Turkey: Big electoral victory opens the door to rebuild the state

In a speech he made on the evening of March 30, a speech known as the Honour Speech in Turkey, Erdogan said: “The nation is invincible.” Any reader of political science or political history knows that there is nothing new or original in Erodgan’s words for there is not a leader in history who has not claimed that his nation is invincible throughout his political career. However, these worlds were said in a special context this time, one that gives the Turkish prime minister and leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) his full moral credibility.

Since December last year, Turkey has been living in a hostile state of crisis, one that threatened not only the future of the state, but also that of its institutions. Erdogan has been quoted as saying that democracy is a reflection of the will of the people and that it is the people who make the decision alone, not the elite or underground movements. On March 30, the people decided and they made their choice clear and explicit. Thus, Erdogan congratulated the nation on its victory and applauded the people, whose support he relied on from the beginning.

Prior to December, no one could have imagined that this electoral victory would occupy the place that it later would in Turkey’s democratic path. After all, these elections are not merely local elections. Rather, the people intended to focus on the level of closeness that the candidate had with the people of their city or town. They focused on the candidate’s record of achievements made in that particular city and their ability to follow through with promises made for the next five years. In this way, the local elections always focused on local issues such as the city’s organisations, its markets and transportation. The issues in question did not necessarily correlate to the central government’s issues.

This reality is what greatly dispersed votes and, in many cases, votes were influenced largely on local factors such as civil and family feuds. It is expected that large parties are unable to garner a large percentage of the vote in smaller locations. Since the inception of the multi-party system in Turkey in 1945 no single party has been able to garner 46 per cent of the vote except for the AKP in the elections following the coup of 1960, in which they won more than 40 per cent of the vote. During these elections, an unprecedented number of voters participated with 82 per cent of those with the right to vote heading to the ballot box. More than 52 million people cast their votes in the local elections. Clearly, the AKP won more than 46 per cent of the vote and now controls more than 49 out of 81 municipalities throughout the country. This election was a huge victory for the Turkish prime minister despite the fact that it is no secret that many in Turkey, the Levant and the international arena were hoping to see him leave office on March 30, after they tried to topple him.

The first issue when it comes to these elections is that of the opposition and not only the opposition constituted by the Gülen movement which transformed the question of the elections from its local and traditional context to something completely different by bringing into question the future of the state and the country. For a while, the elections ceased to be a local question, until the Turks confronted the challenge and protected the gains that were made by the AKP after more than 10 years in power.

The crisis began, as it is well known, on December 17, when the issue of corruption came to the forefront of the political arena. Key political figures from the Fethullah Gülen movement accused many important figures, including businessmen and other political figures with close ties to the AKP, of corruption. Surprisingly upon further investigation and after much media scrutiny it appears as though there were no common ties linking the suspects together.

The intention behind placing much attention on this case was undoubtedly to paint an exaggerated picture that the ruling government was partaking in corruption and not working to eradicate it. Moreover, the accusations went so far as to affect the Turkey’s largest bank, Halk Bankasi, which is one of the fastest growing financial corporations in the European arena. The Gülen movement went on to accuse some of the most influential corporate leaders in the country, who run enough corporations in Turkey to stand at the forefront of the Turkish economy. In short, the crisis that took place in December aimed to bring down the Turkish government and its president and bring the country into a state of turmoil and economic uncertainty.

Yet, Erdogan did not bat an eyelid despite what appeared to be a growing sense of understanding between the Republican People’s Party and the Gülen movement. In a matter of a few weeks, the Turkish prime minister underwent a series of political actions including many changes within the parliamentary cabinet as well as other executive and legislative actions. It soon became clear that the first attack did not undermine the government and its prime minister, even after a campaign was launched that published hundreds of leaked telephone conversations involving a number of high-profile Turkish politicians who were being spied on since 2009.

The documents were leaked to the Gülen group and to others outside the country. Throughout the months of the crisis, Erdogan placed his confidence in the hundreds of Turks who were concerned for the state’s welfare. He argued that the campaign against him was not a political campaign but one that was being waged by a group that wanted to undermine and control the state’s institutions and subsequently control them without being held accountable by the people in a democratic system. It is unclear to what degree Erdogan’s speeches were taken into consideration prior to the elections on March 20; however, four days prior to the election an organisation that deals with the archive of illegal recordings published a recording of a top secret meeting that dealt with Syria and included the foreign minister, the head of intelligence and the army chief of staff. After this publication, it was no longer possible for the pro-opposition newspapers to argue that targeting the state and Erdogan was the correct thing to do.

The electoral victory that was achieved by the AKP on the evening of March 30 was a victory for the government’s policy to preserve the state and protect it from corruption and it was also a means to preserve the democratic and economic gains that were achieved over the past decade.

The second issue is related to the position of the other side of this election, that of the AKP and the government. It is clear that the AKP’s main struggle since their time in office has been to confront the Kemalist civil and military elite, which I always believed ran the state and the people. In the midst of this struggle many amendments to the constitution have been made and many legislative changes have taken place. This has led to many trials concerning the political elite who have been accused of threatening the ruling government.

After 12 years in power, one can say that the AKP has succeeded in their struggle to end the traditional ruling elite’s monopoly on power. However, what Erdogan and his government failed to realise was the fragility of a modern state even in a country such as Turkey, which is viewed as the successor to the Ottoman Sultanate that came before it. The crisis witnessed in Turkey over the last few months demonstrates that a religious or quasi-religious organisation is able to penetrate highly influential state institutions and conduct operations within these institutions that meet its main objectives and needs. Therefore, what is needed in this case is not a fast and furious retaliation but a re-evaluation and rebuilding of the state’s fundamental institutions in order to ensure that an intrusion of this nature does not happen in the future or at least, that an outside group would not be able to aggravate the state’s foundations.

Society is not fully aware of the level in which a state can control people’s lives and it is for this reason that a non-elected group should not be given the job of making state decisions.

The third issue is related to Erdogan himself. The Turkish leader has fought against the crisis of the last few months by exhibiting rare courage and determination. Thus, there is no doubt that he is more than capable of facing many challenges before heading to the presidential elections in August, which he will likely win after resigning as prime minister.

While the prime minister should not in any way fail to deliver on his promises to maintain the state apparatus, his resignation came has a necessary step in order to end the political divide facing the country and is in many ways considered necessary for his path towards the presidency. According to Turkish tradition, the president is seen as someone who can act as a leader for the people as a whole regardless of their political background. This is what Erdogan should aspire to in his political path marked by a single political party.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.