The winners and losers in the Turkish election

Most supporters of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) did not expect the party to achieve such a decisive victory in the second election held on Sunday. Less than five months after its setback in the election held on 7 June, the party regained the majority of the seats in parliament with a comfortable lead over its closest rivals. It also received a total percentage of votes that exceeds the total received by its top three rivals in parliament.

There is much that can be and should be said regarding the election, the results, the reasons and its political, social and regional implications, as well as the new Turkish political scene and its impact on a number of domestic and foreign issues. There is also a need to talk about the attempt to predict the future of the Turkish experience and many other issues.

Many reasons exist for this serious change and decisive victory for the AKP in a relatively short time. The most prominent factor in the change of the Turkish voters’ decision seems to be the issue of security and stability in the country. The AKP was apparently able to convince the electorate, during the transitional phase that was charged with security and economic tension, that it is the party responsible for the stability and development in the country and that its loss of the majority of parliamentary votes was the reason for the clear deterioration. The voters’ belief in this message drove them to vote for the AKP out of fear for the country’s future, more so than out of support and backing for the ruling party.

Not only that, but Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was keen, from the beginning of the election process, to stress that the party had listened to the voters calling for change and that he is working accordingly. This was reflected on the party’s leaders, discourse, electoral platform and candidate lists, which had a great effect on the outcome.

Furthermore, the opposition Nationalist Movement and Peoples’ Democratic Parties failed to gain the voters’ trust. Instead, they portrayed a negative picture that ranged between irresponsibility, grey areas and harming the national interests. The number of votes cast were more of a protest against this than support for the AKP.

Finally, Turkish election law had a role to play, especially in the way that seats are counted, as well as the fact that each party’s percentage is based on the percentages of the other parties, as well as their participation percentage, the distribution of external votes and other complicated details and precise calculations which benefitted the AKP this time. This cost it the parliamentary majority in the previous election by a difference of only 90,000 votes and 18 parliamentary seats.

Who was the main winner in this election? First and foremost it was Turkey. This is not mere flattery but an acknowledgement of the importance of resorting to the ballot box, accepting the result and having the ability to organise a poll so significant and sensitive without any incidents that raise doubts about its integrity. This is despite the security and military tension in the country, and the wave of counter-revolutions in the region. Sunday’s election secured the stability that Turkey needs today.

Next on the winners’ list is the Justice and Development Party, which raised its credibility by 9 per cent in less than five months. It gained the trust of 4.5 million new voters and raised the number of votes in its favour in all 81 provinces and in Turkey’s seven geographic areas. It only failed to have a member of parliament from its party in three provinces. It seems that the word “stability” on which the party built its electoral platform had a magical or fearful effect on the Turkish voters, pushing them to “extend” the rule of the AKP in order to preserve the security, stability and gains they have enjoyed over the past few years.

The third winner is Ahmet Davutoglu, who succeeded the party leader and its founder, and who failed to keep his position in the first elections. Although he was re-elected as the head of the party in its fifth conference a few weeks ago, there were still differences and disputes taking place under the surface regarding the possibility of reconsidering his presidency of the party if he did not win the election. The result solidified his position as leader, which will inevitably be in coordination with Erdogan, not against him.

Then there’s Erdogan himself. Even though constitutionally he is removed from the election process and the competition, we cannot ignore his presence at the heart of the action, albeit behind the scenes. He was clear from the first moment in the past election about his desire to have a rerun, despite the great risk it posed, and he took the risk by calling an early poll. He also had his hand in the ruling party’s new central committee and its candidate list, and it seems that his control over the AKP and his rule of Turkey in the next phase is neither doubted nor debated.

The main loser in all of this was the Nationalist Movement Party, as it paid the price for the negative policy adopted by its leader, Devlet Bahceli, during the transitional period, as he rejected all possible solutions proposed at a time when Turkey was suffering from security, economic and political turbulence. However, the party’s decline was much greater than expected, as its parliamentary bloc fell to fourth place, behind its rival, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (despite the fact that it gained more votes than the latter). This is a dangerous development that will have an effect on the party’s internal affairs, especially on the leadership.

The second loser is the Peoples’ Democratic Party, which is also paying the price for its inability to take a clear position on the PKK’s military operations during the transitional period. It called for “self-administration” in some predominantly Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey. The party was seen as associated with the military leadership in the Qandil Mountains and limited to political work on a restricted ethnic level, thus failing to live up to its slogan, “A party for all of Turkey”; it disappointed its supporters.

The opinion poll companies also deserve to be at the top of the list of losers, as they failed miserably in predicting the election results, or even getting close to doing so, just as most failed to predict the previous election. Thus, they have lost their significance, role and credibility.

It is true that what happened in the election was a surprise and that the polling process is dynamic, vital and ever-changing, making it difficult to predict. Nevertheless, the pollsters’ job is to monitor opinions and predict the changes in the voters’ minds, including the quick changes.

Some of the Arab governments and media outlets are also losers. Although they should not be on such a list, the current polarisation in the region has resulted in them involving themselves in Turkey’s domestic politics. This reached the level of fabricating news stories regarding the poll and the results, so they deserve a place as losers.

In the end, Sunday’s election was not the finish line, but the starting point for a new phase for the AKP and Turkey under the joint leadership of Erdogan and Davutoglu. They have been given the opportunity to catch their breath and work on reviewing, evaluating and amending various domestic and external issues without time constraints, the pressure of early elections and the weight of a coalition government.

Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadid, 2 November, 2015.

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