The destructive success of the opposition against the AK Party

Although we do not like at all the picture that emerged after the announcement of the election results, we do not deviate even a millimeter from the line that there is good in what has happened. Looking at these results, there were those who experienced great disappointment, who did not find their expectations, or who, seized by the intoxication of a great victory, declared themselves the absolute winners of the election. Yet the other three parties apart from the AK Parti did not become the first party, and even if they all came together, they are not in a position to put forward, with the votes they received, a formula that will ease the country relative to before.

The only thing they are happy about is having been able to bring the AK Parti down from being in a position to form a government alone. In place of what they brought down, they are not in a position to put forward anything without the AK Parti's support either. Theirs is not a constructive but only a destructive success, and even those who voted for them have seen the cost of this destruction to the country within a short time and have voiced their concerns.

This destruction, which has brought heavy damage even to their own voters, was the very scene the AK Parti tried to evoke throughout its whole election campaign. This scene was seen in a very striking way on the very day after the election. From the vote distribution that has emerged, let alone a single-party government, even producing a coalition government that would save the country's stability at a minimum level seems very difficult.

The optimistic and stable environment before the election has now been replaced by an uncertainty that worries not only AK Parti members but members of all the other parties.

In essence, the reason we have said "presidency" until now was precisely this. To prevent the country from falling into a state of uncertainty at any time, the presidency was the soundest system. We evidently failed to explain that the matter has nothing exclusively to do with making Erdoğan president. After all, when the system was introduced, there would again have been an election, and this would have been put to the vote of the people, which delights some today. The very picture that has emerged today is, I am sure, convincing enough about the importance of the presidential system.

Of course, everyone should draw the lesson due them from the election results. Election results are more decisive than Constitutional Court rulings. Interpreting these rulings correctly and producing politics accordingly prolongs a politician's life. Even if one does not like it, one must believe that these results are surely auspicious. Everyone should question themselves because of these results and put their politics in order, of course.

In my view, one auspicious message of the election is the situation it has produced in the face of those who accuse Erdoğan of becoming a dictator. A dictator is not limited by the people's votes; he never resorts to the vote of a people that will limit him. But right after the election ended, with the main opposition's vote being 16 points below the AK Parti's vote even at its very best, the opposition's rising slogans and the intentions they have revealed about what they want to do show very well who actually carries the desire for dictatorship. God forbid, if these had by chance increased their votes another 1-2 points, what would we be hearing today?

Yet, although it is the 1st party and although there is a 16-point gap between it and the main opposition, whose votes have been stuck at one point for several terms, the AK Parti leadership can issue the following warning to its own supporters, who might interpret the election results differently or wrongly:

"Today we begin our duty anew saying 'Bismillah.' What we expect from you is that you do the same.

Some of our friends are making wrong statements. Beware of statements reacting against the nation on social media! It makes no difference whether personal or institutional! Urgently warn your friends in the provincial and district administrations, because it was again this people that has made us the government for 13 years.

If we bill the people, we become like the others.

Respecting the national will when we get the results we want, and insulting the nation when we encounter a result we do not want, does not befit the political tradition we belong to. Billing the people for a minor setback and looking down on the people from above like the other opposition parties is wrong. Absolutely avoid actions and statements that contain disrespect for the national will. Be as sensitive on this as you possibly can. Remember that we will appear before the same nation from now on as well, and act accordingly."

WHY DID THE KURDS NOT (OR COULD NOT) VOTE FOR THE AK PARTI?

Meanwhile, why did the Kurds not vote for the AK Parti? I must say that the answers given to questions such as why the Kurds did this or that are far from convincing. I had shared with you earlier in this column, at the time, the situations I personally experienced and witnessed in my own electoral district. Frankly, there is the reality of Kurds whose votes were seized in the shadow of arms, under every kind of force and pressure. The will of the Kurdish people did not emerge in these elections. We are talking about an environment in which a village headman was killed before the elections, as part of the election campaign, to send a message to everyone else. For those who wonder, let me say that in the village of that headman, that is, in the village of Bağgöze, which should have felt a sense of revenge because their own headman was killed, over 80 percent of the vote went to the HDP.

A day before the election, in many provinces and districts, all of the AK Parti's observers returned their cards, citing the threats they received or the insecure environment. That is, the AK Parti could not even send an observer to many ballot boxes in the shadow of the PKK's gun. In many districts, villages, even cities, voting was open. Before the elections, teams disguised as pollsters were sent to all the houses one by one, repeatedly, and messages were given. We could not even find a way to formalize the countless complaints that reached us. In many villages, families whose children were kidnapped, or villagers, were sent explicit messages about the election. As if that were not enough, on the last night, using the events in Diyarbakır as a pretext, people took to the streets to give a small reminder of the 6-8 October events. The Diyarbakır bombs are a matter of an entirely separate analysis. Let us do that later. But the right question should be framed not as "Why did the Kurds not vote for the AK Parti?" but as "Why could they not?"

Of course all this does not explain the entire rise of the HDP's votes. There are also contributions made by all parties and forces to the extraordinary campaign organized as if it were a battering ram to bring down the AK Parti, but of course there is also a reality of Kurdish nationalism that must be taken into account. That is another matter.