BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Erdogan's Reign: More Than Just Kilicdaroglu's Losses

Following

Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed 10 victories, encompassing local, general, and presidential elections, as well as referenda, while serving as Prime Minister and then President. This count includes the recent runoff of the May 28 elections held last Sunday. All this while Kemal Kilicdaroglu held the reins of the main opposition party. Elections waged against Erdogan, and all ended in defeat. The number etched into his political persona, a stark reminder of the iron grip the latter maintains on the Turkish political landscape. However, this count has been used too frequently, too flippantly, masking the intricate tapestry of Turkish politics.


Contrary to this unforgiving narrative, Kilicdaroglu is not a complete stranger to victory. Take 2019, for example. His party, the Republican People's Party (CHP), snatched victory from the jaws of Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) in many city municipalities. This included the crown jewels of Istanbul, and Ankara, the capital. It was a crack in the fortress Erdogan had constructed around himself, even if it wasn't enough to completely dismantle it.


Elections and Momentum in Turkey


The supremacy of Erdogan is not merely a result of Kilicdaroglu's shortcomings. This assessment suffers from a logical fallacy – post hoc, ergo propter hoc, the assumption that because one event follows another, it must have been caused by it. It's an oversimplified reduction of the complex and dynamic narrative of Turkish politics. Erdogan's rise and the subsequent period of dominance owe themselves to an indomitable momentum. In his early days, he appeared invincible, a titan against which any resistance seemed futile. From 2015 onwards, when his AK Party lost its parliamentary majority, he started to falter.


As time passed, several key events coalesced to fortify Erdogan's position further. The Gezi Park protests of 2013, the collapse of the peace process and the emergence of Kurdish urban conflict in 2015, and the failed coup attempt in 2016 all contributed to the creation of a political climate that rallied people around Erdogan. Amid such tumultuous events, the core of the state maintained a united front, legitimizing Erdogan's. And the CHP, led by Kilicdaroglu, was not one to go rogue against the narrative crafted by the security apparatus.


Moreover, the political tableau of Turkey under Erdogan's reign is punctuated with losers. The previous media monopoly that once commanded the public's attention and narrative has been marginalized. The Kemalist secular military establishment, the backbone of Turkey's politics since the republic's inception, has been pushed to the periphery. Others like the Gulenist organization, Gezi Park protesters, and the Kurdish movement faced similar fates. Even nationalists found their ranks divided, their influence as an organised constituency waned.

The left, whether liberal, Kemalist or otherwise, have seen better days. Their discourse is often limited to social media platforms, appealing primarily to a politically distinct class, rather than reaching out across the spectrum. Moreover, their voice often resounds with a tone of self-righteous pontification. As they stand amidst the ruins of their influence, they are prone to dispensing unsolicited advice to the opposition about their strategy, all the while oblivious to their own state of affairs.

Their criticisms often extend towards Kilicdaroglu, primarily driven by the expectation of a potent leader. One who instills fear rather than evoking love. A strongman to replace the existing strongman. This echoes the paradoxical notion of "who is going to save us from the last person who saved us", a statement dripping with the irony of human behavior. In their haste to replace Erdogan, critics fail to realize the repercussions of such an expectation. This approach, the insistence on a strongman to 'save' the nation, poses grave implications for the democratic fabric of the country.

The Colossal Power of the State

Erdogan's use of state power to quell opposition is no subtle manoeuvre. His strategy can be likened to that of a Goliath, wielding the immense strength of the state against the opposition. Consequently, it isn't merely a contest against the ruling party, but a battle waged against the colossal entity of the state. This skewed power dynamic poses a herculean challenge to the opposition, casting a grim shadow over the prospects of a fair political contest.

Kilicdaroglu's tactics have varied over the years, with the combative approach figuring prominently in his earlier strategies. He sought to meet Erdogan head-on, trading blows in a relentless battle of words. However, each encounter seemed only to bolster Erdogan's position, his political prowess unfazed. The conclusion was inescapable - a direct assault against Erdogan often backfired. Polarising the populace using positive attitudes emerged as a more effective strategy than a divisive rhetoric aimed solely at Erdogan.

