The AK Party story, which started in November 2003 with 34%, is still continuing with 52% in August 2014…
AK Party had been the unrivaled ruling party for 12 years. They had won their ninth elections by far and, aside from tiny declines, they are advancing by increasing their vote rates.
It had become acceptable that this table is pointing to a naked truth, in other words, to dominant party reality.
Based on political parties, the elections on March 30, which had been conducted in a heavy political polarization environment, were pointing out this reality not only in the sense of vote rates but also in terms of the structural distribution of these votes. AK Party had taken more than 40% of the votes from 70% of cities in Turkey. The number of cities, where they had taken votes under 10%, had been only three. Their vote rates were around 20-40 % in 27% of the cities. The number of cities, where AK Party failed to become 1st or 2nd, was less than 10.
A domination table…
The situation of the main opposition party, CHP, was confirming this dominance reversely.
CHP"s votes were below 10% in 28 out of 51 cities. In 15 out of 51 cities, their vote rates were around 10-20%. The number of cities, where they reached 20%, was only eight. Out of 30 metropolitan municipalities, they were below 10% in nine, and out of 30 metropolises, they were below 20% in three of them. The "sociological propagation" of the rulership and the "sociological restriction" of the main opposition party weren"t limited with 2014 elections; on the contrary, both are presenting a progressive and structural outlook that spreads through years. If the elections were actualized with higher participation rates, the difference between the two political parties would have reached a gigantic 20% rate.
This situation necessitates the political parties to ask themselves the "why" question in a different way rather than accusing the voters for insensitivity, and as for the losing communal segments, they should think about the connection between "lack of opposition and lack of politics". Whether the "dominant political party layout" is related to a lack of opposition or the success of political rulership, in terms of democracy, naturally it"s a problematic situation.
By lowering the competition and pluralism bar, it will affect the nature of politics.
Toda we are living the reflections of this in some way.
What forms the dynamic of politics are the arguments within the single political party, instead of the relations between the political parties. The transformation in the administration of the county is intertwined with the transformation within the administrative staff of a political party and politics is basically fixed on this transformation.
In this respect, Prime Minister Erdogan"s strategy is extremely strict.
This strategy, which is built upon reshaping AK Party before stepping up to Çankaya and leaving the Prime Minister he will choose as the Chairman of the party in his place, is interlocking the "state of a president with a party, even if indirectly with the "de facto presidency regime image" of the new period.
Thus, Erdogan is moving in a way, which leaves no opportunity for a movement that might form in AK Party after his departure, for example Abdullah Gül"s return to party and becoming a candidate for Chairman.
It"s clear that Erdogan is regarding an executive layout, in which all the power is gathered in the hands of the President, as ideal, and insisting on a way that rules out all the possibilities that might state the sharing of rulership. This is also the matter that clarifies the fact that Gül is being blocked until the 2015 general elections for now.
Although, it"s clear that Gül"s Chairman position and Prime Ministry is stating a more corporal structure, which is also the sharing of the rulership. Also, Abdullah Gül"s "Putin Medvedev image won"t seem nice or I won"t be in politics under these conditions" type of statements and having different points of view with Tayyip Erdogan on essential matters like presidency regime, are within the signal of this situation. Erdogan wants to move with a name from the young staff of the party, whom he can work easily with and whom he can patronage, and build the foundations of a new layout.
This is Erdogan"s choice.
This is also what is and will be happening.
Then is it what is required?
Without a doubt, Turkey is leaving the parliamentary system"s port, and there are no problems as long as the legal and legitimate borders are not exceeded.
This is a political choice and a will declaration.
Though, the rulership sharing of the new structure, which will be formed rather than rulership condensation, and leaning on institutionalization instead of individualization in the decision period is one of the requirements of democracy.
We will move forward by trying…