What is the Agenda in Türkiye for the Election Process

Dear friends, one month has passed since the disaster that shook our country to its core. We do not expect the wounds to be healed in this time after a disaster of this magnitude. However, despite the time that has elapsed, the fact that there are still problems in the supply of some essentials and that the need for shelter and water has not been fully resolved shows that our organization is inadequate in terms of disaster preparedness. What is more problematic is the efforts of those responsible for governing the state to act as if nothing has gone wrong and everything is normal, and to criminalize those who criticize and warn. The more worrying aspect is the possibility that such an attitude may have been adopted because of the impact of these failures on vote rates in the upcoming elections. 

On March 10, 2023, the President of the Republic, as had long been predicted, decided to renew the elections by exercising his authority under Article 116, paragraph two, of the Constitution. With the Supreme Electoral Council Decision No. 2023/96, it was decided that the presidential and parliamentary elections would be held on May 14, 2023, and if the presidential election goes to a second round, the second round election would be held on May 28, 2023. So, what kind of an environment are we going to the elections in? We have a two-month period ahead of us, how will this period pass? Will we only elect the President and MPs, or will we decide the course of our entire future? As a conscious citizen, with what evaluation and with what motivation should we vote? What kind of country do we want to live in? The answers to these questions will determine the outcome of the election. During these two months, we will think about these more. In addition, we will be aware that the effects of the disaster we have experienced as a country will not disappear in a short time, and we will do whatever we can to help our citizens hold on to life and maintain social awareness. 

What Do the Structures of the Alliances Tell Us?

The presidential election seems to be primarily between two major alliances. R. Tayyip Erdoğan, the President and Chairman of the ruling AKP, is the joint candidate of the People's Alliance. Opposing him will be the common candidate of the Nation Alliance, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. With the joint consensus texts they have announced and the constitutional amendment proposal, the Nation Alliance gives a more organized image in the election process. Although the disagreement over the candidate announcement turned into a crisis last week, this crisis seems to have been overcome, at least for the time being. The public pressure to overcome the crisis reduces the possibility of a new crisis in the period leading up to the elections. In other words, a leader who creates a crisis would be committing political suicide. I do not expect minor disagreements other than very basic issues to cause a major crisis within the Millet Alliance. The consensus on the basic issues has already been signed as joint texts. Above all, there is a strong public desire for the continuation of the alliance. 

The expansion of the People's Alliance with the recent additions has brought along some criticism. The most talked about one of these additions is undoubtedly HUDA-PAR officially joining the alliance. The People's Alliance may have targeted the votes of some of the citizens of Kurdish origin by including a party that is the political wing of Hezbollah, an openly terrorist organization, in the alliance. However, the People's Alliance, which accuses the HDP, which is under the roof of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on legal grounds, of being a "partner of the Millet Alliance", seems to have made a very problematic choice. 

First of all, the perception of an organic relationship between the HDP and the PKK is not consistent. HDP is not a part of the National Alliance in its current position. If you accuse a party, which legally has a group in the Parliament, of being associated with a terrorist organization, this should be registered by a judicial decision. There is no such judicial decision. In this context, it is considered that the finalization of the HDP closure case pending before the Constitutional Court will be postponed until after the elections. The systematic criminalization efforts against the HDP, which have been carried out systematically without any legal basis until today, seem to have turned into propaganda to make a party that is not a partner of the Millet Alliance look like a partner of the Alliance. It is not known how much the intended vote shift will contribute to the People's Alliance, but it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is a blow to the desire of society to live together. 

When evaluated with its current components, the People's Alliance appears to be a far-right alliance based on religion, far from the center. The political lines of the two major partners of the alliance, AKP and MHP, reinforce this opinion independently of other parties. The other two components of the Alliance are the BBP and HUDA-PAR, not counting external parties. 

We can say that all four parties have extreme political preferences and prioritize a right-wing politics far from the center of the political spectrum. In this respect, the Millet Alliance consists of political parties that are more centrist. Although not all parties are clearly on the same political line, it is possible to say that they are generally in favor of the republican and unitary structure. Especially CHP and İYİ Party, the two major parties of the Alliance, seem to be predominantly center parties. In terms of discourse, the People's Alliance prefers a political discourse more oriented towards faith and emotions. The political discourse of the Millet Alliance, on the other hand, is fact-based and emphasizes merit. It may not be correct to expect major changes in these discourse preferences during the election process. However, as the election date approaches, the intensity and dose of the discourse may change. 