Pontification and the Illusion of Power


A critical gaze also falls on the state of opposition media, their journalistic quality leaving much to be desired. It's starved of hard-hitting investigative journalism that dares to touch sensitive nerves. Its news programs lack the allure needed to captivate audiences that span the political divide, including AK Party loyalists and Kurds. More often than not, journalism in Turkey is a desk job. Talking heads spouting eloquent monologues within the sterilized confines of a TV studio. The pulse of the nation is lost within these glass and steel structures. The essence of journalism, to be the voice of the people, is sidelined in favor of self-serving pontification.

This echo chamber gives birth to what Orwell would have labeled as 'doublethink'. A mental state where one unconditionally accepts the dominant narrative while simultaneously acknowledging its flaws. The talking heads are cognizant of their lack of genuine connection with the populace, yet persist in their detached state, prescribing solutions without understanding the problem.

These self-proclaimed sages have become backseat drivers, offering directions without comprehending the intricate mechanics of the car, the complexities of the road, or the nuanced challenges faced by the driver.

The Base ‘Asabiyah’ of Erdogan and Kilicdaroglu


The political and social class that Kilicdaroglu represents finds itself dwarfed by Erdogan's formidable base. The social, economic, and political disparity is glaringly obvious. This difference is reflected in the concept of 'asabiyah' – an Arabic term used by Ibn Khaldun, the 14th-century Islamic philosopher, to describe group solidarity and social cohesion. Erdogan's supporters demonstrate robust asabiyah, marked by unity in broader political outlook, firm organization, and concrete power. In contrast, Kilicdaroglu's base lacks this collective spirit and determination, apart from anti-Erdoganism, and a yearn for a country with rule of law, further reducing their political clout.


Erdogan's strategy involves the relentless deployment of state power against the opposition. The state, under his reign, acts as an extension of the ruling party, creating an unforgiving and unequal battleground for the opposition. This scenario is reminiscent of the David and Goliath narrative, only here, the opposition's slingshot seems unable to land a fatal blow.


Kilicdaroglu's political trajectory has seen various strategic shifts. His earlier tactics involved a combative approach, engaging Erdogan in confrontational debates. But the returns were minimal. Erdogan emerged stronger from these encounters, his political stature unscathed. This paved the way for a tactical pivot – the use of positive polarization as a tool to rally support.


Coalition Building and Democratic Pursuit


The political landscape of Turkey under Erdogan has consolidated around the conservative nationalist base. This shift required the opposition to appeal to a diverse range of political constituencies simultaneously. The list is multifaceted: secularists, Turkish nationalists, Kurds, Islamists, and liberals. Bridging this ideological chasm was a prerequisite for crossing the 50 percent vote threshold - the critical benchmark for winning the presidential elections. Kilicdaroglu proved adept at this complex task, skillfully uniting this political kaleidoscope and securing substantial support from across the political spectrum. The result was impressive; Kilicdaroglu amassed 48 percent of the votes, a testament to his effective leadership and strategic acumen. The extraordinary feat Kilicdaroglu accomplished was to receive more votes than the sum total of three different Turkish constituencies. His vote tally surpassed the combined votes of candidates representing nationalist, Kurdish, and left-wing secularist factions.

However, this did not lead to victory. As we have seen, the road to political success in Turkey is fraught with challenges and unexpected hurdles. Yet, it is important to acknowledge Kilicdaroglu's efforts in fostering unity among diverse factions. This is no mean feat in a political arena as polarised as Turkey's. His achievements reveal a leader who understands the essence of modern democratic politics – the art of bringing together various social and political groups under a common agenda. It is this ethos that can lead to the democratisation of Turkey, a path fraught with difficulties, but nonetheless worth pursuing.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website or some of my other work here