Yusuf Kanlı

Can you believe it? Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was telling the Alliance of Civilizations gathering in Istanbul that there was a need to nourish tolerance and goodwill among the people of the world and put a full stop to the alienation of the "other." "We have to abandon the ’we’ and ’them’ understanding. We have to convert ’I’ to ’we’. ’I’ produces intolerance; intolerance produces confrontation. We have to provide goodwill and tolerance," Erdoğan, the co-chairman of the Alliance of Civilizations, said Monday. Because of the fast-track program of visiting American President Barack Hussein Obama in Ankara, this important and rather surprising statement by Erdoğan didn’t catch our attention.

Was he not the political leader who had been fighting with virtually everyone? Was he not the prime minister who created an allegiant media in this country? Was he not the leader who had been successfully inventing new methods of oppression against his critics in the political arena as well as in the independent media of the country? Was he not the leader who yelled in the face of Israel’s most senior politician and President Shimon Peres that "You know well how to kill" and walked out the Davos conference on Gaza, proving his skill in show business? Who was that leader who made that fascist "Love it or leave it" remark at a rally in Hakkari during the local elections campaign? Or, who was that prime minister who said if the media provided him the names of the ministers who had leaked details about a Cabinet meeting, he would not hesitate "putting them at the door," as if ministers are sacks of potatoes?

Well, he has been a man of "change." Did he not say seven years ago, "I have changed and developed. I have taken out my nationalist view shirt," and pledge to be a "secular, democratic and conservative" politician? Well, 10 of the 11 members of the Constitutional Court disagreed last year and condemned his party as focus of anti-secular activities, but still don’t we say everyone should have a second chance?

Alliance of minds and hearts

This "Alliance of Civilizations" business is definitely a very useful one. Having a conference once a while is not enough. We have to have a session of this great event every day early in the morning. Right, having a session every morning is difficult, but perhaps we can have a session every Saturday. All right, we could agree as well to have a session once every month. We might organize brunches, luncheons, dinners, sightseeing tours, belly dance shows, whatever might be needed to make the event an attractive occasion.

Right, while we have no objection and would be greatly honored with his participation, we do understand that despite the attractive programs we might prepare and all the city offers to visitors, it might be difficult for co-chairman Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to be in Istanbul even for one day every month. After all, he has a country to administer; besides there are EU and NATO meetings as well as the need to make trips to other countries. But, can we not have a rotating co-chairmanship for the Christian European co-chairmanship of the Alliance of Civilizations? Perhaps as the co-chairman one month we can host President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, next month Angela Merkel, the other month Britain’s Gordon Brown! Hosting Greek Cypriot leader Dimitris Christofias might be problematic, but if we put him aside there are several dozens of heads of state or government leaders who could undertake that important job and serve on the one hand to the enhancement of understanding between "civilizations" by co-chairing this "alliance" meeting, while on the other hand contribute greatly to the mental health and well being of the people of this land.

Right, Sarkozy and Merkel might not want Turkey as a full member of the European Union. They might want to cut out a special and rather privileged new "partnership" status for us in the EU. But happiness, mental health and the well being of the people of Turkey are also in the interest of France, Germany and the other European partners and allies of this country, and they should not turn a cold shoulder to this call of duty. For now, most Turks don’t give much importance to this EU membership business anyhow. But if the well being and mental health of Turks could be consolidated, would it not be easier for the European club of democracies to achieve a less problematic harmonization if ever this country becomes some sort of member of the EU?

It will take some time to see the "fruits" of the 21-hour trip of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama to Ankara but hot from the oven is the striking difference in style and emphasis compared to George W. Bush’s presidential trip to the Turkish capital that reflects that the new tenant of the White House can deliver a feeling of "change" even if not the "change" itself for now.

Of course, talks on cooperation against terrorism, the future of Iraq, the continued Afghan operation of NATO, the Cyprus issue and Turkey’s aspiration to become a full member of the European Union Ğ a goal that Obama expressed full support for, like his predecessors, even before coming to Turkey, during a visit to Prague for a meeting with EU leaders Ğ were all important. But what was more important indeed was the symbolism of the visit rather than what actually was said or discussed.

First of all, throughout his short stay in Ankara, the stress Obama made to the secular, democratic Turkish Republic, the vision and heritage of Atatürk, and a Turkey anchored firmly with the West was strikingly different than the moderate Islamic role model preaching we were hearing from former President Bush and his all-bright neo-cons despite repeated outbursts in Turkey expressing discontent with such remarks.

