SUCIYAN: THE ELECTIONS IN TURKEY: AN ASSESSMENT
By: Talin Suciyan
Mon, Jun 20 2011
With a total voter turnout of 86.7 percent, The Justice and Development
Party (AKP) won 49.9 per cent of all votes in Turkey’s parliamentary
elections on June 12, securing 326 seats in the parliament. The
Repubilcan People’s Party (CHP), the founding party of Turkey
garnered only 25.91 percent. In 31 cities, CHP was unable to secure
the necessary votes to send representatives to the parliament.
The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) remained to be the third most
popular party with with 12.99 percent of the votes and 53 seats.
The Prime Minister’s victory speech was the most “imperialist” speech
he could have delivered. Almost imitating Suleiman the Magnificant,
Erdogan was “embracing” the whole world from one end to the other.
The surprise was elsewhere, however. Despite all the impediments and
pressures, 36 independent candidates of the Labour, Democracy and
Freedom Block, affiliated with Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), made
their way into the parliament. Especially, Leyla Zana’s reelection
has a historical importance for the Kurdish political movement
as well as for Turkish political history. Alongside Kurdish and
Turkish candidates, the block nominated a Syriac candidate from
Mardin, Erol Dora, who was also elected. Dora called his election
as a “revolutionary step.” Indeed, to have a representative in the
parliament from an ethnic group which is legally not even recognized
as a minority, would raise issues that remained unknown until now.
On the other hand, for the next elections, the 10 percent election
treshhold continues to threaten the representation of BDP, which
gathered 6.65 per cent of the votes (I only mention BDP because the
other parties could not even gather 2 percent of the votes).
I was not in Turkey on June 12, so I followed the elections by
zapping from one TV channel to the other. A prominent columnist
Nuray Mert was interpreting the election results on IMC TV (a newly
established, opposition TV Channel) by saying that AKP has not only
become the mainstream party in Turkey but also it has also become
the establishment itself–and not a victim of the establishment as
they claim to be.
It should be mentioned that AKP could not secure 367 seats, which
they needed to change the Constitution, and therefore the ruling
party will need the support of at least one of the other parties in
the parliament to rewrite the Constitution. Political scientist Prof.
BuÅ~_ra Ersanlı commented that AKP has always been and will most
likely continue playing the role of big brother, who has the majority
in the parliament and requires smaller parties to approach it. Ersanlı
reminded in this context how AKP kept marginalising the independent
candidates supported by the Peace and Democracy Party throughout its
election campaign.
At this point I should perhaps comment on the election coverage
of Turkish TV station, and specifically of NTV. Unfortunately,
watching election results on NTV–the leading news channel which has
fundamentally improved news reporting in Turkey–was an excruciating
task. NTV insisted on ignoring the rising number of successful
independent candidates and kept on reporting the results of ruling
party and the opposition parties. Eventually, we got to know the
number of elected independent candidates from another TV channel.
However, the censorship mechanism of NTV has been crystalized
especially after the live TV show with the prominent Turkish novelist,
moviemaker, poet and political activist Vedat Turkali on June 2.
Turkali, sent his greetings to life long imprisoned leader of PKK
Abdullah Ocalan, and said that he was going to vote for the guerilla
fighters. A senior TV reporter, who was once anchorwomen of NTV,
Banu Guven, was immiadetly sent to vacation as on June 3, and the
link of that program on the internet disappeared.
Yet, it was not over…While watching the enthusiastic celebrations in
Diyarbakir on IMC TV on the occasion of the victory of independent
candidates, we realized that something went wrong. Within a few
minutes, IMC reported that the police interfered to put an end to
the celebrations by using tear gas. At that moment, Prime Minister
Erdogan started his victory speech in Ankara, most probably so that
no one would pay attantion to Diyarbakır while he speaks. Once again,
people of Diyarbakir understood what victory of AKP means for them. No
need to say that the police’s violent crackdown on the celebrations
in Diyarbakir was reported in passing and without any footage by NTV,
altough they had a live broadcast team in Diyarbakir.
