Haldun Gülalp in Birikim asks what is going to happen if the AKP – as expected – loses the election, but still refuses to give up power. And what will happen if the president makes efforts in order not to give the winning parties the opportunity to form a government? Even though few take this seriously anymore, a military coup should never be dismissed. As the military has educated itself to view itself as the “savior” of the country, we need to take into account that it can easily become the only alternative in situations of crisis that appear to be unsolvable. The military may find internal bloodletting unbearable and may impose itself in the name of the preservation of order and stability, and it may be successful in securing these goals. In such a situation, there is not going to be any other institutional power center that can stand in the way of the military. Is there a democratic solution that will remove such and other risks?
Kadri Gürsel on the Diken news site notes that AKP’s vice chairman Mehmet Ali Şahin on October 26 stated that “If the election yields a result similar to that which the June 7 election produced, then I’m afraid that there is going to be talk about a renewed election.” The Erdoğan regime refuses to obey popular will and share power and it is scheming to repeat the election until it gets the result that ensures that it can stay in power forever. The things that the Erdoğan regime has done since June 7 tell us what it is going to do if it decides to hold a third election after November 1. It has threatened society with terror and instability by restarting the fight with PKK – which was nothing but a product of electoral engineering – and by the inclusion of ISIS as the other actor in the equation. What is frightening is an election result along what the surveys suggest, that the AKP gets around 41 to 42, maybe over 42 percent of the votes… In that case, the regime may conclude that the policies it has pursued since June 7 have paid off and decide to pursue these with even more determination. If it chooses that path, it can be expected to silence what is left of independent media and take the country to another ballot under conditions found only in dictatorships.
Etyen Mahçupyan in Akşam writes that as long as AKP behaves correctly, the party is going to increase its support in coming elections and confine the rival parties to their sociological bases. The question is to knowing what “behaving correctly” means, and we can say that this has two foundations. The first of these is to change the regime without damaging the state and society in the process. Everything from the amendments of the constitution and the laws to reforms of the bureaucracy and the judiciary to identity issues falls within this area that concerns democratization. But there is another issue that remains difficult to get a grasp on: That is the issue of living together. It is really about this that there is a need today to hear something from AKP. How ready is the AKP to do the “right” things that embrace the entirety of society? How much has it thought about this matter?
Ali Bulaç in Zaman observes that the “Kurdish problem” is at the center of the massacres that have taken place in Diyarbakır, Suruç and Ankara. The mass killings are in fact targeting a development that had promised to yield a peaceful solution. The deep forces within the state who do not want the Kurdish problem to be solved, international actors and certain elements of the PKK dislike that the HDP, after its surge in the June 7 election, has embarked on a path toward embracing the whole of Turkey. They started their disgusting terror just after the HDP had 80 deputies elected to parliament. I do not think that the AKP, the government or those state levers that sincerely hope for a solution of this problem have had anything to do with the restart of the terror. But I do not think that it would be right to dismiss those who suspect that the coup makers who have regained strength during the last two years, deep groups, foreign powers and certain elements of the PKK are in collusion as conspiracy theorists. The explosion in Ankara targeted the whole of the country, and sought to blow up the hope for peace. They are setting a trap for all of us.
Etyen Mahçupyan in Akşam writes that it is not easy to plan and execute an act of terrorism. The needs of organization increase the likelihood that the suicide attack in Ankara had a foreign source. The purpose can be to render Turkey incapable of exerting influence in the Middle East by burying it in internal problems. Alongside this, there can be said to exist results that are wanted when it comes to the internal politics: such as, to spread hopelessness among the public, undermine faith in the state, to paralyze the government, to create a vacuum of authority, to render internal peace impossible… We need to bear in mind that the massacre took place at a juncture when it was being said that the PKK was going to declare a cease fire, as the government was conducting operations against ISIS within the country and as the Syrian air defense system had locked on Turkish war planes.
The Turkey Analyst is a publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Joint Center, designed to bring authoritative analysis and news on the rapidly developing domestic and foreign policy issues in Turkey. It includes topical analysis, as well as a summary of the Turkish media debate.