There is surely good in what happened: a new page in the Turkey Model

With the repeat of the election in Istanbul following the objections raised there, we have finally put the 31 March local elections behind us. Although it is called an "election repeat," what took place was not a repetition at all; it was an entirely new election, with its own conditions, atmosphere, questions and problems.

Taken together, the objections that led to the repetition of the election, the way those objections were resolved, and the sum of the debates that took place during this process gave the election a meaning quite apart from that of 31 March. It rightly recalls the parliamentary elections of 7 June and 1 November 2015. But it also differed from them in many respects. In this sense, the experience of the 23 June election repeat has provided very important and original data for our democratic history, data that everyone concerned with politics in any way should evaluate carefully in order to understand the political behavior, psychology and reactions of the Turkish people.

The people of Istanbul have made their choice. In this election they weighed many things together. You may ask how it came about that the people of Istanbul went and voted for İmamoğlu despite all his lies and despite his bringing together this or that irreconcilable line, but this means nothing more than making chronic the morbid political habit of putting all the blame on the voter. It turns out that, despite all the negativity seen on the other side, the people saw even greater negativity on this side overall.

In the end, when compelled to choose one of the two, they preferred the other side despite its lies, its inexperience, its incompetence and all the other negativities that were on everyone's lips during the election campaigns. Of course, one needs to try to understand well what kind of balance was at work in this choice. Nothing is that simple.

In our view, it would of course have been far better for Istanbul to be governed by someone like Binali Yıldırım, who has proven his experience, competence and merit. Istanbul probably overlooked this option, which would have been far better for itself, this time in the name of other priorities. Why did it do so, and how? These too need to be understood, especially, and without ever blaming the voter and without resenting the situation.

One way or another, whatever happened happened. In keeping with the wisdom of "there is good in what happens," it is best to try to see this good as well. I can pick up where I left off with the assessments that I began right after 31 March, in my election evaluation piece, on the assumption that Ekrem İmamoğlu had been elected for Istanbul, and which I could not complete because the election was never concluded.

The greatest good in what has happened will be the great contribution this result will make to the actual integration of the people of Turkey. With these election results, Turkey's big cities come under the administration of the opposition during the AK Parti government. Ahead of us lies a 4-year period of governance with no elections in sight, a magnificent picture in which, as it were, there is no opposition, in which all segments of society put their hands under the stone in the work of governing, and in which all of them together will therefore have to work for the unity, order and prosperity of the country, competing and racing with one another, of course. Both the government and the opposition will work much harder to prove themselves for the 2023 presidential and 2024 local elections, and this will bring about a picture far different from the government-opposition relations of past periods.

As is known, the AK Parti, which for 17 years had been in power, at both the local and the general level, almost entirely on its own, by the nature of politics left no space whatsoever to the opposition. Although it has the broadest capacity of representation as the only party able to receive votes from the whole country and from all segments of society, in the end, as a party of the center, it was in power alone and in effect left no space for the other 50 percent who did not vote for it. This made almost half of society feel itself outside the system.

Although single-party rule undoubtedly provided great advantages in terms of stability and the swift working of decision-making mechanisms, it did not present a healthy and sustainable situation in terms of social integration, cohesion and the integrity of the political body.

The opposition's losing elections one after another, its being unable to come to power through elections, its being unable to even become a partner in power, was also leading it to lose its faith in the system. This lack of faith gave rise to a grudge against the ruling bloc and to a craving for other, non-democratic ways of coming to power.

Meanwhile, a feeling of having no rival was also dragging the ruling bloc into an evident complacency when it came to renewing and surpassing itself. For the opposition's cynical attitude of "opposition for the sake of opposition," utterly devoid of credibility and reasonableness, left the government alone with the responsibility for the country. One reason for the relative inertia observed in the AK Parti government today was in fact the absence of a serious opposition. Now, however, we can say that there is an opposition after all; perhaps not yet by putting forward sufficiently reasonable and strong projects and alternatives against the government, but as a growing bloc of serious discontent. Meanwhile, the political arena has also widened considerably for the opposition as a promising arena for coming to power. This hope itself can turn the political arena into a very productive environment of competition that will ultimately work in favor of society.

In fact, for many years what gave the AK Parti its real strength was its quality of "being the opposition in government." For a short while now it has left that position of opposition and truly come to power. But during this period in government, owing to the absence of a real opposition, and of course partly to reasons attributable to its own internal fatigue, it was not generating enough motivation to surpass itself.

When we say opposition, we are of course not talking about an opposition for the sake of opposition, one that calls black what the government calls white and white what it calls black.

Today the AK Parti will be in government, while the CHP, together with the other elements in its coalition, will be in local administrations, and they will govern the country together. This means that power is spread across the whole base, which will give rise to a great opportunity for Turkey that exists in no other country.

It is possible to make good use of this opportunity together, for the benefit, growth and development of Turkey.

This is where we can see the greatest good in what has happened.

This is a new page, one to be proud of, in the Turkey Model that the world has been watching with interest from the beginning.