Political Engineering

In political science there is a concept called political engineering. Political engineering involves the design of political institutions in a society, often using laws, referendums and decrees to achieve the desired effect. In a democratic system, this engineering can also be used to design alternative voting procedures. Generally, in democratic political systems, political engineering methods are not considered appropriate. On the other hand, even in countries ranked high in the democracy league, political engineering practices are frequently observed.

After this definitional introduction, let us analyse the political engineering that has been taking place in Turkey in the last week.

It is not yet clear whether President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will participate in the upcoming elections. Devlet Bahçeli, who continues to be the leader of the opposition partner of the ruling party without being seen or heard, but with his writings, apparently wants Erdoğan to be a candidate again and to enter the elections. The arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul, whose candidacy was finalised in the primary election held by his party and who is one of the most likely rivals to challenge Erdoğan and even defeat him according to the polls, if the constitutional conditions are met and he becomes a candidate, has also increased the political engineering debates in our country.

The entire opposition, which is not pro-government, claims that this arrest is unfair/unlawful and that political engineering is being used to prevent İmamoğlu, who defeated all of Erdoğan's candidates in previous elections, from participating in the elections. Although the pro-government media ignores it, the intensity of the reactions and popular movement before, during and after the arrest shows that this claim is accepted by the majority of the public.

On the other hand, the pro-government side continues to act as if nothing has happened, defending the rule of law in the country and claiming that the people's movement was provoked by the opposition and that political engineering was carried out by the opposition.

Of course, there may be different opinions on whether there is political engineering or not, and by whom it is being implemented, but the events in this process show that in many respects this engineering is working in favour of the opposition and against the government.

The fact that people, mostly young people and students, gathered in the squares led by Saraçhane for a week and reacted intensely to what happened should not be evaluated only as not accepting the unlawfulness against İmamoğlu. It is frequently stated that this reaction is not only in the dimension of İmamoğlu, but also against the economic difficulties experienced by the people themselves, the problems experienced in political life, the nepotism allegedly applied to the pro-government and partisans in all matters, and again, according to many, the ‘I did it myself’ understanding of the one-man regime. I believe that this reaction should be read correctly by both the government and the opposition. The voice of the people is an important anchor in all countries. Trying to understand it rather than silencing it is the most correct course of action. It cannot be a right move for the government, which holds the power in its hands, to try to suppress the reaction with the police and the judiciary. On the contrary, it would further legitimise and intensify this mobilisation of the people in the eyes of the wider masses.

The current government, which has been intensively implementing political engineering for a quarter of a century and has benefited from it every time, is probably unable to solve the counter-political engineering practices of the renewed and rejuvenated opposition, and continues to add mistakes to mistakes and mistakes to mistakes. Ümit Özdağ, the chairman of the Victory Party, who is on the rise, Selahattin Demirtaş, who said ‘We will not make you President’, and finally Ekrem İmamoğlu, who claims ‘I will be President’.  I believe that imprisoning Ekrem İmamoğlu, who claims, according to the general opinion, for reasons that are not accepted by the public, does not add strength to the power of the government, on the contrary, it weakens and strengthens the opposition.

If the opposition, which benefits from the mistakes of the government, can continue to implement the right strategies and to attract especially the undecideds of the society to its side through political engineering practices, it seems that a change of government in Turkey is inevitable in the first elections.

What happens after this hour and the practices against the opposition will only harm the government. The government, which continues to fail to see this, will hand over its power in the next election.

What will happen if, as some people claim, ‘there are no elections’?

Then there would be no democracy or republic. There would be no opposition in such a country. Transition to a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government would mean that Turkey would fall out of the league of modern democracy in which it has been, or at least has endeavoured to be, since its foundation, which is not an easy task.