Election results: there is much to learn from Turkey

Although 6 days have passed since the 31 March local elections, the results have not been finalized in many places, Istanbul foremost among them, because of objections made to the vote counts. The objections, and the decision to hold or not to hold a vote count upon these objections, and, if it was decided, the repetition of this vote count, are part of the election process.

For that reason, as long as the objections are not concluded, the election is also deemed not completed. Therefore the Istanbul elections have not yet been completed. It was a neck-and-neck race, and in a province where 8.5 million voters voted, nothing could be more natural than a recount for an election result in which the votes are this close to each other, even if there were no objection.

In America there is a rule that when the vote difference is below 1 percent, the vote count is repeated even if there is no objection. For that reason, in ABD, carrying out such counts at the end of elections is almost like a complementary step of the election process. And no one insists, or can insist, on why the result that first came out is not being abided by.

In Istanbul, at present, the vote difference is a quarter of one percent, that is, around 2.5 per thousand. This is a really very low difference that can occur in an election in which 8.5 million people voted, and moreover in all the counts made as a result of the objections it is seen that this difference has closed even further, so that no one has the right to keep the objections on this matter under constant pressure and accusation. Because the result that will emerge from the objections will again be accepted, under the supervision of all the people and the party representatives, as a "more real," "more rightful" result, and whoever objects to this can have no intention other than fraud, or having fraud swallowed as a fait accompli.

In the case where the CHP takes the result, a failure or a loss is attributed to the AK Parti, which in fact is entirely a matter of the outcome of the race. Of course what matters is the result. Even when won by a margin of 1 per thousand, the comments on the subject can differ very much. While epics can be written about the winner by this small margin, for the loser by the same margin there are stories of great rout...

However, at a point where we may not take this difference or outcome into consideration, we can say with ease that the AK Parti, compared with the previous election, that is, compared with the 47.9 percent rate it received in the 2014 elections entered under Kadir Topbaş's candidacy, did not reduce its votes but increased them by raising them to 48.6-7 percent. Moreover it was able to do this in an environment in which it was in municipal government.

On the other hand it must again be admitted that the CHP's candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu, in this election, surpassing his party in the strongest way possible, was able to raise it too to the 48.6-7 percent level. This rate approaches the level that the CHP has never reached in general elections, and in Istanbul last reached with Aytekin Kotil in 1977 (56 percent). The sources of the 17 percent surplus over his party's general vote in Turkey will of course be examined.

It is seen very clearly that in the local elections the Alliance system worked in favor of the CHP, particularly in the metropolitan cities, and did not bring much benefit to the AK Parti; while it is clearly seen that over the CHP's votes in Istanbul the İYİ Parti, the HDP, part of the MHP and other small parties clustered around the CHP candidate, another striking fact is that the AK Parti, despite all the economic problems, was not as affected as expected by the disadvantages created by its 17 years of government of the country and its 25 years in municipal administrations.

This fact also shows that the proposition that the people give no premium at all to service is not valid on its own. The AK Parti's municipal and general services continue to create great satisfaction in society. Even if there may be some decrease in the manifestation of this satisfaction because of some shortcomings shown in matters of the heart, the general situation is still in this direction.

Even if the AK Parti did not reduce but increased its votes in these elections, it lost many big cities in the picture produced by the alliance formations of the last election, but even this should not be regarded as a defeat.

Indeed, there is a good in the CHP's having taken some big cities in terms of the nation's general integration. Since the day the AK Parti came onto the stage, in neither the municipalities nor the government of the country has a hope for the opposition of coming to power turned into reality and emerged; however we look at it, this is in total a gain for our democracy.

Although the AK Parti has lost some municipal administrations in this result, a new opportunity for distribution has emerged, with the decision given by the people, in terms of a fairer sharing of resources and representation in the country. Moreover, even though the CHP has taken the Metropolitan Mayoralty especially in Ankara and (although the objection results ended in its favor) in Istanbul, in both metropolitan cities the AK Parti has an obvious majority in most of the districts and in the municipal councils.

This fine intelligence that Turkish democracy displays, not merely its maturity but like a jeweler's scale, has in effect assigned government and opposition in Turkey together to a shared field of responsibility in the governance of the country. This is, however you look at it, an event that, if properly evaluated, will have very positive results in terms of social peace.

In response to the prejudiced comments made in advance from outside about the process of objection to the Istanbul election results, there are also those who see the matter from the positive side.

Former Egyptian member of parliament Adil Rashid expresses in a tweet he posted in Arabic his astonishment at the scene he saw: "It is not something we could believe if we did not see it: here is the Erdoğan dictatorship. It is probably happening for the first time in history. It is not the ruling party but the opposition that is cheating in the election, while the ruling party accuses it of cheating, and a neck-and-neck struggle is going on between them." The most notable of the comments on the tweet is this: "If only we also had a dictator like Erdoğan."

What those who show the honesty to look at the matter from this angle will see is only this settledness and impartial objectivity of the democratic institutions in Turkey.

Those who insist on looking at it the other way have much to learn from Turkey.