The June 7 general elections have produced striking consequences in many aspects and of course the election results and their implications have been written and spoken about ever since. Analyses focus on the alternatives of a coalition government, a minority government or early general elections. Well, which one of these alternatives is more likely to occur? The Justice and Development Party (AK Party), Republican People's Party (CHP), Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) received 40.85 percent, 24.96 percent, 16.28 percent and 13.11 percent of the vote, respectively. What is the significance of the vote garnered by each party?
Again, the AK Party came in first in the 11th election it entered. When the political literature is considered, this is a great success in the world as well. As far as the voting chart of the AK Party is concerned, we have to talk about a decline in votes and failure. Being unable to secure enough deputies to form a government on its own for the first time, the AK Party has to apply to other parties and to decide on early elections if a consensus cannot be built.
Shortly after the election results started to become clear, there emerged an atmosphere with every party leader who made a statement speaking as if the AK Party was the greatest loser of the elections and as if they themselves were victorious. As such, they began to lay down conditions, all of which went against the AK Party. Anyone who is not familiar with Turkey and hears such statements from the outside would think that the AK Party received the least votes among the parties in Parliament. When the influence of media outlets that have severe hostility for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is added to this overall picture, a serious functional atmosphere arises. This atmosphere should not affect the AK Party, since there is also the concrete fact that the AK Party is still the largest and strongest party in Turkey. There is significant support for the AK Party, which still dominates three-quarters of the country, particularly central Anatolia and the Black Sea region. It is also the party that has transformed the country with its certain vision since 2002. It should be noted that the AK Party entered the June 7 elections by taking risks, since the big guns of the party, who constituted one-third of the staff, could not run as candidates due to the party's three-term rule and its leader, Erdoğan, having been elected president. In other words, the AK Party entered the elections with a new leader and new leading staff. Moreover, it faced a great anti-Erdoğan bloc. As the HDP ran in the elections as a party, the AK Party lost a considerable portion of its Kurdish votes to the HDP. This is partly due to some of Erdoğan's statements about Kurds during and after the Kobani protests and a set of mistakes the AK Party made while determining its parliamentarian candidates in southeastern Anatolia. Although the AK Party initiated the Kurdish reconciliation process, taking the greatest political risk, the HDP, which benefited from the AK Party's initiatives, received the votes of a considerable portion of Kurds. In addition, the MHP garnered the votes from some Turkish nationalists who previously voted for the AK Party by creating politics of fear through the reconciliation process. I have to say this is an irony of life.
After all, a new period is starting. The AK Party has to progress on its way with the same determination and without compromising its principles as it has always done. Certainly, it should apply to all parties to seek ways of forming a government. If not, it should ask three irreconcilable opposition parties to form a government if they can. The latter alternative would be a painful but effective experience to remind us of what kind of a country Turkey was without the AK Party. If none of these alternatives can be actualized, there lies another general election ahead in the fall.