There are two important things influencing the decision of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan about what to do for the presidential elections.
The first thing is possible statements likely to disturb the equilibrium in domestic policies as well as the stability in politics and economics and the stance of dynamic forces.
Our subject today is the second thing affecting Erdoğan’s decision -- the state of equilibrium within the party and the future of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Would Erdoğan want to maintain his influence over AK Party even after he takes office as the president? He definitely would. Can he be successful in doing so? The answer is “no” if we rely on historical evidence. I can hear you recite lines from Mehmet Akif Ersoy, the deceased Turkish poet, who said that history repeats itself. This is what the near past has shown us: when elected president, Turgut Özal handed control of the Motherland Party (ANAP) over to Yıldırım Akbulut, whom Özal thought could be influential within the party and whom Özal later promoted first to the position of interior minister and later to that of parliament speaker. But Akbulut afterward expressed fierce opposition to Özal, although fabricated stories refuted such claims. In a state of panic, Özal clung to Mesut Yılmaz and promoted him to the position of ANAP’s leader after Özal interfered in a general party congress. But he received the last blow from Yılmaz -- even his photographs at the central building of ANAP were removed. He would have attempted to resume his political career along with his brother Yusuf Özal by joining the New Party if he had lived. But he died ahead of his time.
Some made a big mistake when they said: “ANAP was founded at a time that followed a military intervention, and it neither survived the tremor of March 12, 1971, nor was it exposed to the storm of Sept. 12, 1981. The True Path Party, or DYP, a party that Süleyman Demirel founded, is not like any other parties.” Contrary to prior expectations, Tansu Çiller, who joined DYP just a couple of years ago, was promoted as a lay figure to the position of DYP leader, whereas it was the experienced İsmet Sezgin whom Demirel favored at the first party congress. Demirel then would express his disappointment to Necmettin Cevheri, an old friend of his, in words that said, “Necmettin, take this knife from my back.” Although Demirel was formerly comfortable with the course of events, he took his revenge for being stabbed in the back on Feb. 28, 1997. He did not grant the leadership to Çiller and split up the party. A new party was founded under the title of Democratic Turkey Party, or DTP, and because it was assumed that the only difference between DTP and DYP would be one letter, Demirel was relied on to help DTP. But in the end it turned out to be a fiasco.
It is not possible to account for these historical facts by only saying, “The king is dead, then long live the new king.” The idea that is becoming dominant is this: “The leader took office as president, and he already saved his next seven years, however, we will be the ones to account publicly for what we have done. Then we want to have all the instruments to play our song.” All the tools that the party leader has available to himself as someone who wants to set his seal on the party are so strong as to obliterate heartfelt feelings of loyalty to the former party leader. Even though the lists of deputies are prepared altogether at the last minute, it will be the new party leader to have the final say on the allocation of seats after the election. There is this situation where one has to share with five other deputies a room of three square meters at the Parliament. Or there is also the situation where one can have one’s own office at the central building of one’s own party, or at buildings where group or commission meetings are held, and one can always be in the spotlight, accompanied by principal clerks, etc. The president is not entitled at all to any legal or actual rights to put anyone in one of these situations. Therefore, Erdoğan will soon lose his efficiency within the party, just as Özal and Demirel, two charismatic characters, did. Erdoğan is making a mistake if he thinks that he can control his party from his presidential house. The illusion that İstanbul could have been controlled from Ankara should not be forgotten.
Also, there is a need to have a closer analysis of what happened on March 1, 2003, when the government’s proposal to deploy Turkish troops abroad and to allow foreign troops to position in Turkey received disapproval from the parliament. The AK Party leader Erdoğan, who won a crashing victory in the elections, and who gained reception from most senior officials across several famous capitals, could not succeed in earning his 1 March Proposal approval from the Turkish parliament.
There is a high likelihood that possible candidates will run for the leadership of AK Party at the first regular party congress, even if they cannot express their enthusiasm for this position during the election campaign, since Erdoğan still is in control. The factor of Necmettin Erbakan should not also be ignored, because he is waiting to take his revenge on Erdoğan, though he split up his party and pushed it below the election threshold. Those who have not yet taken off their shirt of Milli Görüş, or the National Viewpoint, a movement led by Erbakan, or who keep their shirt of Milli Görüş on the hook in case it may be necessary, can be more easily manipulated in a party that does not include Erdoğan. I guess the prime minister is far more concerned with the state of equilibrium within his party. And he will rest his decision primarily on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment