Turkey went to general elections on June the 7th of 2015. The ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party, leadered by Erdogan and headed by AhmetDavutoglu) received 40.86 percent of the votes, losing 9% of the votes and the absolute majority in the parliament.
The CHP (Republican People’s Party) has gained 24.94% of the votes, losing one percent in comparison to the last elections of 2011.
Third became MHP (Party of Nationalist Movement) with 16.28%, a plus of approximately 3%.
The HDP (Party of the Democracy of the Peoples) has received 13.11%. Due to legislation that prescribes for political parties at least a voters support of 10% to be presented in the parliament, the HDP formerly had participated with individual and independent candidates. Therefore a direct comparison seems difficult, but it is estimated that the party has gained around 7% of the votes.
The Patriotic Party (Turkey) received 0.35% of the votes, becoming the 6th biggest party in the election results.
The Deputy Chairman of the Patriotic Party, Yunus Soner evaluated the election results. Soner made the following declaration:
Turkey is heading towards what we call the “radical solution”. Our country is facing two different and main challenges.
1. Economic crisis
During the last 50 years, the Turkish economy has been integrated and consumed by the world economy. During the last 12 years of AKP government, the economy has turned to a ‘dictatorship of hot money’. It’s functioning became dependent on the pursuit of credit, but this course of politics has come to an end.
This year’s debt alone forces the government to find approximately 250 billion US Dollars of new debt – an enterprise condemned to fail.
Therefore, the Turkish economy and the society will face a huge crisis that will question Turkey’s integration into global capital markets and the system of financial speculation.
Turkey’s alternative to this failure is to turn to an economy of production with a mixed model under public leadership.
2. Ethnic division
Together with Iran, Iraq and Syria, Turkey faces the threat of ethnic and sectarian division.
Foreign Minister of that time, later President of the State and now an internationally discussed candidate for the position of Prime minister, Abdullah Gul had declared to the Turkish press already in 2004 that he had signed an agreement of “two pages and 9 articles” with US Foreign Minister Colin Powell.
That agreement together with the following politics pursued the US politics towards Turkey aiming at:
- the legalization of the armed group PKK
- a new constitution, deleting “the Turkish nation” and introducing various ethnical and sectarian groups as political entities and introducing regional autonomy
The US position: AKP-CHP coalition
In short, maintaining Turkey within the economy of speculation despite debt crisis and dividing the country was the US program for the elections. The US has analyzed that the ongoing AKP government was not able to fulfill these two program points. The AKP was not able to govern Turkey alone any more. Washington thus pursued actively a coalition between AKP and CHP.
As an external leg of this coalition and a step towards the legalization of the PKK, the HDP, its legal arm was to pass the 10% parliamentary threshold.
This coalition also was meant to limit aspirations of Erdogan, a long time US-ally and formerly hailed for in the Western press. In the past years though, Erdogan was criticized for slowing down the so called peace process, the negotiations with the PKK.
He was also harshly criticized in Western media for his government’s recent politics against the group of FethullahGülen, leader of a religious sect and economic interest group, living in exile in the US. Gülen and his organizations have long been known and documented in the Turkish press and the state documents as an undercover organization connected to the so called Gladio.
US election campaign
In accordance with the analysis and the aim of coalition funding, pro-American Turkish media and international organizations started a campaign against Erdogan on the one hand and pro-HDP on the other.
Concerning the economic crisis, the appointment of Kemal Derviş, former World Bank expert and IMF manager of the last crisis in 2001, as designated minister of economy for the CHP showed the way.
Concerning the new constitution, the coalition parties and the HDP declared very fast their will to work together.
As a core element, the HDP was presented in the elections as a political party independent from the PKK, with CHP leaders openly calling to vote for the HDP.
The election campaign ended in the last days with editorials in media like the New York Times and the Economist calling openly to vote against Erdogan and for the HDP.
A bomb that was placed on a demonstration of the HDP on the very last day of the campaign added to the constructed contradiction between the HDP and Erdogan.
As the results given above show, the US project has come true. The election results reflectetnic and sectarian division. A coalition that promises to govern economic crisis and deepen Turkey’s division is on the horizon. With the HDP, a political party that receives orders from an armed terrorist organization has arrived in the middle of the parliament.
Noteworthy is that the US calls this organization “our current best allies in the Middle East”.
As has been demanded by the US, the expected AKP-CHP coalition will limit the authority of President Erdogan. His reluctance in implementing the politics of division, his steps towards Eurasiaand his policy towards Syria will be cancelled in favor of a more pro-American approach.
The Patriotic Party
The Patriotic Party has fought an election campaign based on the slogan “reuniting Turkey, producing Turkey”. Highlights of the election campaign were an official visit of solidarity and friendship to Syria’s President al Assad and a demonstration of unity in predominantly Kurdish populated province of Hakkari.
Another important step was the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in favor of Patriotic Party’s Chairman Perincek, ruling that the events of 1915 do not constitute ”genocide” in legal terms and differ substantially from the Holocaust.
In spite of the election campaign, the Patriotic Party has received a result that is considered absolutely unsatisfying. The US based opinion making process and the 10% threshold appear as important external factors.
The Patriotic Party’s organs will also come together and analyze deeply different internal factors and develop lessons for the coming political struggle.
Still, the analysis of the challenges has not changed. After the election, Turkey keeps on facing an economic crisis and the threat of balkanization.
The Patriotic Party (Turkey) is willing to face these challenges as decided as before.