The parties' candidate lists

In the thick of the election season, the parties' lists of parliamentary candidates, which they will present to the public, have also been published. This stage in elections can be as important as the parties' general politics, even much more important, and its consequences can be much more decisive. Often it has an effect that turns the rise or fall of parties in exactly the opposite direction.

The most important aspect that has kept the AK Party in power on its own for 20 years is the exceptional weight and credibility of its leader. But more important than that are the projects it has carried out in its 20 years in power, its way of managing crises, its political discourse and the general policies it has implemented. The sum of all this is enough to make the AK Party the winner of every election even though it is in power. Yet although it wins, each time it also gives the feeling that the vote it receives is far less than it deserves when compared with what it has done and with all these positive qualities.

It is not at all fair that today a chance can be given, as an alternative to 20 years of governing practice, to an opposition that has no program, no promising and horizon-opening promise, no achievement and no convincing discourse. Moreover, while this opposition, with its patched-together structure, its incredible contradictions, its partnerships based on cheap bargains and its many heads, is trying to chase an advantage through what it promises not so much to the Turkish people as to the enemies of the Turkish people...

In many elections in the past the AK Party had to bear much less than it deserved solely because of candidate lists that did not fully find their match among the people. Despite its high political performance and quality at the national and international level, the unsuitable candidates it was stuck with locally were of the kind that recalls the paradox of crossing the ocean and drowning in a stream. In this, of course, the effect of exceptions, made each time "just once" and constituting a significant total, rather than institutional and principled procedures in the candidate selection process, was very great. And more.

We can say that this time quite a lot of lessons have been drawn from the mistakes of the past. In my opinion a list as close to the best as possible has been formed. That the 3-term rule, one of the important principles that make the AK Party distinctive in Turkish political life, has been observed without exception is a very important step, and its effect on the voter is without doubt very positive. That making exceptions to its own principles for this or that person is a source of a general problem of trust needs no explanation.

In essence, political processes force parties very hard to make exceptions and apply unexpected pressures. Being able to resist these pressures in itself shows a quality of political performance, but it is also an important step on the road to institutionalization.

In fact, candidate lists are as important a subject, not only for the AK Party but for all political parties, as their own programs and discourses. There have been situations in which, at the moment the candidate lists were published, differences of ten, twenty percent arose compared with the day before. In a positive or negative direction. So you can set aside all the polls conducted so far. Depending on the candidate lists, very serious shifts occur in the vote shares reflected in the polls.

Even if the most perfect candidate lists are made, their negative effects cannot be avoided. After all, for 600 candidacies there are at least ten times as many aspirants, and only one in ten of them finds a place on the list, and at most one in 20 at positions where they can be elected. This situation is a potential source of discontent among the remaining 20-fold aspirants, together with all the circles that motivate them.

Managing what comes afterward is of course a distinct style of politics. That those who make it onto the candidate lists see this situation first of all, rather than as a race of responsibility, as a victory won over their own friends, and always see the others as their likely rivals, does great harm to the unity, togetherness and solidarity that the process requires. Let us admit that a political party does not work like a tekke (dervish lodge) or a religious community, but the cultural and spiritual references on which the AK Party rests require approaching this race for duty a little differently. According to that, duties and offices are seen not as a bird of fortune perched on one's head, but as a shirt of fire a person puts on, a responsibility, a burden. They are seen not as a field of investment in which a person will obtain material and worldly gains, but as a responsibility and undertaking of good that must be assumed in order to develop the world.

The shake-up that candidate lists cause in this sense concerns not only the governing party but all parties. We can say that, when the lists presented in this election are compared, the party least negatively affected this time will be the AK Party. Both compared with past elections and compared with the other parties it will compete against in this election, the AK Party is quite comfortable after the publication of its candidate lists..

With the interesting and striking details our friend Ersin Çelik gave in his article yesterday, we hear the very intense objections of CHP voters to the candidates from the Future, Felicity and DEVA Parties on the CHP lists, and we see their discontent. Granted, these are the expected logical result of the alliance, but when put into practice this logical result hits real people in the field. For some CHP voters, that Sadullah Ergin, a name identified with Ergenekon and Balyoz, will be elected with their own votes in Çankaya, the CHP's fortress, the summit of Kemalist symbolism, is not something easy to digest. Forming a suitable candidate list that would preserve its own internal balances and discursive consistency was a much harder thing for the CHP, and today it is facing this difficulty.

And from the standpoint of the other partners of the alliance, how the hands of many conservative voters will go to the arrow to choose their own candidates poses a separate difficulty for the CHP. These parties have secured themselves anyway, but how will they guarantee that their voters vote for the CHP? Everyone sees this contradiction, and the more they see it, the more the discontent grows and leads to a shake-up, an earthquake.

Let us see where and how this earthquake will cause destruction.