What kind of a President should he/she be?

Candidates for the responsibility of governing a country must possess certain qualifications. The formal qualifications are already specified in the law. For example, in order to become President, you need to have a university degree. It cannot and should not be possible for a person to sit in that office without fulfilling the formal requirements. If such a thing is already happening, it means that everyone who is responsible for examining and deciding on the formal requirements has committed a crime and failed in their duty. It should not be forgotten that this is the domain of the judiciary. Nevertheless, bringing the issues regarding the form requirement to the public agenda cannot be defined as a personal matter. It is a requirement of democracy that conditions such as a report on the mental and psychological health of the person who will govern the country, a diploma, etc. are open to the scrutiny of every citizen within the scope of the law on access to information. However, incidents where the formal requirements are ignored are not expected to be seen in institutionalized states of law. 

However, issues such as a candidate's honesty, whether he/she tells the truth to the people, whether he/she gives importance to merit, his/her style in addressing the public, whether he/she remains calm in crisis situations, whether there are abnormal increases in his/her property declarations during his/her term in office, whether he/she has a hidden agenda, etc. can be revealed in the long term. When these become clear, both institutional measures and the decline in popular support are expected to regulate the social flow. Institutional measures can be understood as judicial and legislative oversight of the executive. In a strong democratic system, these control mechanisms are also strong. If the parliamentary or presidential nature of the system prevents these checks, then we cannot talk about the existence of democracy.

For example, the judiciary should be able to intervene in a matter that closely concerns the interests of the country and the authorities should not shield individuals in such cases. Of course, it is expected that the issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the office that governs the state should be very limited. In other words, during his/her term of office, that person should be subject to judicial review only in certain matters. These matters are regulated by the Constitution. In addition, some matters are and should be subject to judicial review at the end of the term of office. At the end of his/her term of office, as a citizen subject to all laws, if there are crimes he/she has committed that are outside the scope of judicial review due to his/her office, judicial review should be ensured as a requirement of the rule of law. 

While governing the state, political powers formulate and implement policies in various fields. Perhaps the greatest area of freedom for political powers is their right to choose public policies. However, of course, the preferred policies cannot and should not represent an attitude contrary to the Constitution and laws. Judicial control on this issue is related to how independent and powerful the judiciary is in the country. In other words, while secularism is defined in the Constitution as the characteristic of the state, there must be a judiciary that can act ex officio on the grounds that practices contrary to secularism violate the Constitution. Or, when the "rule of law" is defined as the characteristic of the state, it is expected that practices contrary to the rule of law can be monitored. Furthermore, it is the citizen, who has the right to vote in elections, who decides to what extent the policies implemented are in the public interest. After all, every policy choice is based on taking public resources from one side and giving them to another. If the right choices are made, public welfare and happiness increase; if the wrong choices are made, poverty and dissatisfaction increase. 

Everyone is happy in spring. Those who aspire to govern the country are expected to provide shade in summer and sunshine in winter. A state that cannot be an umbrella in the rain and storm is incomplete. The mechanisms that govern the state and the people at the head of these mechanisms should determine public policy priorities according to these deficiencies. There is no need for shade in winter and sun in summer. The strength of a state's governance is determined not in spring, but in summers and winters, in storms and earthquakes. 

Conclusion

With the Kahramanmaras Earthquake, the government's failure has become even more apparent to the public. The negative consequences of the policies implemented in the fields of agriculture, education and the economy are showing themselves. The rise in food inflation due to the loss of production is pulling down purchasing power. The problems in women's rights and related problems in individual rights and freedoms have also gone far beyond what can be managed by the government through perception management. For the future of Turkey, the perception that the rule of law is moving away from the rule of law needs to be reversed both at home and abroad. However, it does not seem possible to solve a problem from the perspective that created it. 

Even if there is a change as a result of the elections, it would be overly optimistic to expect things to get better in a short time. Nevertheless, the Millet Alliance, which has come up with a coherent program, is likely to create a positive process in the areas of rights and freedoms, the economy and production (in agriculture and industry). But what is more important is the need for the public's capacity to make an informed and rational choice. This is the need for a clear and consistent understanding of morality, independent of political preferences. If morality does not dominate society, evil will assert its power.