Is there a rupture within the AK Party?
Turkish politics is witnessing an agenda that is cheering up the opposition. As is known to all, the two big opposition parties, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), do not have enough ideas or projects to interest the public and rather, they adopt archaic discourses. It will be natural if the upcoming June 7 parliamentary elections reveal a similar picture to previous elections, with slight fluctuations in parties' voting rates. The scenario where the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) passes the 10 percent election threshold, and by doing so, rob the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) of the chance to establish a new constitution on its own, is the only possibly interesting turn of events we can expect. However, even if the AK Party wins 400 seats, a number that is often mentioned by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, it will want to get the support of the other parties, as it did in the case of previous constitutional commission studies, and will hold a referendum in any case. Moreover, if the HDP passes the election threshold, the AK Party's opportunity to cooperate with the HDP will increase, and a new constitution, which would be formed as a result of these two parties' combined efforts, might irritate the two main opposition parties.
In short, since the political target of these two opposition parties is confined to maintaining their existence, the upcoming election represents just another defeat for them both, regardless of what the election results are. If they receive more votes, they can maintain such a structure and position for a while longer, but if they lose votes, they will find themselves on a slippery slope. The recent strife between the government and Erdoğan in such an atmosphere has awakened the opposition parties, particularly the CHP, from hibernation. This is because it is the only real rival of the government and the emergence of such a possible rupture within the AK Party on the eve of elections can at least help it consolidate its votes. This is not a situation to be underestimated, considering several other previous developments. For instance, Erdoğan intervened in the parliamentary candidacy of Hakan Fidan, the head of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT), and made some remarks about the policies of the central bank. This was followed by a vitriolic exchange between Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç and Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek. Considering all this, along with Erdoğan's objection to the 10-article statement, which was jointly declared by the government and HDP representatives as a part of the reconciliation process, and to the formation of a monitoring board to supervise the reconciliation process, it is even possible to claim that things are beginning to fracture within the AK Party.
However, for those who are familiar with the mentality and internal structure of the AK Party, there is nothing beyond an understandable but unacceptable "management weakness." Miscommunication and lack of transparency in human relations oblige political actors to make assumptions about the perspective of other party members. Based on his political experience, Erdoğan might consider many political steps wrong, and might want to share his ideas with society. Some individuals and groups that think that they might stay out of politics in the upcoming period, try to gain political space by exaggerating this mental discrepancy. When the media becomes party to this, a management gap arises. Considering that there is a common belief that these goings on harm the AK Party, we can foresee that this situation will be fixed soon. Since the AK Party is open to learning and is flexible, such a loss of control will not result in any permanent harm. However, it would be wrong to completely underestimate and trivialize what has happened. The AK Party will continue to be in power and we have at least two years ahead for the emergence of a new constitution and a new administrative system. It seems to be of vital importance to manage this two-year period effectively and to bring a structural mechanism to the party's internal communication. Otherwise, it will be difficult to construct a new and permanent order in a political environment where everyone acts on their own convictions and airs their complaints to the public. We are facing a problem that goes beyond one's like or dislike of the AK Party. We are entering a critical period in which the government is accountable not only to its own voters, but also to the whole of society and to history. Within this period, the AK Party will have no excuse for mistakes that arise from within.
In short, since the political target of these two opposition parties is confined to maintaining their existence, the upcoming election represents just another defeat for them both, regardless of what the election results are. If they receive more votes, they can maintain such a structure and position for a while longer, but if they lose votes, they will find themselves on a slippery slope. The recent strife between the government and Erdoğan in such an atmosphere has awakened the opposition parties, particularly the CHP, from hibernation. This is because it is the only real rival of the government and the emergence of such a possible rupture within the AK Party on the eve of elections can at least help it consolidate its votes. This is not a situation to be underestimated, considering several other previous developments. For instance, Erdoğan intervened in the parliamentary candidacy of Hakan Fidan, the head of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT), and made some remarks about the policies of the central bank. This was followed by a vitriolic exchange between Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç and Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek. Considering all this, along with Erdoğan's objection to the 10-article statement, which was jointly declared by the government and HDP representatives as a part of the reconciliation process, and to the formation of a monitoring board to supervise the reconciliation process, it is even possible to claim that things are beginning to fracture within the AK Party.
However, for those who are familiar with the mentality and internal structure of the AK Party, there is nothing beyond an understandable but unacceptable "management weakness." Miscommunication and lack of transparency in human relations oblige political actors to make assumptions about the perspective of other party members. Based on his political experience, Erdoğan might consider many political steps wrong, and might want to share his ideas with society. Some individuals and groups that think that they might stay out of politics in the upcoming period, try to gain political space by exaggerating this mental discrepancy. When the media becomes party to this, a management gap arises. Considering that there is a common belief that these goings on harm the AK Party, we can foresee that this situation will be fixed soon. Since the AK Party is open to learning and is flexible, such a loss of control will not result in any permanent harm. However, it would be wrong to completely underestimate and trivialize what has happened. The AK Party will continue to be in power and we have at least two years ahead for the emergence of a new constitution and a new administrative system. It seems to be of vital importance to manage this two-year period effectively and to bring a structural mechanism to the party's internal communication. Otherwise, it will be difficult to construct a new and permanent order in a political environment where everyone acts on their own convictions and airs their complaints to the public. We are facing a problem that goes beyond one's like or dislike of the AK Party. We are entering a critical period in which the government is accountable not only to its own voters, but also to the whole of society and to history. Within this period, the AK Party will have no excuse for mistakes that arise from within.
Last Update: March 28, 2015 01:44