Two opposition parties of Turkey, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), have come together and deliberated a strategy about how to defeat the candidate of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in the upcoming presidential election. Finally, they have decided on nominating and supporting a joint candidate. For them, this candidate should have the potential of garnering votes from the secular grassroots of the CHP, however, he should also be conservative to appeal to AK Party voters that constitute half of the total electorate in Turkey. Additionally, he should speak a foreign language and have international experience. The required qualifications are not confined to these alone. The two parties should care about the aftermath of the election as well, since public surveys have all revealed that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan would win the presidential race as the potential candidate of the AK Party. In the case that this candidate, who will challenge Erdoğan, loses the election, he will not pose a threat against the CHP and MHP leaders. For these reasons, they were required to find a nonpolitical figure with no political background. It is in this context that they nominated Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, former Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).If we think of the CHP's obdurate sense of secularism, which keeps a distance from social values, the candidacy of İhsanoğlu is a sign of political normalization; since the CHP, which bases itself on the principle of preserving far secularist, nationalist and statist codes of the Republic and aims to transform society through them, has come to realize that it cannot get in touch with the public through its Kemalist ideology and proponents. It has started to renew itself rather than transforming the public. While determining its candidate, the CHP had to take the conservatives and democrats into consideration. CHP's approval of İhsanoğlu, despite opposition from its grassroots, is the outcome of this political quest, i.e., of political normalization.The joint candidate of the opposition and the expectation that is created among the grassroots about him has relatively appeased the deep concerns of anti-Erdoğan groups. Erdoğan being the only legitimate actor that dominates politics, the fragmentation of the opposition and inability of the opposition to make a political move against the government aroused a feeling of desperation and tedium in the anti-Erdoğan block. We saw this sense of despair when it was taken to the street during the Gezi incidents. The opposition offering a joint candidate is a political maneuver. It will evoke the hope of a political way out for anti-Erdoğan sections, which resorted to street protests and had the impression that the AK Party is here to stay. It is useful to underline these two positive points about İhsanoğlu's candidacy. However, there are also questions about İhsanoğlu, as he is not predictable and has many unknown aspects, such as his vision and opinions. He will appear before the public to ask for their votes. Therefore, he needs to have projects and arguments that will satisfy the public. The question of what İhsanoğlu thinks about Turkey's key issues is a big secret to all as well as the question of whether he looks positively on the reconciliation process, the basic issue of Turkey, or rejects it. Following the Dec. 17 operation, an illegal structure that is affiliated with the Gülen Movement, which infiltrated the judiciary and police, was unearthed. Whether he has a plan to be implemented against these illegal structures within the state is also a mystery. It may not be required by the OIC, but the president of Turkey should have a sound vision of foreign policy. What is his stance on Syria and how does he evaluate the recent developments in Iraq and Mosul? How would he tackle these matters if he became president? So far, he has not addressed basic issues with no indication of his position on them. The only thing that is known about him in Turkey is that he remained unresponsive in the presence of the military coup in Egypt. As an actor who has agreed to walk on this rocky road, he should render comprehensive and satisfactory answers to these questions. He should not limit himself to arguments such as "I do not have an aversion to Atatürk" or "Elect me and send Erdoğan." He should adopt a much more convincing discourse, as society votes for projects and stability rather than futile statements.