Now Obama is making clear that his administration is not looking at Turkey as a "moderate Islamic country" like the previous Bush administration, but rather as a "strategic partner" in a difficult geography and as a secular and democratic republic, with a predominantly Muslim population, that respects the freedom of belief and upholding the supremacy of law. This was a very significant message.

Secondly, the American president underlined clearly Washington’s strong support of Washington to the EU bid of Turkey and the bridging role of this land and country between the East and the West, between Christianity and Islam, between Europe and the Middle East, Caucasus and Asia. Thirdly, the visit marked a strong message to Turks that the U.S. valued relations with Turkey and wanted them to be brought to a strategic dimension. That was why apart from the Canada trip -- with which the U.S. has very special ties -- Turkey has become the only country the new U.S. president made a bilateral visit since he assumed office.

Will the Strasbourg horse trading give a better reflection of Turkish-European relations than the bully Davos intervention of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan? From what is understood from the remarks of Erdoğan, as well as from reading between the lines of statements of President Abdullah Gül, Turkey has agreed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's naming of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the new secretary general of the alliance in exchange for a verbal guarantee from President Barrack Hussein Obama of the United States.

What was that verbal guarantee? Not only would Rasmussen apologize to the Muslim world for the 2005 publications in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper of a set of cartoons of a man said to be Islam's Prophet Mohammed, including one wearing a bomb-shaped turban and another showing him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked by shrouded women that were found insulting, pejorative and slanderous by the Muslim masses throughout the world, but also the Danish government would investigate links between the Kurdish Roj TV channel and the separatist Kurdish Workers’ Party, or PKK, gang and if involvement of the TV station in terrorist activities could be verified, it will be shut down. More? Turkey will be given both the newly-created powerful deputy secretary-general post of the alliance while Turkish generals will be appointed to some top military posts of NATO.

That is, not only Turkey has rubbed the nose of Rasmussen on a wall to lift its "veto challenge" to the Danish premier’s candidacy for the top NATO post by forcing the Danish premier step back both on the cartoons crisis and the Roj TV issues, but also secured a "diplomatic victory" by getting a very senior NATO post as well as some key positions in the military command of the alliance.

While the "one minute" Davos intervention of the premier and his famous "You know well how to kill" yell to the face of Israeli President Shimon Peres was considered a manifestation of the "confrontation" and "aggressive" style of the Turkish premier as opposed to the European "compromise" and "civilized dialogue" understanding, the Strasbourg Rasmussen trading will most probably be taken as proof, as enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn suggested to Finnish state broadcaster YLE, of Turkey failing to internalize such European values as freedom of expression or Alexander Dobrint, the secretary general of the Christian-Social Union, Angela Merkel's sister party, put it is proof of Turkey putting "Islamic propaganda above the future of NATO and our European system of values" and thus "has nothing to look for in the EU."

Winning loser or loser winner?

At this junction, we may have two different approaches to the issue. Firstly, while the Strasbourg Rasmussen trading ended with smiles on the faces of both Gül and Erdoğan, it has to be perhaps questioned to what extend it will help Turkey’s long-term strategic interests, like EU membership. It is obvious that at one point France and Germany will make Turkey pay for the Strasbourg Rasmussen trading, though through Obama’s intervention they might be compelled for the time being a tit for tat deal they might be not so comfortable. On the other hand, it could as well be argued that Turkey has finally learned the EU-style policy making, devised a very well calculated "tension policy", held the entire NATO hostage to its demands and at the last minute, when all hopes of compromise started to fade away, agreed to a lucrative way out and helped resolution of the crisis in exchange of some very advantageous gains it would otherwise not have had the chance to obtain.

Which one of these evaluations is more realistic and can indeed be the eventual outcome of the Rasmussen trading will become clear of course sometime later, perhaps towards the end of this year when the European leaders will converge to make an assessment of the Turkish conformity with the terms and conditions of the accession talks process.

The contacts and remarks of President Obama in Turkey today and tomorrow, as well as the expected press occasion Rasmussen may hold on the sidelines of the Alliance of Civilizations summit on Tuesday will perhaps help shed more light to the terms of the Strasbourg horse trading. The bottom line, however, is the fact that NATO has averted one of its most important internal crisis with the skilled diplomacy of Obama and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Turkey and Azerbaijan are "two states, one nation," as former President Süleyman Demirel and his Azerbaijani counterpart, late Haydar Aliyev, often said. The two nations have common ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. The pleasures and grief of Turkey are the pleasures and grief of Azerbaijan and vice versa. Furthermore, Turkey has a rather large Azerbaijani Turkish minority. Anatolian Turks feel at home in Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijanis feel at home in Turkey, proving correct Aliyev and Demirel’s "one nation, two states" remarks.

