by Gary C. Gambill
Daniel Pipes argues that the results themselves are a prima facie indication of likely fraud.
The victory of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in a November 1 snap election took most informed observers by surprise.
Less than five months after losing its parliamentary majority for the first time in a regularly scheduled legislative election in June, the AKP captured 317 of 550 seats on this second try, securing President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's grip on power through at least 2019. How did this turnabout happen?
Erdoğan's ProblemsBy all accounts, public antipathy toward President Erdoğan reached an all-time high this year.
After eliminating secularist control of the military and judiciary under the guise of liberal political reforms during the AKP's first decade in power, Erdoğan went on to "single-mindedly concentrate power in his own hands," writes Svante E. Cornell, research director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, in the Middle East Quarterly.
Demonstrators gather in Taksim Square on June 15, 2013.
The most damaging pushback came from the Gülenists, a moderate, ostensibly non-political Islamist movement that acquired enormous influence within the Turkish bureaucracy in recent decades and had been quietly supporting the AKP since its rise to power. Police officers, judges, and others with Gülenist sympathies spearheaded a December 2013 corruption probe leading to the arrest of the sons of three government ministers and leaked wiretap recordings implicating Erdoğan's family.
Ekrem Dumanli, editor-in-chief of the flagship Gülenist daily Zaman, greets supporters outside an Istanbul courthouse in December 2014.
After serving since 2003 as prime minister, Erdoğan was elected president in 2014 with 52 percent of the vote against a split opposition. As MEF fellow
Burak Bekdil explains in the Middle East Quarterly, he then aspired to transform this largely ceremonial position into a Russian-style super-presidency. For this, the AKP would need to win 330 seats in parliament so as to rewrite the constitution – a number that Erdoğan repeated endlessly in the lead-up to the June 2015 elections.
To the shock of many, the AKP won only 258 seats in the election, not enough even to form a government. After refusing to share power with the opposition in a coalition government, Erdoğan called new elections to replace the hung parliament. Calling the June election results a "mistake" that the Turkish people had to "correct" in a new vote, he set about changing their minds.
An Electoral Do-OverMEF President Daniel Pipes argues that the Islamist grip on power in Turkey is so entrenched that the "the number of AKP seats in parliament hardly matters ... Erdoğan will do what it takes, legally or illegally, to become the new sultan." Having famously said when he was mayor of Istanbul in the 1990s that democracy is like a trolley – "you ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off," the November election would simply determine whether it was time to abandon this means to an end.
In any event, the AKP increased its percent of the popular vote from 41 percent to 49 percent. What accounts for this change?
Daniel Pipes argues that the results themselves are a prima facie indication of likely fraud. "That about one in nine voters switched parties defies reason," he remarked, pointing out that public opinion polls in the weeks and months ahead of the vote showed no substantial increase in public support for the AKP (see table below).
Crackdown on Dissent
Hurriyet columnist Ahmet Hakan (left) and the men who brutally beat him last month (right) shortly before all but one were released.
Moreover, the government's media crackdown paralleled efforts by pro-Erdoğan street thugs to intimidate those who remained unrepentant, notes Bekdil (whose own newspaper, Hurriyet, was attacked in September by hundreds of club-wielding demonstrators led by AKP MP Abdurrahim Boynukalin).
Diversionary Domestic Violence
Erdoğan, who as MEF Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow Stephen Schwartz notes has "a magnificent capacity for judging the mood of the public," understood that the AKP needed to attract votes from nationalists and moderate Kurds in order to regain its parliamentary majority, and that violence was the best means of achieving this.
The Turkish electoral campaign was "characterized by too much violence and fear," said a monitoring delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
In addition, the unprecedented scale of the violence "wore down Kurds with more loyalist sentiments to Turkey," suggests Burak Bekdil. This was particularly true after a twin suicide-bomb attack on a Turkish-Kurdish peace demonstration in Ankara killed 97 and injured nearly 250 people.
Whatever the cause, the election returns indicate that the AKP gained about 4.1 percent of the vote at the expense of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and another 1.4 percent at the expense of pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP).
ImplicationsAlthough Turkey is uniquely endowed with a political heritage conducive to democracy, as the distinguished historian Bernard Lewis explained in an early Middle East Quarterly article, the extension of the AKP's mandate until at least 2019 may well extinguish what's left of it. "Foreign capitals need to prepare for the unpleasant likelihood of a rogue dictatorship in Turkey," concludes Daniel Pipes.
Gary C. Gambill
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.