Will promises affect vote shares?
What will be the theme of the upcoming Nov. 1 elections? What criteria will the electorate consider, while casting its ballots? To what extent will recently made economic and political promises, which have been announced by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) following the promises of other parties, be influential in the ballots?
In the run up to the June 7 elections, economic promises did not affect the results although they were mentioned on the streets. The main determinant in that election turned out to be the political choices of the Kurdish and nationalist electorate.
Highlighting these choices was a fully planned project. Along with Western media outlets, the Doğan Media Group, media outlets affiliated with the parallel state and even the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) contributed to this project to a large extent.
And as the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) focused its political strategy on hindering the AK Party's coming to power alone, the election results turned out to be quite different. In other words, not the given promises, but anti-AK Party motivations constituted the main theme of the June 7 elections. Now we are on the eve of another election in the context of a totally different atmosphere. Not much time has passed since June 7, but a quite unusual development has been experienced. Therefore, the public will this time cast ballots by considering party performances in the last five months, and the acquisitions of the country in the last 13 years. Another important factor determining ballots will also be political language that minimizes societal polarization.
In particular, the middle classes, which form the skeleton of society, have seen how leaning towards two small-scale nationalist parties can paralyze politics and how this paralysis can risk all kinds of acquisitions that were obtained over the course of the last 13 years. Besides, everyone, particularly Kurds, have witnessed how the reconciliation process was put to an end, and the 60 percent bloc politics that was imposed did not reflect reality.
People are going to the polls on Nov. 1 with this experience in their memories. Therefore, rather than the abundance of promises, the reliability of realizing those promises are considered. For the last few days, four parties successively announced their promises. On Sunday, I carefully followed the promises announced by AK Party Chairman and interim Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. Having taken similar steps and knowing the state possibilities very well, the AK Party allowed no space for superfluous discussions that might stir the streets and made more realistic and down-to-earth promises, addressing various segments, including pensioners, youth, working women and those working for minimum wages.
And moreover, the party completed those promises with political moves: Granting legal status to cemevis, the Alevi houses of worship, decreasing the election threshold, abolishing military jurisdiction except for disciplinary action, reinforcing local administrations and embracing the reconciliation process despite the conflict.
All these promises and political approaches make the AK Party a favorite again. The party still has no considerable alternative. It is in the frame to come to power alone. The CHP appears as the second favorite following the AK Party due to its plan to centralize despite the vote share gap between the two parties.
The electorate does not take the other two parties – namely the HDP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – seriously in terms of promises. And the motivations for voting for these two parties are not about promises. So, the vote shift that will be experienced in the Nov. 1 elections will center upon the factors of reliability and centralization. In a nutshell, no matter what is promised, these two nationalist parties no longer have a chance to catch the June 7 vibes again. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge.
In the run up to the June 7 elections, economic promises did not affect the results although they were mentioned on the streets. The main determinant in that election turned out to be the political choices of the Kurdish and nationalist electorate.
Highlighting these choices was a fully planned project. Along with Western media outlets, the Doğan Media Group, media outlets affiliated with the parallel state and even the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) contributed to this project to a large extent.
And as the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) focused its political strategy on hindering the AK Party's coming to power alone, the election results turned out to be quite different. In other words, not the given promises, but anti-AK Party motivations constituted the main theme of the June 7 elections. Now we are on the eve of another election in the context of a totally different atmosphere. Not much time has passed since June 7, but a quite unusual development has been experienced. Therefore, the public will this time cast ballots by considering party performances in the last five months, and the acquisitions of the country in the last 13 years. Another important factor determining ballots will also be political language that minimizes societal polarization.
In particular, the middle classes, which form the skeleton of society, have seen how leaning towards two small-scale nationalist parties can paralyze politics and how this paralysis can risk all kinds of acquisitions that were obtained over the course of the last 13 years. Besides, everyone, particularly Kurds, have witnessed how the reconciliation process was put to an end, and the 60 percent bloc politics that was imposed did not reflect reality.
People are going to the polls on Nov. 1 with this experience in their memories. Therefore, rather than the abundance of promises, the reliability of realizing those promises are considered. For the last few days, four parties successively announced their promises. On Sunday, I carefully followed the promises announced by AK Party Chairman and interim Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. Having taken similar steps and knowing the state possibilities very well, the AK Party allowed no space for superfluous discussions that might stir the streets and made more realistic and down-to-earth promises, addressing various segments, including pensioners, youth, working women and those working for minimum wages.
And moreover, the party completed those promises with political moves: Granting legal status to cemevis, the Alevi houses of worship, decreasing the election threshold, abolishing military jurisdiction except for disciplinary action, reinforcing local administrations and embracing the reconciliation process despite the conflict.
All these promises and political approaches make the AK Party a favorite again. The party still has no considerable alternative. It is in the frame to come to power alone. The CHP appears as the second favorite following the AK Party due to its plan to centralize despite the vote share gap between the two parties.
The electorate does not take the other two parties – namely the HDP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – seriously in terms of promises. And the motivations for voting for these two parties are not about promises. So, the vote shift that will be experienced in the Nov. 1 elections will center upon the factors of reliability and centralization. In a nutshell, no matter what is promised, these two nationalist parties no longer have a chance to catch the June 7 vibes again. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge.
Last Update: October 08, 2015 02:23