Last Monday, Cansu Çamlibel of the Hurriyet Daily News penned an excellent report on the prospects of Turkey and Armenia signing a protocol that would mark commitment by both sides to establish diplomatic relations and set up committees on issues ranging from border management, customs, history and more. According to Çamlıbel, Ankara, which achieved a satisfying deal that included setting up a history committee to discuss the contentious 1915 events on which Yerevan dragged its feet for a long time, was now facing a dilemma of when to announce the deal with Armenia. After Çamlıbel’s pioneering report, on Thursday and Friday some interesting reports appeared in the U.S. media. First, on Thursday, the prestigious Wall Street Journal reported that Ankara and Yerevan might sign a protocol that would open the border between the two countries.

Then, on Friday, the Washington Times reported that after two years of secret talks, the two countries were nearing agreement on a sweeping package that included opening the common border closed since Armenia’s 1993 occupation of Azerbaijan’s predominantly Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh district, diplomatic relations and a bilateral intergovernmental commission on issues ranging from taxes and public health to history, including the 1915 events. The Washington Times reported that Turkey was also expected to issue a "road map" on a solution for Nagorno-Karabakh.

The continued Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh; references to "greater Armenia" in the Armenian declaration of independence and annex of its constitution that imply territorial claims from Turkey; and efforts by Armenia and its diaspora to get the 1915 events recognized by world parliaments as a "genocide" have been the impediments to progress in Turkish-Armenian relations.

As was explained above, the Turkish-Armenian border, which was opened after the Turkey’s 1991 recognition of the independence of the Armenian state, was closed in 1993 after Armenian aggression on Azerbaijan and occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. Repeated efforts to normalize relations, open the border and establish full diplomatic relations have all failed in the past because of last-minute moves at some third party parliaments toward recognizing the 1915 events as "genocide." Now, Turkey is under pressure to make a deal with Armenia, at least open the border and avert recognition of 1915 as "genocide" by the American Congress as new President Barack Obama pledged several dozen times during the campaign that he would take that step, which would seriously jeopardize relations with Ankara.

Hostage of what?

A Turkish-Armenian deal, on the other hand, would traumatize Turkish-Azerbaijani relations despite the strong "one nation, two states" bond between the two countries. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, whose country already has complaints from the low pricing of its energy exports to Turkey, has warned Ankara that Baku would cut natural gas supplies to Turkey if Ankara reached an agreement with Armenia before substantial progress was under way on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. A March 27 memorandum of understanding between the Russian and Azerbaijani energy companies paved the way for Russia to gain controlling influence over Azerbaijan’s natural gas exports on the one hand and provided Baku an opportunity to sell its gas at international market rates on the other. Under the memorandum, if everything goes as planned, Baku could be shipping the bulk of its gas via Russia by 2010.

There is also headway in Armenia-Azerbaijani diplomacy, and the two countries might be very close in making a deal over Nagorno-Karabakh. But before such a deal is done, how wise will it be for Ankara to act with a "we shall not be a hostage of Nagorno-Karabakh dispute" mentality and become a hostage of the "Armenian bill in the U.S. Congress" blackmail at the expense of hurting Azerbaijan and perhaps further endangering our energy supply?

It is definitely not a mistake of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government or any government anywhere else on the world, but children are growing though parents tend to disagree or ignore this universal fact. Yesterday’s little ones are growing into adolescents, adolescents are growing into young adults, and adults are growing into young seniors. Just the cycle of life. As there is birth, growing up and one day landing the ship of life at the port of oblivion is a routine of life that no one can demand an exception, and even if some may dare to do so, no one can escape from it, either.

I am one of those lucky fathers who has a daughter and who grew up with his daughter, living with her and remembering all the pains and pleasures of growing up. A telephone call from the son of a friend in the middle of the other night provided me the chance of remembering that it is no joke to be an adolescent or that adolescent problems cannot be taken so lightly in a country like Turkey, where there is still immense peer pressure as well as family oppression.

He was scared. His teacher had seen him a while ago hugging his girlfriend in the school garden and was asking his and her parents to go to the school and see the headmaster. He was afraid that his father would feel "ashamed" because of the "inappropriate" behavior he staged in the school garden. The young boy in the height of his adolescent was scared that his father would think he did not provide proper guidance and could not teach moral values to him.

"I cannot tell this to my farther! I cannot let the teacher or the headmaster insult my father, saying that I behaved inappropriately by falling in love with a girl from my class. Please Uncle Yusuf, instead of my farther, would you see the headmaster? Promise, after everything is settled down, I will tell what has happened to my mom and dad. My dad anyhow already told me that he would not want to see my teachers because of my love affair. Please!"

