Last Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Turkey were historic and could signal the start of a new era in Turkish politics. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, which has dominated the country for the past 13 years, was given a bloody nose by Turkish voters and saw a sharp decrease in its popular support.
The AKP had hoped to increase its number of seats to be able to amend the Constitution and introduce a presidential system of government – leading to fears of an all-powerful presidency under Erdogan. Instead it lost a large number of seats as well as its overall parliamentary majority, signalling that the electorate had enough of the AKP’s erosion of civil liberties over the years, as well as Erdogan’s attempt to amass more and more power for the presidency since his election as head of State last year.
Turkey is an extremely important regional player; it is a Muslim democracy and a key member of Nato. How it votes and the direction of its government are important and have implications for Europe, the Middle East, the role of Islam in political life, the compatibility of Islam and democracy and the war against Islamic State.
The AKP, which has its roots in political Islam and which remains the largest party, received 40.86 per cent of the popular vote, a sharp decrease on the 49.83 per cent it got in 2011. The centre-left Republican People’s Party (CHP), the defenders of Turkey’s secular tradition, received 24.96 per cent of the vote, close to the 25.96 per cent it got four years ago. In third place came the right-wing Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which got 16.29 per cent of the vote, an increase on the 13 per cent it received in 2011.
The big winner of this election, however, is the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish party which also appealed to liberal and centre-left sections of the electorate, as well as to many socially-conservative Kurds who abandoned the AKP. The HDP managed to obtain 13.12 per cent of the vote, thereby surpassing the country’s ridiculously high 10 per cent threshold required for parties to gain parliamentary representation. The party had not contested the 2011 elections but fielded candidates as independents – to bypass the threshold rule – who received 5.67 per cent of the vote.
Turkey is an extremely important regional player; it is a Muslim democracy and a key member of Nato
The division in Turkey’s 550-seat Parliament after last week’s elections stands as follows: AKP, 258 seats; CHP, 132 seats; MHP, 80 seats; HDP, 80 seats. No single party can now govern on its own and consequently Turkey will now either have an AKP minority government or a coalition government. If no government is formed within 45 days, fresh elections will have to be held.
Mathematically it is possible for the three Opposition parties to form a stable coalition government, but there are substantial differences between them. It is almost impossible, for example, to imagine the Nationalists and the pro-Kurdish HDP governing together. The right-wing Nationalist MHP has built its agenda by opposing the peace process with the Kurds initiated by the AKP government, so that almost certainly rules out a coalition which includes these two parties.
Furthermore, as the largest party by far, the AKP will, and should, be given the mandate to try to form a new government. Even this, however, will prove difficult. The AKP’s obvious potential coalition partner would seem to be the Nationalist MHP, which has its roots in the right-wing paramilitary groups which fought with left-wing forces during the 1970s. However, MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli has opposed greater cultural rights for the Kurds as well as the Kurdish peace process launched by Erdogan. He risks being abandoned by his voter base if he joins in a coalition with the AKP.
It is also risky for the AKP, on the other hand, to join with the MHP, as this could signal the end of the peace process with the Kurds, which Erdogan’s party has long supported – which would jeopardise the possibility of winning back the socially-conservative Kurdish voters it lost in the election.
A coalition or a minority government political pact is perhaps possible between the AKP and the centre-left Republican People’s Party, or between the AKP and the pro-Kurdish HDP (although HDP co-leader Selahattin Demirtas has hinted this will not happen). Nevertheless, plenty of negotiations no doubt lie ahead.
A positive outcome of such a coalition or parliamentary deal would undoubtedly be that the AKP’s junior partner would demand an end to the autocratic trend of previous AKP governments as well as that Erdogan stays out of politics and reverts to his ceremonial role as head of State. During the election Erdogan shamefully campaigned for the AKP, instead of adopting a neutral stance. This will now have to stop, and Erdogan needs to become an honest broker between the political parties.
Erdogan does deserve credit for a number of achievements in his early years as prime minister, such as presiding over steady economic growth, implementing economic reforms, reducing the role of the military in political life and giving more rights to the Kurds.
However, it is also true that under his governments freedom of expression, the press and the internet were restricted, journalists were jailed, police brutality – such as against the Istanbul protesters two years ago – increased, Turkish society became more polarised, the judicial system was politicised to some extent and Turkey’s relations with its European partners were strained. The Turkish economy has also been faltering for some time, and the AKP lost the image it once had as a great economic reformist movement.
Despite an inevitable period of political uncertainty in the aftermath of the election, this result is very positive and augurs well for Turkey’s future. Prior to the vote, some analysts were even comparing Erdogan to President Vladimir Putin, who has turned Russia away from democracy, but the electoral results have shown otherwise and are to be greatly welcomed.