ELECTION WON AND RATINGS LOST

The municipal elections in Turkey on 29 March gladdened political op-ponents of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose image has taken a knock over the past year.

The ruling Justice and Develop-ment Party (JDP), although it came first, gaining the support of 40.1 per cent of voters in the recent municipal elections, suffered a sharp decline in comparison with the elections of 2004 and 2008. Erdogan's party won in 45 of the 81 provinces, which is 18 fewer than in the elections of 2004. At the same time, the prime minister's main rival - Deniz Baykal, the leader of the Republican People's Party (RPP), took 28.18 per cent of the vote (5.5 per cent more than in 2004) and won in 13 provinces. However, the greatest gains were made by the leader of the Nationalist Action Party, Dovlet Bahceli, who won in 10 provinces, which was quite an unpleasant surprise for Erdogan. Other parties did not spring any surprises - their level of support was as expected. For example, the Democratic Society Party, supported by ethnic Kurds, gained control in eight provinces, with 4.98 per cent.

In essence, the voters made it clear to Erdogan that if he continues his current policy, there will be no more single-party government in Turkey, which would mean the ruling party having to negotiate with the opposition in the future. 29 March 2009 changed Turkey's political picture, restoring the multi-party system. Thus the period of single-party rule, which began with Erdogan's victory in 2002, is coming to an end.

The opposition openly declared that the voters are tired of Erdogan's seven-year rule and the government had been given a clear signal of its imminent departure, even though the JDP recorded a resounding victory in the parliamentary elections of 20 months ago, having garnered an unprecedented "harvest" of 47 per cent of the vote. What has changed since then?

The careless approach of the authorities towards easing the social consequences of the global economic crisis has played a major role in the shrinking popularity of the JDP.

First of all, immediately after the elections of 2007, the JDP, whose rating was entirely due to the popularity of one person, rejected any dialogue with the opposition, losing the opportunity to influence the constituency of its opponents.

The positions of the ruling party were also affected by the botched campaign to lift the ban on the hijab, which resulted in the strengthening of the Republican People's Party, a proponent of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's principles, specifically of secularism.

At the same time, despite the expectations of the religiously active strata of the population, the JDP did not propose a new constitution to help overturn the hijab ban. It was precisely the trump card of being "the offended party" which had allowed Erdogan to win the elections of 2007. What is more, the Islamic component of the Erdogan government's actions continued in its foreign policy during the Israeli military operation in Gaza.

The situation was aggravated by the scandal related to the activities of the Deniz Feneri organization, through which the ruling party collected donations from Turks living in Europe.

The JDP's image was also affected by a major confrontation with the Dogan media company, which controls 60 per cent of Turkey's media market. Nor did the public miss the fact that, during the investigation into Ergenekon, whose members are accused of preparing a coup d'etat, the authorities arrested not only opponents of Erdogan, but also servicemen; this being seen as an attempt to blacken the army in the eyes of the people.

In principle and from a technical point of view, the JDP achieved higher campaign activity than other parties, using every legal opportunity arising from its position of leadership. Things reached such a point that during the election campaign supporters of the ruling party began a campaign to distribute gifts among needy families. But nothing helped - even the famous energy of the Turkish prime minister, who gave election speeches in 66 provinces in two months.

However, the supporters of the JDP are not panicking, as they realize that the JDP still controls the country's largest municipal bodies in Istanbul and Ankara, and that there are still more than two years until the next parliamentary elections.

But, at the same time, there is clear dissatisfaction, bolstered by the constant worsening of the economic situation in the country. During the last few months alone, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs in Turkey. People are tired. The public is quite tired of the endless scandals and attacks by the premier, both against the opposition and at foreign policy level - for example, the recent scandal in Davos. 

Representatives of the opposition point out that "the ruling party was lucky that the municipal elections were not held two months later". RPP leader Deniz Baykal went so far as to say that "the people showed Erdogan a yellow card, and this will be followed by a red card". "No-one has the right to be sole leader, choosing targets for criticism. There is, and will always be, an alternative," Baykal said.