What could I say to such a request of a boy who was born almost in my wife’s hands? But how would I betray the confidence of my friend, his dad, sidestep him and go to see the headmaster as if I were a custodian for the boy? What would my friend say? On the other hand, how could I say "no" to such a request, let down the boy that I value as if he is my son and perhaps leave him without anyone to consult to when he faces a problem? "Sure, I will see your headmaster tomorrow," I said. But, moments later I called his father, explained the situation and asked his permission to go to see the headmaster next morning on his behalf.

Still same problems

As if the boy and girl at issue were not 16 years old, as if he himself did not pass through those ages, an angry headmaster was waiting for me and the girl’s mother at the school. The girl’s mother was a tiny lady, or so she appeared to me. She must have been utterly ashamed of the "indecent" attitude of her daughter. "What the boy and the girl did cannot be excused. Indecency cannot be tolerated at the school. They will have to face the disciplinary board, get few days of suspension and learn how to behave well," the headmaster said angrily after explaining in detail the disciplinary code of secondary schools that prohibit any "sexual approaches" between boys and girls.

"They were hugging each other in front of other students. ...They were setting a very bad example. Now, they have to be punished so severely that other students will see what the consequences are for getting into such affairs!" he roared in anger. He was a father as well. How could he expect kids to grow up without making any "mistakes"? How could he expect adolescents not to have some affection toward the opposite sex? How could he think ridiculing that boy and the girl would set an example and help prevent repeat of such "indecency" in the school? To what purpose would suspending those kids from school serve? After I asked these and similar question to him, the headmaster toned down, the ashamed mother of the girl raised her head, and we all remembered that we were adolescents as well a while ago, and the three of us started discussing what projects we could develop to increase interaction between girls and boys of the school without upsetting disciplinary code but in a way that may help them grow up as confident individuals. Is there anything more important to us in this world than our kids? We better ask this question to ourselves before bursting out for trivial things.

If Mehmet Ali Şahin stays in office, or if he is replaced in a government reshuffle that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hinted at his first news conference after the local elections, Şahin or his successor may soon find a file on his desk. That file might be the one asking permission to prosecute the 17 villagers who "defamed" and "ridiculed" the Turkish state by finding the helicopter crash and bodies of six people, including that of the late Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu, though efforts by some 3,500 government-assigned people, including soldiers, failed to do so in 46 hours.

No! This is neither a joke nor a remote probability. Under the contentious Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, the prosecutor may demand permission from the justice minister to open a judicial case against the 17 villagers because in remarks to the media immediately after finding the crash and bodies they said: "Here there is neither any soldier nor the state. They are searching at a wrong location. Had they listened to us, they would have found the crash much earlier."

The Kahramanmaraş prosecutor is reportedly now probing whether there is sufficient evidence proving an insult to the Turkish state by the villagers who found the crash and the bodies at a location at the opposite direction of the area where the 3,500 state or government-assigned people were conducting the search. Particularly the remarks "had they listened us they would have found the crash much earlier" and "there is neither any soldier nor the state here" by the villagers during telephone interviews with news channels from the crash site were reportedly considered to be evidence of ridiculing and insulting the state.

The prosecutor has reportedly already contacted the 17 villagers through the gendarmerie and told them that their actions constituted a crime under the Turkish Penal Code. Of the 17 people who found the crash and the bodies, Yılmaz Dilki, the former village headman of the Döngel village, and two villagers who spoke with the news channels could face charges of making offensive remarks against the state, newspapers report.

Yes, it sounds like a tragicomedy. Did Interior Minister Beşir Atalay not congratulate those 17 villagers who, despite incredibly bad weather conditions, risked their own life and found the crash? Atalay told the villagers that night that the state and families of the victims were grateful for their brave efforts.

Probe under way

But was the "state" or the "prosecutor of Kahramanmaraş" offended because of the "offensive remarks" of the villagers, or were they angered with something else? For example, were they offended with Dilki telling news channels that immediately after the helicopter crashed, they reported to local officials that they heard noise of a "big blast" and "smelled burnt cable," but no one was dispatched for search and rescue effort in the location they mentioned?

Furthermore, could they be perhaps offended with the statement that after no one came to search the location they mentioned and upon hearing on TV that the crash could not be found, they decided to risk their own lives and despite the heavy snow started the search? How accurate are the villagers’ remarks? Naturally, we are in no position to vouch for them.

Yet, the fact is there that they found the crash and the bodies. Furthermore, they found the crash at a location far away from the region the search and rescue teams were searching. From the beginning, there were claims in newsrooms that some villagers were complaining that despite their appeals, the search was continuing at a wrong place.

