Electoral Alliances and Fanaticism

Dear friends, As we are just days away from a very important election for Turkey, the country's agenda is being formed on a ground that is far from rationality. Following the conclusion of the parliamentary elections that determined the parliamentary arithmetic, public attention has shifted from the parliamentary candidates of the political parties and the possible working issues of the parliament in the next period to the two candidates who will compete in the second round of the presidential election. Under Article 101 of the Constitution, the candidate who receives the absolute majority of valid votes from the two candidates will become the President of the Republic of Turkey. Although there are two candidates, the number of political parties that have embraced different values, traditions and goals throughout the history of Turkish political life is much higher than the number of candidates. It is possible that each voter may lean towards one of the two candidates for different reasons. For this reason, the use of sometimes black, sometimes gray and sometimes clear (white) propaganda techniques to influence voter behavior is prominent. In this article, we will try to evaluate the ongoing process towards the second round of elections from the perspective of alliances. 

Politics is the field of activity of political ideas that want to come to power in order to find solutions to public problems. It is unthinkable for an activity that is dependent on the social to be immune from it. For this reason, the quality of politics all over the world does not differ much from the quality of society. It would be more accurate to associate this with the efforts of politicians to win the votes of the people who vote for them, rather than the fact that politicians emerge from the society. However, the ethical boundary that should not be exceeded here can be exceeded very often depending on the average of social expectations. This is what often happens in Turkey. In fact, this situation is so important that it can be clearly seen when electoral processes are analyzed that voters can change their electoral preferences in order to gain gains they do not deserve. 

There are two problem areas here. The first is the value of ideology and supporting a political party in terms of the individual's intellectual world. In other words, it is a situation where the individual does not know what and why he/she is voting and is only pursuing his/her own simple interests (ethical or not). The second is fanaticism, which occurs independently of the ideology and philosophy of the political party. In fanaticism, belief is elevated beyond the reach of knowledge. Fanatical individuals are very resistant to accept the reality that is shown to them or that is happening. Even if the reality is against the interests of the individual, it is not easy for the individual to see this. 

The biggest risk for Turkey in the run-up to the elections is that the electorate in both problem areas is clearly proportionally larger than the people who can make rational choices. This reality transcends the fact that the electoral process is merely a referendum and turns it into a game of chance in which dice are thrown. What we are discussing here is not whether the dice are rigged or not. This is a separate discussion. The problem is precisely that people are only able to see a very small part of the reality and perceive an even smaller part of it as Turkey is heading towards one of the most important and critical elections in its history. One of the main reasons for this is the political power's control over most of the media and the disproportionate use of state resources to influence the electoral process. This explains why the dice are rigged. But it does not change the fact that a game of chance is being played with dice over the future of the country. 

Although there are two candidates and many different political views in the second round election, the attitude of the electoral alliances seems to be the main determinant. For this reason, the alliances have brought together under the same roof very different political views that one would be surprised to find together. This is almost a necessity. In terms of rationalizing voter behavior, it is in the nature of politics that different political views come together on the basis of a common consensus. Especially in a race where only two candidates are competing and one of them will win with a simple majority, it is not enough for different political views to come together under one roof. Inevitably, the support of different political views outside the alliance must also be sought. A rational perception of this reality is not possible under conditions of fanaticism. 

There is every reason to believe that the political power is actually reaping the fruits of the polarizing and marginalizing politics it has pursued for years in order to create irrational perceptions in society. However, when it comes to the absolute majority, the same problem is also plaguing the political power. For the ruling party, which, on the one hand, seems to have adopted a nationalist-conservative politics and, on the other hand, secured four parliamentary seats from its own lists for HUDA-PAR, whose name is associated with terrorism, there is a situation where different tendencies support Erdoğan's candidacy. In addition, for the ruling party, which has the freedom to use all kinds of tools that will ensure its propaganda superiority, this situation does not seem to be an unsolvable problem. On the other hand, in order to prevent the opposition from gaining votes from different segments of the population, the government both exploits the differences within the Millet Alliance and engages in a propaganda war against the different views that have declared their support for Kılıçdaroğlu. The most concrete example of this is the government's effort to associate the HDP, which is running for election under the umbrella of the Green Left Party, with terrorism and to portray it as part of the Millet Alliance and together with them. However, since the government has recently had difficulty in its discourse on this issue, it has embarked on a perception operation with unrealistic materials. The defense of this unethical and unlawful behavior by members of the ruling party raises concerns about trust in the electoral process.

The same cannot be said for the opposition. The Millet Alliance, which was formed by different tendencies that seemed difficult to reconcile, has successfully overcome a difficult process by putting forward common texts. On the one hand, the Millet Alliance is trying to pursue a very difficult policy that seeks the support of different tendencies, while on the other hand, it has to fight against the disproportionate and disproportionate propaganda of the government. What is worse is that its own potential voters fall into the trap of the government, which is trying to distract them from rational evaluation, and become ambivalent about their choice in the election. Fanaticism creates an electoral problematic that further aggravates this picture. This fanaticism prevents a correct assessment of reality. From the point of view of the propaganda processes, this situation appears to be the preference of the government. 

First of all, no one should forget that there are two candidates in the election and the candidate who receives the absolute majority will be elected. The priority here is not political views, but the will of citizens to live together. Reconciliation is not a process where everyone imposes their views on others. There is no doubt that the more divergent the views, the narrower the space for compromise. By the same token, the space for compromise between views that are close to each other is much wider. If we are talking about two candidates, it is inevitable that very different political views will vote for the same candidate. In other words, there is a very narrow field of consensus, and that is the candidate who is considered to be the right one. 

Unfortunately, there are many people who lack the rational judgment to say "if they support the candidate, I will not go to vote", as if the candidate to be elected has to defend someone's views. In fact, it is common interests that should be emphasized, not differences. This is the nature of compromise. From the point of view of common interests, the choice is centered on the solution of the refugee problem, the solution of economic problems and the solution of problems related to freedoms. The solutions proposed by the two candidates are as different from each other as night and day. If voters make a choice on solutions, it is not possible for them to be undecided. Their choices should reflect their views on solutions rather than a preference between political views. "If lions, gazelles, hyenas and zebras run side by side, the forest is on fire." Life may not always give the chance to say "what about me".