There is democracy in Turkey

A referendum of great importance for the history of Turkish democracy has been held. At the moments this article was being prepared, the counting of votes was proceeding in a contested process in which a clear picture had not emerged until the last minutes. With a vote share that appears set to settle in the 52 percent band toward the end, the people of Turkey are approving the system change put to them. This result will undoubtedly bring before us a series of data requiring evaluation from many angles, from the language of the campaign to the positive or negative contributions of the segments involved in this campaign. Looking at these data, much can be said about the sociological development, change and course of society, but the first and most important thing that can be said is this: the decision has been the nation's, a result has been reached within the rules of democracy, and Turkish democracy has won. First of all, a contest has taken place in which the sides conducted all their theses and claims in a democratic environment, and the "yes" camp emerged victorious from this contest. With this result, let no one have any doubt or worry: it can be said that Turkish democracy has won and been strengthened.

We have gone through a process in which the attention of the whole world was concentrated on the referendum in Turkey. During this time television programs on Turkey were broadcast in various countries, some newspapers demanded a "no vote" in Turkish headlines, and some European politicians conducted anti-"yes" propaganda as if they were citizens of the Republic of Turkey. A large number of analyses and articles that turned Turkey's realities upside down and distorted them were published. The fact that these articles were constantly served up especially by certain publications is also noteworthy.

As I mentioned in my previous article, Henri Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, published in a newspaper called the Wall Street Journal an article claiming that Turkey would never again be the same Turkey after the referendum vote. The name Henri Barkey is in fact not very foreign to us; you will remember. He had come onto Turkey's agenda once again by attending a meeting held in Istanbul before 15 July. Barkey is also known for his closeness to Graham Fuller, who follows Turkey so closely that he named his daughter Ankara and about whom there are various claims concerning his name.

According to the author, a "no" result from the referendum will cause Turkey's destabilization and sharp uncertainty. In the event of a "yes" vote, Turkey will begin to be governed by a populist authoritarian administration. In his article comparing Turkey with Venezuela, Barkey argues that the European / Western leaders sponsoring the "no" campaign too want Erdoğan to win for a strong and stable Turkey.

In his article, besides turning certain facts upside down, Barkey also shows that he definitely does not have a command of Turkey's political and social structure. Barkey's approach is a rather orientalist one. Either he is not aware that Turkey's experience of democracy and its democratic institutions will not allow authoritarianism or a chaos of governance whether "yes" or "no" comes out, or he is quite openly engaging in disinformation and continuing to act as the spokesman of a certain policy.

In another article published in the same newspaper, Soner Çağaptay published an article implying that President Erdoğan, in order to win the referendum, turned Turkey into a society divided into two camps, organized in this way, and arguing that this referendum will increase the intractability of polarization in Turkey. One must ask: in the referendum in which the UK voted on whether or not to leave the European Union, were there not two different fronts, Yes and No, two different views; to speak in Çağaptay's language, two different camps?

We have made evaluations of these guided publications before. Perhaps it is necessary to look at these publications from another angle as well: the elections held in Turkey were followed closely all over the world, the choice of citizens in Turkey was wondered about, and attempts were made to influence and shape it. This in itself can also be regarded as a tacit acceptance, on a global scale, of the strength of Turkish democracy and the Turkish society's commitment to democracy. Even though they carry serious problems from the moral and scholarly standpoints.

In the end, with the 16 April referendum Turkish democracy has been strengthened and has passed one more test successfully. Now it is time to turn this wind into an opportunity, to do work that will open Turkey's way, to focus on the coming processes, to focus on political processes. Everyone who contributes to Turkish democracy, whether they voted yes or no, is a citizen of this country and is equally welcome.

Perhaps other evaluations will be made later on the results, but at the first stage what stands out, we can say, is the increase in the votes in the east and Southeast, that is, the Kurdish votes. In an article last week I had spoken of how, through the Prime Minister's and our President's rallies in the East, a visible increase in votes would occur and that this would open a brand new, entirely different page on the Kurdish issue. It really turned out that way. Against the relative drop in votes seen in Western Anatolia, this increase seen in the votes of the East and Southeast was quite effective in the "yes" votes breasting the tape in this referendum. We will talk more about this.