Erdogan’s Speech
The Prime Minister’s victory speech was the most “imperialist” speech
he could have delivered. Almost imitating Suleiman the Magnificant,
Erdogan was “embracing” the whole world from one end to the other. He
was claiming that Turkey had achieved democratic freedom, setting a
good example for the region and the entire world. He said “Damascus
won as much as Ankara did, Ramallah won as much as Diyarbakir did….
The Middle East, Caucasus, the Balkans and Europe won as much as
Turkey did.” With these statements, he sounded like a 16th century
“Golden Age” Ottoman Emperor!
Ever since the popular uprisings in the neighbouring Arab countries
started, Turkey has been marketing herself as an oasis of stability
and development, the “one and only good example of a functioning
democracy in the Middle East.” Yet, one has to keep in mind that
this discourse is a consequence of rising imperial desires on the
one hand, and on the other, very easily, it sweeps the 30-year war
in the country under the rug.
When the power holders in Turkey country talk about the “brotherhood”
of “Turks, Kurds, Circasians, Abkhazians, Georgians….” it should
be reminded that this exact discourse was employed in 19th century
Ottoman Empire, and it was maintained until its collapse, even while
genocides were being committed and ethnic cleansings was taking place.
I do not mean here that whoever uses the discourse of
brotherhood–which I find problematic in the first place–has criminal
intentions. What I am saying is that power holders should think
twice before uttering such words. Moreover, is it not obvious how
Ottoman claims of “bringing civilization to the Arabs” and Erdogan’s
pretension of Turkey’s becoming democratic, stable model for the
Middle East constitute a similar discouse? Is it not stemming from
the same imperial desires? Moreover, while Prime Minister was saying
that “Ramallah won as much as Diyarbakir did,” could it not be argued
that he had forgotten what these cities mean for Palestinians and
Kurds respectively?
Mihail Vasiliadis, editor-in-chief of Greek daily Apoyevmatini was
among the guests of IMC TV on election day. Commenting on Erdogan’s
speech, he remineded us the popular saying “My lord God is still
above you.” He expressed his satisfaction for being invited to a
TV show for the first time in his 52 year long professional life,
in order to talk about the elections. Vasiliadis said that in the
past he was only invited to TV programs and panels if they were in
some way or another related to issues of Greeks in Turkey.
Last but not least, in Erdogan’s speech, there was no direct or even
indirect reference to peace–ending finishing the war. He asked for
the blessing of the ones whom he might have hurt during his election
campaign. These words most probably were addressing CHP and MHP,
which means that the ruling party would first approach to these two
for the long-awaited Constitution change. Police interference in
the celebrations in Diyarbakir, and the closing of Kurdish newspaper
Azadiya Welat for 15 days as of Monday June 13, indicate that there
is no change in the position of AKP regarding the Kurds.
The results of elections revealed once again that the voters are not
organized on the basis of their class. In other words, the struggle
mainly led by Kurds, to get political, cultural, and social rights
has way more power to organize people than class consciousness. One
of the most important reasons for this is evaporation of differences
and consolidation of AKP, CHP and MHP when it comes to nationalism,
authoritarianism and/or conservatism. Therefore, let us conclude
that Turkish society continues to be by and large nationalist and
conservative. Of course this is no surprise. Yet, this poses the
biggest challenge to the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), since in
the coming four years, it will be their mission to explain what it
means to be a meaningful opposition and convince the broader society
of the necessity of such opposition. Probably, in order to find the
most appropriate way, one has to first understand the reason why
impoverished people continue to vote for conservative parties. BDP’s
success would depend on its capacity to create tangible alternatives
as an opposition, meeting the needs of Kurds and all other vulnerable
groups.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/06/20/suciyan-the-elections-in-turkey-an-assessment/