In any case, we should not forget that during the last 18 months, the JDP party has not "shown its worth" in any foreign policy direction except the "Armenian" one.

Unlike on domestic policy, the Turkish opposition has displayed unanimity on the issue of normalizing relations with Armenia. The opposition presented the initiative to go for rapprochement with Yerevan as another "adventure" by the authorities. It is notable that President Abdullah Gul's support has only increased the distance between the authorities and the public, reducing the ratings of the ruling Justice and Development Party and of the president and prime minister personally.

As a result, representatives of the ruling party began to fall into major errors, one after another, resulting in sharp public criticism. A graphic example was the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek, who said while commenting on the results of the March elections: "We saw a dangerous tendency when the Democratic Society Party (supported by ethnic Kurds - R+) managed to win even Igdir Province, gaining access to the border with Armenia". The mention of Armenia in the same context as the DSP not only aroused criticism in the press, but also led to acts of disobedience in south-eastern regions of the country, where the rating of the ruling party was low anyway.

We can also judge tensions in Turkey by the number of skirmishes in the run-up to the elections and on election day. Turkey had not seen such a "bloody" election for a long time. On 29 March, dozens of voters were injured at polling stations. Even mayoral candidates were among the casualties. In summary, we should highlight 12 negative factors for Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party:

. The JDP lost the elections in most western provinces due to the local population's dissatisfaction with the economic backwardness of the region.

. The policy of political polarization and constant conflict with the opposition backfired, reducing the popularity of the ruling party.

. The blackmailing of the population by some ministries, which openly declared that if opposition politicians were to be involved in running municipalities, then the quality of services to the population would decline rapidly. As a result, the ruling party "lost" such major cities as Antalya and Mersin. Nor did the free distribution of household appliances among voters yield any result.

. As a result of the elections, the Nationalist Action Party destroyed the principle of "polarity", taking a centrist position - a kind of "balancing link" on the political scene.

. The acute differences between the parties became apparent in Turkey's major cities. Specifically, the JDP managed to win in Istanbul and Ankara by slender margins, while it lost in Antalya. This proves that Erdogan's rating is falling in the major cities.

. The religious party Saadet gained a new leader in the person of Numan Kurtulmus, who managed to win over part of the ruling party's constituency.

. The elections underlined the strength of the "Kurdish factor" in the life of the country's southeast, confirming that only one party prioritising this factor can win in this region.

. Statements by a number of political leaders that the image of the party, not the candidate, is most significant in the elections were not justified. For example, in provinces such as Sanliurfa and Adana, the elections were won by people well-known locally.

. The principle that "there is no room for women in Turkish politics" was totally confirmed. There are very few women on the list of winners.

. Citizens supported the re-election of municipal leaders who had worked actively to improve their wellbeing. Specifically, despite all the efforts of the ruling party, Yilmaz Buyukersen, representing the Democratic Left Party, won the election in the town of Eskisehir.

. Despite the eight-per-cent fall in its rating, the ruling party managed to maintain its leadership at a critical time. This gave Recep Tayyip Erdogan a "ticket" to lead his government into the next elections without the need to launch another extraordinary election campaign.

. On seeing the "indifference" of the general staff, which had actively interfered in the political disposition of forces in the country for many years, citizens decided to "reply" to the government themselves. If the parliamentary elections of 2007 were a kind of "vote for Abdullah Gul", on 29 March the citizens of Antalya said "no" to the country's leadership, which had appointed a person disliked locally to the post of rector of a local university.

It is not known what the situation will be over the next two years, ahead of parliamentary elections in Turkey, but it is clear that the incumbent authorities are making one mistake after another. Any coalition government would prepare the "downfall" of Erdogan, who will not be able to dictate his conditions single-handedly. The ruling party, whose position depends entirely upon the image of the current prime minister, would simply split up.