By Hamah Hosen –
Taking inspiration from the Roman poet Horace, President Erdogan of Turkey and the Justice Development Party (AKP) aims to seize the day by announcing the move for snap elections on June 24th. Amidst the situation in Syria, the looming economic woes, and the growing opposition to Erdogan’s rule, it was unsurprising that the election was brought forward 18 months. It is a strategic pawn that can clear the path for Erdogan to re-stabilise his position while simultaneously solidifying the new executive presidential system which was narrowly adopted in 2017. However, the move relies heavily on shaky assumptions to justify it.
The abrupt announcement has been criticised for it short time frame and the unlevel playing field it has created between parties. Only 66 days has been allowed for the Supreme Electoral Council to prepare for both a two-tier presidential vote and a parliamentary election. Further, speculation also rose on whether parties, especially the IYI Party (Turkey’s newest opposition party), would be able to meet the conditions required to participate at such short notice. This includes the ten percent electoral threshold and the requirement of political parties to hold their founding congresses at least six months before an election. But that was the point. A widened political battleground was exactly what Erdogan hoped to avoid in calling for the snap elections. An unprepared and divided opposition increases the likelihood of Erdogan and the AKP the win needed to act upon the new centralised, dictator-like presidential powers. However, such a risky move is not to be met without a counter-move by the opposition in the game of politics. Facilitated by the new system created through the referendum, a broad coalition of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the IYI Party, the Islamist Saadet Party and the Democrat Party was formed. The move has enabled the smaller parties to skirt the ten percent threshold requirement, thus challenging Erdogan’s reliance on the unlikeliness of a united opposition. While the opposition remains divided in certain areas, they have become united on one thing: unseating Erdogan from power. Much like Erdogan and the AKP, it is clear that the opposition has taken the opportunity of these elections to seize the day in their terms.
This has undoubtedly changed the odds of the game and creates uncertainty about the outcomes intended by the call for the snap elections. The move by Erdogan and the AKP also relied on their ability to hold a majority in parliament. However, it is clear that the multi-party alliances allowed by the AKP’s own constitutional change have come to shoot themselves in their own foot. The constitutional change gave Erdogan concentrated executive powers but retained veto rights and certain lawmaking within the Parliament. If the AKP lacks the majority to win the parliamentary majority in the first round of elections, it is likely that an opposition parliament under an Erdogan presidency remains a real likelihood. This would provide the country with a lack of harmony in governance as the new system leaves little room for such cooperation. Given that the snap elections were called for during dire circumstances for Turkey, the next government will undoubtedly have to deal with the situations in such divisive stances. It begs into question whether carpe diem was the right kind of move to make for Erdogan since the strategic reasoning to act has been challenged.
Putting aside the strategic moves put in place by both sides, it remains essential that the game they intend to play is carried out under the correct rules and guidelines. It would be a mistake to carry out the game with the same questionable tactics that emerged in the run-up to the 2015 elections and the 2017 referendum. The run-up to the 2015 elections consisted of accusations of limited media access for opposition parties, the relocation of polling stations affected by violence and the call for repeat elections by the AKP. Similarly, the 2017 referendum was also conducted in an environment of accusations of ballot-box stuffing, restricted media freedoms and the lack of openness surrounding the government restriction on ‘no’ votes. However, it remains uncertain whether these old tricks will not be put to use given that the election is to take place under a state of emergency and Turkey’s current state of freedom of press remains questionable. The state of emergency that has been in place since the 2016 coup attempt, authorises the government to limit the right of assembly and as such could deter the Turkish electorate from public gatherings. Further, Freedom House in January demoted the country from ‘partially free’ to ‘not free’ with considerable concern around the purge of media outlets. Failing to play the game under the rules will have substantial effects in the aftermath of the snap elections for all. A pattern of contestation would be established. Discontent will no doubt arise about the legitimacy of the new presidential system from the foul plays. Additionally, the inherent good nature of the game itself would be questioned if it continues to be played inappropriately. It is in the interest of all to have an electoral process that moves beyond previous inconsistencies and injustices.
While elections are nearly upon Turkey, there is no doubt that the next few days will be eventful. But one thing is for sure – the game will not end on election night.
