Why Westernized, Secular and Democratic Turks voted for Erdogan

As I stated in an earlier article (All about Turkish Elections), a great number of Westernized, Secular and Democratic Turks voted for AKP, the Turkish extremist Islamist’s party that seems set for a strange sort of victory. The paradoxical phenomenon is due to many reasons. We feature herewith a non-exhaustive list.

The Real Power is not in Erdogan’s hands.

This is certainly comforting; when you know that an Islamist premier is bound to compromise with the military, the diplomatic, the academic, and above all the financial establishment, you do not feel afraid to vote for him, as a reaction to several mistakes attributed to other parties. It is expected for Erdogan, an otherwise dull, pale and shy person, to compromise with the military on a wide range of issues from the presidential elections to the pending Iraq invasion.

Vote for Erdogan as reaction against scandals, inconsistencies and inadequacies

You may belong to a Center Right or a Center Left party, but you disagree with traditional and ineffective policies pursued without criticism and without exit for too long. In a case like that of today’s Turkey, you have the possibility to send an alarming warning. Turks seem to be very confident about the durability of the Secular Republic and Ataturk’s legacy, and Erdogan – despite his agenda – seems to be too weak to threaten the State, despite the ominous French and European backing. This could contribute to a risky vote, but Turks are risky.

Vote for Erdogan because of economic achievements

This concerns mainly secular and conservative Turks, who could not be sure that by voting the small secular conservative party (Demokrat Parti) they would secure a continuity for the recent significant achievements in terms of foreign investment, liberalization, and increased income from Tourism. Of course, without the solid foundations set in the 80s and early 90s by Turgut Ozal, nothing would have been achieved, but the overall picture of the Turkish economy led many secular, non practicing Muslims to Erdogan’s AKP.

Vote for Erdogan as result of indecision in front of a multi-divided opposition

You vote more easily for someone you view as neutral, when you have greater difficulty to opt among the more marked candidates and parties. In fact, Turks had to choose between

- a Nationalist party of the Right (MHP – Milliyetci Hareket Partisi) which is the equivalent of the Christian Social Union (CSU) in Germany – and not of Le Pen in France,

- a pale coalition (named Demokrat Parti) of two traditional Right parties (Anavatan – founded by Turgut Ozal, and Dogru Yol – founded by Suleyman Demirel) that in the times of their glory (early 90s) had already no reason of separate existence except that they were controlled by different statesmen of the Conservative Right, plus were later plagued by the infinite scandals of former prime ministers Mesut Yilmaz and Tansu Ciller, and

- a Center – Left party (People’s Republican Party – Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi/CHP) that can be portrayed as ‘conservative’ as Helmut Schmidt’s German Social Democrats in the late 70s, and as ‘nationalistic’ as Andreas Papandreou’s PASOK (especially for the period 1974 – 1996).

From the aforementioned it becomes immediately understood that many secular Turks who ascribe themselves to Center – Right political ideals would find MHP too extreme, DP too small, CHP too left, and Erdogan’s AKP adequately liberal to vote. Secular Conservatives may represent more than one third of Erdogan’s voters, which translates to 15 - 20% of the total outcome. If we add to all this, the great number of independent candidates who belonged to the aforementioned three political formations but for one reason or another preferred to present themselves independently, we get a clear picture.

As a matter of fact, and with the results almost entirely announced, one comes to understand that the total of the voters of the three parties is equivalent to that of the Islamist premier’s party, which shows that in Turkey the really Islamic voters do not exceed 25% of the total population.

A Vote to Social Democrats (CHP) would open the undesired way to Europe

Turks have lost their trust in Europe; EU’s credibility is at its lowest, and there is nothing to be done to repair it. Turkish Secular Democratic citizens put themselves in front of the following questions:
- Why shall we still search to adhere to Europe where anti-Turkish directives seem to prevail?
- If Europe turns out to become a religious, non tolerant realm where Turkey is not accepted despite it is a secular Muslim country, what have we got to do in a place like that?

Turkey already lived a moment when Europe deviated to Nazism (mainly 1940 – 1944); this did not mean that Turkey should turn Nazi too. If Europe becomes a religious, anti-democratic realm, Turkey certainly will not follow.

There are plenty of indications for Secular and Democratic Turks that Europe is about to turn to a distinctively Christian, religious Club, plunged into fratricide conflicts about its identity, Christian or none, as discussions about the European Constitution reveal. Consequently, a vote for Erdogan would mean precisely what the untrustworthy Europeans publicized: turning down the European perspective of Turkey. Despite recent frictions in the Socialist International, the CHP has been viewed by Turks as the politically closer to Europe Turkish political institution. And Erdogan remains unchallenged as the only Turkish politician who will certainly be rejected by Europe. Why vote for someone else then?

Vote for Erdogan as rejection of Western obscure plans for a Clash of Civilization

This may sound strange, but it started already at the times of Necmettin Erbakan in the mid 90s. Having in mind that the principles of Ataturk and the foundations of the Secular Republic are irremovable, many secular and democratic Turks express their indignation by voting what would depict Turkey as the black sheep for the mendacious Europeans. This is a purely negative, anti-European - but pro-Western - vote, and observers and diplomats will have to count with this in the years ahead. Turkey is truly exacerbated by Western European hypocrisy, duplicity and mendacity as attested in so many cases from Kosovo to Azerbaijan, and from the myth of the Turkish responsibility for the WW I Armenian massacres to the reality of French maneuvers in Kurdistan.

What one should expect now from an explosive Turkey is a compromise between Erdogan and the military as regards internal issues, and the final decision of General Buyukanit about Turkey’s confident position in Northern Iraq. It would be wise for Europe and America to accept this as return to normality after so many decades of colonial abnormality in Mesopotamia.

What Turkey’s opposition parties may draw as lesson will be an issue to discuss in another article; one thing is sure: new leaders with proper qualifications and great visions are needed. The clash between secular democratic and civilized Turks and the minority of the fanaticized Islamists has not ended; it has just started. Only a deep reassessment and a great vision will send Erdogan and his extremists back to 20% of the voters.

Note

Picture from 22 July 2007 elections in Turkey. Possible Erdogan voters.