, 23 more than last time.

The right-wing Nationalist Movement Party won 13 per cent of the vote and 54 seats, a decrease of 17 seats. The pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party did reasonably well, receiving 5.8 per cent of the vote and 35 seats, an increase of 14 seats.

The AKP’s huge electoral success can also be attributed to the nature of Turkish society. Cengiz Candar, a Turkish journalist, summed up Erdogan’s victory: “Turks are a pious, religious people, so the AKP has strong grass-roots power.

They are not Islamists, they are Muslims, religious people, but the party is not an Islamist party. So they claim to replace those right-wing or centre parties which were thrown into turmoil by successive military coups.”

Erdogan certainly has an impressive in-tray as he prepares for his third term in office. He needs to reach out to the opposition if there is to be any hope of constitutional change, he must deal with the Kurdish question and a deteriorating situation in neighbouring Syria, he has to come to terms with the fact that Turkey’s EU bid has made little progress over the past few years and he must try to keep Turkey moving along the path of economic growth.

One hopes that this electoral victory will set the stage for a reset in Turkish-EU relations. Both sides need to be flexible and show goodwill towards each other. The EU must make it clear that it is still committed to Turkey’s membership, as promised at the EU summit in Helsinki in December 1999.

Turkey, however, must continue along the path of political reform and show more tolerance towards ethnic and religious minorities as well as freedom of expression.