AN INEVITABLE REALITY

The parliamentary elections held in Turkey on 7 June were a truly historic event. They put an end to the 13-year sole rule of the Justice and Development Party [AKP] and also shaped the entry into the country's political system of a force expressing the interests of the Kurdish ethnic minority.

The fact that unrest occurred in the streets simultaneously in some regions of Turkey indicates that the elections were to take place in a heated atmosphere. The lines of worsening domestic political tensions mostly occurred because of confrontation between the nationalists and the Kurdish organisations, which in fact brought about a split in the country. Nevertheless, major excesses and clashes were avoided, and on the whole the results of elections registered the establishment (at least for the next few years) of a four-party system. 

As expected, the battle unfolded among the ruling AKP, the Kemalist Republican People's Party [CHP], the Nationalist Movement Party [MHP] and the pro-Kurdish People's Democratic Party [HDP]. The official results of the elections will be known in approximately 10 days' time, but the preliminary results already make it possible to assess the distribution of inter-party forces and surmise several ways in which events will go on to develop.

According to the preliminary results of the vote count, the AKP got 40.8 per cent of the votes (258 seats in parliament out of 550); 25 per cent of the electorate voted for the CHP and 16.4 per cent for the MHP. The HDP managed to pass the 10-per-cent barrier for entering parliament with 13.1 per cent of the vote.

Thus, the ruling party lost approximately 9 per cent of the votes compared with the results for the last elections. The Kemalists improved their result by 4.5 per cent compared with the last elections and the nationalists by 3 per cent. The HDP took part in the parliamentary elections for the first time, so obtaining 80 seats in the Grand National Assembly was perceived by the supporters of the pro-Kurdish party as a historic victory.

The main outcome of the elections was that the AKP, which is associated with the name of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has headed the party for many years, could not manage to get sufficient seats in the parliament to form a one-party government. This circumstance points to the fact that Erdogan (at any rate here and now) will not be able to make the long planned amendment to the Constitution aimed at transforming Turkey from a parliamentary republic into a presidential one.

The decline in the AKP's popularity undoubtedly had an impact on the election results. After Erdogan took up the post of president, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu became the party leader. One of the reasons for this was that many Turks did not support the "presidential" project, preferring a parliamentary form of government.

Judging by the results of sociological surveys, only 27 per cent of citizens support the introduction of amendments to the Constitution. Even within the AKP itself no more than 43 per cent of the members support the transformation of Turkey into a presidential republic.

The dissatisfaction of some Turkish voters with Erdogan's and Davutoglu's policy is connected with the general domestic political tension in the country caused by the confrontation between the AKP and the so-called "parallel state" headed by the Muslim preacher Fethullah Gulen who lives in the USA. As a result of this confrontation, there are never-ending arrests of high-ranking members of staff in the bodies of law and order, of opposition journalists, scholars and businessmen accused of supporting Gulen's "Hizmet" movement.

No less important dismay in Turkish society has been evoked by the growing economic problems, with which the AKP government has been finding it ever harder to cope against the backdrop of the worsening domestic and foreign policy situation. The Erdogan-Davutoglu approach to diplomacy has been engendering ever more disputes and doubts. The AKP government is being subjected to criticism for allowing the country to be excessively dragged into the Middle East problems, which have created heaps of completely unnecessary problems for Ankara, in particular in the Syrian, Egyptian and Israeli directions.

However, when talking about the political standpoints of the AKP, just like the prospects for its strategy to be implemented, we should not fail to take into account the interests of the West which does not hide its dissatisfaction with Turkish President Erdogan's and Prime Minister Davutoglu's efforts to chart an extremely independent course in the world arena. It is noteworthy that on the eve of the elections in Turkey, the western media drastically upped their criticism of the AKP government.

In particular, the American newspaper The New York Times published an editorial with the title "Dark Clouds Over Turkey", in which Erdogan was accused of carrying out political repression. The highly significant summary to the article contained the following appeal: "The United States and Turkey's other NATO allies should be urging him [Erdogan] to turn away from this destructive path."

It is not surprising that the leaders of the Turkish state protested vehemently against the anti-Erdogan campaign unleashed by the western media. Replying to the attack in The New York Times, the Turkish president said that the publication of the article was interference in the affairs of the republic. Erdogan accused the western centres of trying to weaken Turkey, take it apart and swallow it. "But we won't let that happen, they won't succeed," he stated.

Nevertheless, Erdogan will have to resign himself to the domestic political realities that took shape in the country after 7 June. This primarily means that the AKP will have to go into coalition with one of the opposition parties in order to form a government. For the moment, theoretically this can only be with two parties, the MHP or the HDP. The differences between the AKP and the CHP are too serious for a tactical union to be proposed between them.

Therefore the AKP's most probable coalition will be with the nationalists from the MHP headed by Devlet Bahceli. The latter has already accepted the likelihood of entering a coalition, but explained his agreement by not participating in the ruling system of the HDP. But the likelihood of an alliance between the AKP and the HDP, which was widely discussed on the eve of the elections, has become considerably less since the leader of the pro-Kurdish party, Selahattin Demirtas, has ruled out the possibility of forming a coalition with Erdogan's and Davutoglu's supporters.

If an accord on forming a ruling coalition is not reached at all, then parliament will have to be dissolved and repeat elections called. But will such a prospect be able to stabilise the political situation in Turkey which is now faced with serious challenges, among them the threat to the country's territorial integrity in view of strengthening Kurdish separatism?

One thing is certain and that is that Turkey is entering a new stage in its development which will, to all appearances, take place without the complete domination of a single political force. Preserving the country's unity, ensuring national and civic accord will become the vitally important tasks facing Turkey, irrespective of what form of constitutional rule its people prefer and precisely which party and coalition will lead the country to that important historic date - 2023, when the Turkish Republic is to mark its centenary.