Change has won in Turkey

If one thing was clear in the aftermath of Turkey’s national elections on Sunday, it was the appetite for reform of Turks whose demand for a better Turkey was clearly displayed by a landslide. The only party that lost big time was the nationalist party, which lost not only the number of seats representing it in Parliament but overall the percentage points it scored with voters as well.

Turks rewarded parties that have shown flexibility in accommodating a broader audience, while punishing status quo parties that have resisted change in the country.

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) led the pack—winners in a landslide victory with 50 percent of votes cast, a record for any political party in Turkish history. The fact that the AK Party has shown it could spearhead change based on a track record of almost nine years of its rule carried the party into a third term with a higher percentage of votes. Results defied the wearing-down impact of continuous governance for two terms.

The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) also enjoyed an increased percentage of votes based on the last national election outcome in 2007 as well as the larger number of seats it picked up. The CHP tried to appeal to a larger electorate and did not campaign on ideological divisions. That won points for the CHP. But the final tally was not enough to carry the party over the critical threshold of 30 percent—a benchmark set by the CHP’s new leader as a measure of success. The nomination of highly controversial coup-plotting Ergenekon suspects on the CHP ticket thwarted the rise of the party to 30 percent.

Voters exacted the heftiest price from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the ultimate loser in Sunday's election, because the party resisted all calls for reform and change. The hard-line attitude of the MHP with regard to constitutional changes and its irreconcilable position when it comes to the solution of the decades-long Kurdish problem did not bring votes to the party. Scaremongering tactics to pump up the public's fear of the separation of Turkey’s Southeast backfired on the MHP. The scandals over womanizing deputies in the MHP leadership on the eve of elections cost the party, resulting in a huge exodus of women voters.

Independents endorsed by the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) also reaped the benefits of opening up to a broader support base. The alliance the BDP made with two other pro-Kurdish parties—the conservative Participatory Democracy Party (KADEP) and the federalist Rights and Freedoms Party (HAK-PAR)—paid off by drawing support from religious voters and others. The party secured 35 seats in Parliament, an increase of 15 deputies from 2007. Despite the alliance, however, the AK Party collected almost half of the seats in the Southeast and kept its strong support in the Kurdish electorate.

The myth about the threat to our way of life during the AK Party government in coastal provinces of the West and South has collapsed with the strong showing of the AK Party in these provinces. In provinces such as Antalya, Manisa, Aydın, Uşak, Balıkesir and Çanakkale, where the AK Party lost the local elections two years ago, the unprecedented increase in the number of votes carried the AK Party to the lead in these provinces. In İzmir, the third largest city in Turkey, the AK Party challenged the CHP's lead with a 6 percent rise over the 2009 results of the local elections in the province, while the CHP votes fell by 5 percentage points when compared to the 2009 results.

As for the nomination of suspects charged with the membership in Ergenekon, a criminal network alleged to be behind coup plots to topple the AK Party government, voters punished both the CHP and the MHP, which allowed these suspects to run on their party tickets. Both parties had to spend considerable time and resources to explain themselves to the public over the nomination of these suspects. Not only did Ergenekon suspects alienate activists in district offices of the MHP and the CHP but they also turned off a good number of voters who traditionally cast their ballots for either party. In the western province of Denizli, for example, CHP candidate/Ergenekon suspect İlhan Cihaner avoided public appearances and campaigned in the shadows. Another Ergenekon suspect, Mehmet Haberal, from the CHP set up an independent campaign office in the northwestern province of Zonguldak and worked in competition with the CHP district office.

A decision by the MHP to nominate retired Gen. Engin Alan, who is currently standing trial in the Sledgehammer case, which allegedly sought to undermine the government and lay the groundwork for a military takeover, as a candidate has damaged the party as shown in the outcome of the elections. While the MHP campaigned with a pro-freedom stance on the Islamic headscarf, the use of which had been banned in Turkey's universities for many years, Alan is known to have kept tabs on headscarf-wearing women in the past.

The elections proved people vote overwhelmingly for parties willing to change in order to accommodate a larger electorate. The AK Party, the BDP and to some extent the CHP made this leap in this election period and won. The MHP was not able to show this flexibility and paid the price for it. Now the overhaul of the Constitution will be at the top of the agenda in Parliament. The party or parties that make an extra effort to change will be winners in the next round.