It is no surprise that the opposition is paralyzed and has resorted to non-democratic tactics when a "ruling party" is in power, and will likely maintain its power for years despite making some mistakes along the way. On the other hand, the success of the ruling party is not attributable only to the party's own achievements - it is also the result of the opposition's failure and lack of another viable alternative.However, the opposition fails not because of the incapacity of its leaders, but because they have drifted away from the social grassroots of politics. And the asymmetrical position of the ruling party should be added to this equation. Namely, the ruling party most likely represents a dynamic approach to the center of politics with its social grassroots. Consequently, the party of the social sector which has the potential to determine the center again can naturally turn into a ruling party. The reason why the status quo lasts so long is that any change in ruling power must first occur at a societal level, and this is generally a long-term process which develops over generations.The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is in this position now. Moreover, it does not have a vision that accords with the national identity prescribed by the founding ideology of the Republic. It also displays a dismissive approach to those social sectors that made use of the privileges which a narrow public sphere provided for many years. Consequently, we can see why the AK Party could not be accepted by some circles for such a long period. Likewise, it is easy to predict the expectations of those inhabiting these circles, which are opposed to the AK Party, but also face a "ruling party," via "politics." They think any means of overthrowing the AK Party are legitimate. Perhaps they act cautiously since making a noise is not "elegant," but they still support any kind of intervention that might be made particularly through the legal system.This is the background of the election threshold debates that have been recently brought to the agenda. There is no doubt that the 10 percent threshold is not fair. Even the ruling party members think so. The reason why the AK Party does not abolish the threshold is evident: the party has received 50 percent of the votes despite this threshold, and it now wishes to benefit from the advantages it introduced. The most significant advantage is to have a majority in the Parliament in the following election which would enable it to create the new constitution. So when looked at ethically, it is clear that the threshold needs to be lowered. Actually, last year the government proposed this, and declared that it was ready to lower the threshold to 5 percent, or even completely abolish it, with the preference of a single member district electoral system. The opposition parties did not agree, however. And now they have suddenly turned into the advocates of democratic principles.On the other hand, their desire is to make this change not in Parliament, but through the channel of the Constitutional Court, which paved the way by implementing legislative change last March. Thus, it became possible to abolish the election threshold by bringing the subject to the General Assembly. The interesting point is that this would both be a legal act and also express the jurisdiction's intervention in politics. The court will not only say that the 10 percent election threshold is against human rights, but also insinuate which level of threshold is needed. The aim is to decrease the number of AK Party deputies as much as possible.However, this expectation may not conform to sociology since such an intervention would raise the rates of votes the AK Party receives just as in the case of the 2010 referendum. As a result, perhaps the only loser would be the Republican People's Party (CHP), and thanks to that, the AK Party would win the majority it targets. Maybe abolishing the election threshold would be a present to the AK Party and the government by the anti-AK Party groups.