By Anshumaan Mishra and Dr. Aparaajita Pandey
A year ago, Turkish President Erdogan was re-elected to the presidential office and on Sunday, as Turkey voted in its local elections; voters have clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with Erdogan.
The CHP, Turkey’s Republican Party and the main opposition to the current ruling AKP, won resounding victories in Istanbul and Turkey’s five largest cities. The CHP managed to amass a massive 37 percent mandate, which is the highest for a party since 1977. Cities like Ankara, Izmir, Busra and Adana made it clear that they were neither happy nor satisfied with their president. This is symptomatic of the rapid deterioration of approval ratings for Erdogan’s policies. This is President Erdogan’s third term in office and although he has announced that he does not intend to run again in the 2028 presidential elections, he has failed to allay voters’ suspicions about his mandate. .
Tax burden on a minority: ITR reporting has improved, but how long can less than 3% support the rest?
Agriculture in Viksit Bharat: In the vision of a developed India by 2047, agriculture must also catch up with the times
The giant has arrived: India’s rise as a global power creates a national and international tightrope
Pakistan’s excessive obsession with Kashmir is suicidal
In the past, the Turkish regime has been criticized for its management of Covid and especially for its economic policy. Turkey is suffering from one of the highest inflation rates it has seen in decades. If we analyze the factors that led voters to choose the CHP over the AKP, economic policies constitute the basis of discontent in Turkey. While the pandemic has already dampened economic growth around the world, the AKP’s perceived nonchalance has led governments towards the financial difficulties of the ordinary Turkish citizen, leading to disenchantment with the government.
It is also important to observe the way in which the opposition campaigned for these elections. Ekrem Imamoglu, who appears to be the biggest challenger to Reccep Erdogan’s title, presents many traits close to the current president. Like Erdogan, Ekrem also does not boast of a political legacy, he also presents himself as an average man who is trying to change the country for the better. Ekrem is also the mayor of Istanbul, just as the president was at one point. These similarities provide a sense of the level playing field on which both can be judged for their political rhetoric, their manifestos, their vision, for their mayoral terms and possibly for their future political careers.
The strategy followed by Ekrem is to highlight not only the economic woes that have befallen the Turkish people, but also to highlight the speculative democratic backsliding that is said to have taken place under Erdogan. The West has repeatedly accused Erdogan of pushing for greater Islamization of Turkey, which over the past century has projected a vision of a cosmopolitan Mediterranean nation that resonates more with Europe and less with Asia. Although this narrative might have been altered from time to time depending on the constraints of domestic politics, Turkey has been widely considered and recognized as a “progressive” country. Ekrem spoke of his victory as a victory not only for the CHP, but also for Turkey’s true cosmopolitan nature, a victory for democracy over authoritarianism and an escape from populist politics.
Kurdish voters also played a central role in the outcome of this vote. election result. The CHP formed coalitions across the board, and Kurdish voters chose to vote against AKP candidates and show confidence in CHP candidates running in Kurdish territories. This allowed the CHP to obtain the Kurdish vote, which would have initially gone to the pro-Kurdish party. The shift of this vote towards the CHP was not calculated by the AKP.
The CHP and Ekrem claimed that these elections constituted a threshold of change for Turkish politics, saying that “a new political era will blossom into a new political era.” Although the AKP’s defeat in these elections was resounding and Erdogan accepted this defeat, he also made a statement saying: “this is a turning point for us, not the end.” If this statement were to be taken as an indication of what is to come, one might expect some change in Turkey’s economic policy as well as a change in political rhetoric.
Turkish social identity often finds its roots in Ottoman identity and when the thread of Turkish nationalism is exposed, we end up going back to the Treaty of Sèvres. The recent shift in this identity from a primarily ethnic and historical identity to one defined by religion has not been well received by Turkey as a whole. This also played a role in the results of the current elections, where the principles of Turkish identity were evaluated by voters and the CHP’s rhetoric won. It will be interesting to see how the AKP reemerges in the future.
About the authors: Anshumaan Mishra is a psephologist and Dr. Aparaajita Pandey is an international relations specialist.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproduction of this content without authorization is prohibited.
