Davutoğlu is right on one matter. With their statements and especially with MHP's highlighted “illegitimate HDP” attitude, the opposition parties already removed the coalition possibility without AK Party.
Now, there are three possibilities; AK Party-CHP government, AK Party-MHP government or early elections.
The one that seems possible, but is difficult in my opinion, is the AK Party-MHP government. Because this possibility states AK Party compromising more and politically keeping all of Bahçeli's statements and accusations. As you know, Bahçeli revealed his conditions for such a coalition. Those are; ending the resolution process, pulling the President to constitutional limits and thus to Çankaya, and, starting a trial process on the matter of corruption, beyond the 4 related ministers and expanding till Bilal Erdoğan. These clauses are strong! These are conditions AK Party cannot possibly overcome. Will these conditions become flexible during coalition negotiations? I don't think so. Those conditions turned into actions as soon as they were said. In other words, if MHP takes a step back from those conditions during the coalition negotiations, they will encounter a serious cost, in proportion to their sharp engagement, and the party staff will know this.
We think that all of these are more important matters than each side preferring one other.
Nevertheless, in a period, where Turkey needs flexibility and needs to adapt to new conditions and demands in the region and country, it's important to think about how spot-on and sustainable such a coalition is. This will make an old-style rightist and securing injection to Turkey, and is an alliance that should be avoided.
As for AK Party's alliance with CHP; even though it's easier than a possible MHP partnership, it involves different types of political obstacles. Kılıçdaroğlu not having complete control over his party, CHP's multipartite structure, the political-psychological average in the party, accumulated open/secret revanchist feelings towards AK Party, the tendency to calling people to account, and the betweenness of pursuit to administer together; are between those obstacles.
Can CHP overcome these obstacles?
Maybe if they act rationally…
On the other hand, it's not difficult for AK Party to accept this 14-clause principle list other than one or maybe two clauses.
Let's remember the principles; a judicial system that is based on the supremacy of law. Completely changing the September 12 coup-law. Political moral law. Strong social state. Pulling the President within constitutional borders. Only the Prime Minister having the right to use the covert allowance. A new foreign policy. Opening the squares to the youth. Reducing the bans. Media freedom. Not using tax audits as a political tool. Dividing HSYK into two. Settling scores with corruptions…
In all of these, AK Party has no principle, other than the language directed at the President and a new foreign policy, that they will have difficulty accepting.
Sending the 4 Ministers to the Supreme Court, has stopped being a coalition matter with its existing parliament arithmetic, and turned into an unavoidable situation. It's also inevitable for the President to pull back to his natural limits against a coalition government. If this transition is allowed to happen by itself, without linking it to any protocol, there will be no problems.
On the contrary to assumptions, these principles can lead to AK Party's self-renewal, as desired by many AK Party supporters/members.
The same coalition might pull CHP into the realities of the system, and steer them towards increasing the democracy lath.
Opening the door of pluralism and reconciliation, the continuity of the resolution process, rasping the excesses of the existing rulership style, spreading and sharing the transformation risks (Kurdish issue being in the first place) with the whole community; are desirable situations.
However, as we've said, there is a political struggle and subjective data of the rivalry against this rational display.
In this case, in our opinion, CHP is the arbiter in this preference.
From the point of CHP; the real matter will be between either eating grapes or choosing the vineyard owner.