Turkey has entered its last curve before the local elections, in which Istanbul stands as the most crucial city. The Istanbul elections are particularly interesting, as it is now in a completely different city than it was three months ago. The opposition, which three months ago claimed that "whoever wins Istanbul, wins Turkey," has tucked away these claims.

Despite several public opinion operations and support from the media and the movement during this timeframe, one truth draws special attention: The Republican People's Party (CHP) Istanbul candidate, Mustafa Sarıgül, is in a worse position now than on the day he transferred to the CHP.

This shows the difference between trying to climb the ladder by engineering public opinion and actual politics. Of course, when it became apparent that this would be insufficient, the Gülen Movement stepped in and attempted to besiege the government with the Dec. 17 operation. This would perhaps not be enough to overthrow the government, but it would definitely shake it up and would be enough to clear the way for the CHP. CHP Chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu adhered strictly to this political engineering and based his election strategy on "corruption and tape operations." He used Twitter as a medium to convey his corruption and tape politics.

However, the CHP's strongest candidate was also involved in accusations thrown at the AK Party, and thus posed a credibility problem. In addition, neither municipal governance nor projects were mentioned at rallies. This is exactly the paradox in which Istanbul is approaching the elections.

On one side is Kadir Topbaş, who has been governing Istanbul for the past 10 years. Topbaş, with his calm persona and his services in changing the features of Istanbul, trusts the people's leader, Prime Minister Erdoğan. On the other side is Mustafa Sarıgül, who trusts his experience in Şişli. Behind him is the strong center media, the Istanbul capital, the Gezi segment and the Gülen Movement, but not the CHP organization.

It is now apparent that the direction of the Istanbul elections will be determined by Prime Minister Erdoğan's performance.

The overcrowded rallies in Anatolia and the war against the CHP-Gülen Movement alliance are clues to this. With this attitude, the prime minister is affecting not only his own base, but also the base of other parties.

It is for this reason that the following question is especially poignant: How is it that the prime minister is still the determinant and the AK Party has not lost any votes despite the Gezi crisis and the Dec. 17 operations?

The answer lies in the change in Turkey and Istanbul. The opposition wants to change the government with its old-Turkey mindset and through political engineering, rather than finding solutions for Turkey's basic problems, such as the Kurdish issue.
However, the public sees this and gives it no credit.

This is the handicap that the CHP and political engineers behind it face. There is no need to look elsewhere; the Turkish public is well acquainted with how corruption has led to state bankruptcy, unsolved official murders and coups. The public's memory is still fresh as a daisy.

They see what Prime Minister Erdoğan has accomplished in the last 12 years by comparing it to this dark past and they will choose accordingly. We can conclude the following by slightly adjusting the socialist publicist Ateş İlyas Başsoy's formula: the AK Party wins, CHP loses. This is perhaps why Prime Minister Erdoğan is still able to say that he will resign if the AK Party fails to come out as the winning party. In contrast, neither CHP chairman Kılıçdaroğlu, nor Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) chairman Bahçeli is able to say the same. Even Mustafa Sarıgül is unable to say that he will retire from politics if he does not win.