Coalition and politics

The 7 June election results are being interpreted as the people having given the political parties a message of coalition. This interpretation has by now acquired general validity as a message for politics.

But in truth, no one doubts that if the same people were asked "Do you want a coalition?", they would most probably answer far more clearly with "no."

That is, there is a clear difference between the picture arising from the election results and the answer the people could give if asked more clearly.

There is a traumatic memory of what coalition governments caused in Turkey's past and how they rendered the country ungovernable. In contrast, there is also a more widely shared assessment of the stable growth, development and democratization experienced during the period of the AK Parti's single-party governments, which the country experienced after an extremely bad experience with coalitions.

The 41 percent that the AK Parti received despite its loss of votes is an expression of the people's overall appreciation of that experience. Perhaps it has been mentioned a lot, but it is worth repeating. This vote is 6.5 percent higher than the vote that brought this party to power alone, with 364 seats, 13 years ago on 3 November 2002. That it has maintained this relative stability of votes despite three terms in power is itself an expression of the credit extended to the AK Parti's single-party rule.

If even among those who did not vote for the AK Parti the AK Parti's being obliged to form a coalition government causes not satisfaction but unease, all sides need to make a much better assessment of this.

After all, if none of those who voted for the other parties saw the possibility of their own party coming to power alone, yet look coldly on a coalition as well, this clearly shows that there exists a certain level of satisfaction or appreciation toward the government that the AK Parti ruled alone.

That this confusion has produced an inevitable coalition from the ballot box is an oddity produced by the parliamentary regime. In a possible presidential system, this oddity would undoubtedly have been eliminated. No matter who enters parliament and in what proportion, the country would in no way be subjected to such instability and uncertainty.

However, the instruction the people have given through the ballot box right now is a coalition, and it falls to us to think about the conveniences produced by this difficulty and to produce a constructive politics through them. Seen from this angle, we should begin by saying that there is no point in getting stuck on the coalition's bad experiences in Turkey so far and writing disaster scenarios for ourselves.

If evaluated well, we can say that a possible coalition offers the opportunity to open up the ruling bloc and to expand the political arena in the country even further. It is indeed clear that the AK Parti's 13 years of single-party rule has made an indisputable contribution to the country's development and its attainment of a position in the world that cannot be ignored. However, this single-party rule, which can be considered quite long in Turkey's political history and by the nature of the parliamentary regime, has the consequence of causing the opposition against the AK Parti to form blocs. The problematic side of this consequence, apart from its domestic political results, stems especially from the AK Parti having to shoulder alone all responsibility for the country's welfare and unity.

Even the country's most national issues are increasingly coming to be perceived as solely the AK Parti's issue and politics. Yet the AK Parti's undertaking alone, even with its own base, the struggle that Turkey, besieged and subjected to attacks from all sides today, has been compelled to wage also carries serious risks for the country's security.

The forces that are trying to reshape the Middle East and meanwhile aim at Turkey's unity and integrity are able to find broad bodies of supporters for themselves from within Turkey.

It is not a good omen that Israeli officials, who admit that a strong Turkey keeps them awake at night, or a section of the Western press that sees it as the stopping of the Saladin of the coming millennium, are rejoicing at the election results, sharing the same excitement as many segments in our country. It is quite clear that those with this outlook are enemies not of Turkey's AK Parti but of its essence. That this level of hostility can find such open allies from within Turkey is thought-provoking. If the cost of toppling the AK Parti is to condemn Turkey to a complete mandate-ism, there is a style of politics that would not shrink from demanding this, or even from entering this path.