Within the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which has been deemed partially unsuccessful in the last general elections due to the fact that it cannot, by itself, form the government even though it emerged as the party with the most votes in the elections at 40.87 percent, an extensive consultation process is now at work. Normally, unsuccessful institutions do not seek, by definition, to compensate for their errors and therefore, new failures ensue one after another. Thus, the AK Party's endeavor to analyze its own problems without falling into any superiority complex demonstrates that it is still the only political party that radiates hope for Turkey's future.

Numerous interpretations are being made about the AK Party's loss of votes. Although many of this criticism seems very rational, some of it is irrationally extreme.

l The first cause that comes to mind must be tiredness of political power that naturally emerges after the AK Party's 13-year-long governmental experience.

The second cause is generally formulated that although the AK Party is openly successful in major public investments in the fields of transportation, health, education, energy, the defense industry, agriculture, telecommunication services and so forth, the individual demands of people have been overshadowed by the major developments and thus, overlooked in general.

The third criticism, known as "the question of arrogance," emphasizes the fact that the leadership of the AK Party has unintentionally become contemptuous after holding political power for over a decade.

The fourth criticism argues that the electorate could not successfully be mobilized due to the fact that candidates were not chosen correctly by properly considering the domestic dynamics of provinces and party demography and thus, candidates with little political experience contributed to the fall of the voting rate for the AK Party.

Instead of a progressive discourse, it is finally argued that the AK Party relied on a defensive discourse that emphasizes previous investments and developments.

Although it is possible to add innumerable causes to the list above, I believe that the most crucial issue that emerged after the last general elections is the possibility of a new AK Party in Turkish politics. In other words, I think that the main problem for the AK Party is that it could not have produced in its electoral discourse an open vision for Turkey's future and hence the question: Has the AK Party's mission for Turkey come to an end?

The circumstances that led to the emergence of the AK Party in the first place were constituted of the deep crises in the country. During its political power, the AK Party had successfully overcome those crises one by one and thus, in a sense, completed its mission for Turkey's salvation from the deeply rooted crises.

Therefore, two pathways appear for the AK Party's future. It will either force the existent conditions by working on its present mission or set forth a whole new perspective for Turkey's next three decades by considering domestic, regional and global dynamics together.

Such a process of reconstruction should aim not only at rightfully positioning Turkey in the international arena as a constructive force that could not be ignored, but also at forming a rooted domestic consensus.

Domestic dynamics determined the first decade of the AK Party's political power while foreign dynamics seem to be dominant at the beginning of the second decade. Therefore, the aforementioned vision should definitely be formulated by considering each and every detail of regional and global dynamics. We will continue to discuss this subject in our next column.