Can we ignore the fact that at least two of the people onboard the helicopter survived the crash (we have learned that from Ihlas news agency reporter İsmail Güneş, who survived the crash and telephoned an emergency hotline) but unfortunately froze to death because the search and rescue teams could not reach them in time?

If not ignorance, perhaps we might suspect a serious coordination deficiency in the search and rescue efforts. Is expressing such a concern a violation of Article 301 as well?

It is not a joke but can be considered as such by anyone with brains because intellect cannot accept such an absurdity.

How well Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi had said back in the 13th century, "Yesterday is left in yesterday my love, now it’s time to say new things." Indeed, we were locked in an election atmosphere for the past many months. Government members were not available in their offices. Deputies were out in their election districts. Businessmen, workers laid off from their jobs, merchants suffering from rampant decrease in their trade were all crying loud, but there were hardly any responsible ears available to hear them. Even though in the closing days of the campaign the government realized it could no longer ignore the crisis and downscale it to a "tangentially passing condition" unveiled some tax incentives to boost domestic demand (particularly for cars and household appliances) election results showed that the government’s action, or the fourth anti-crisis package as they called it, was not appreciated much by the electorate in the elections.

Whatever is said during the election campaign must be left in yesterday and Turkey must now concentrate on the real agenda of the country: Worsening economic situation. Even revised growth figures showed that Turkey’s fast growing economy came to a standstill in 2008 with a negligible 1.1 percent growth. That was a sad situation for economy that grew by an average of 7 percent over the past five years. But, the figures for the first quarter of 2009 showed that even the worst is on the horizon. The State Statistics Institute, or TÜİK, has announced that in the first quarter of 2009 the Turkish economy did not grow but on the contrary shrunk by 6.2 percent. That is, we have a minus 6.2 percent growth. If we consider that even the most pessimist economists were predicting a minus 5.8 percent growth for the first quarter of the year we may say that pessimistic estimates at the beginning of the year might eventually be proven as rather optimistic.

"This is not a crisis of Turkey. This is a global crisis and as Turkey is part of the global economy it has impacts on our economy as well. Yet, God willing, the crisis will past Turkey tangentially. We will be the least affected country," and such ignorant statements were wrong. Even if global actors hope there will be recovery in the second half of the year, they are as well stressing that impacts of the crisis will be continued affecting the global economy in 2011 as well. "Even Americans have said Turkey will come out of the crisis before the U.S. and other countries" and such statements show that the government is still unaware of reading the statistics that though revised clearly show not a standstill but worst a sharp minus growth in the Turkish economy.

The urgent musts

As Erdoğan conceded on the election night, a Cabinet reshuffle might be helpful in boosting confidence in the government. There is already talk in Ankara that half of the ministers might be replaced. If the crisis is partly psychological as the premier has been saying, a Cabinet reshuffle might be helpful in boosting confidence.

Irrespective whether the Cabinet is changed or not, it must be obvious to the premier as well that all past anti-crisis measures, partly because they came in bits and pieces, have failed in achieving the desired goal. There is need for a comprehensive new package which must aim at boosting domestic demand on the one hand but help stagnated exports revive. There is need to restructure bank credits. Somehow industry must be provided accessibility to fresh and easy credits. A new stand-by with the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, which was put off after election by the government for some obvious reasons headed by not endangering the massive election bribery scheme applied by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, must now be urgently completed. There are signs that IMF have given up some of its conditions and Erdoğan has toned down its opposition to a new deal with IMF. Let’s hope this can be achieved in April.

Including a constitutional amendment, the reform drive has to be revived. Hopefully this time AKP will give up its oppressive majority obsession and seek consensus with the opposition parties. That is the only way to revive the reform drive without further fuelling the already high polarization in the country.Last but definitely not the least, election results showed the urgency of taking some real steps towards satisfying the demands of the southeastern population from the central administration. Rather than an antagonistic and fascist "love it or leave it" language, Erdoğan and the Ankara government must learn ways of embracing differences within democracy.

If we try to explain the election results with that famous story that in order to make happy His loved one, God first gets his donkey lost and then helps him find it, we may say that we could not find the donkey but at least we found its saddle. Excluding some arch-allegiant newspapers and TV stations, by and large almost the entire Turkish media united Monday in describing Sunday’s local polls as a "strong warning" to the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government or as a popular "one minute" intervention, making an allusion to the "one minute" outburst of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the Davos conference on Gaza Strip.

This was of course a local elections that could not have an impact on the national government. Parliamentary elections are two years away. The first-ever (excluding the 1983 plebiscite that elected coup leader Kenan Evren as president also) popular vote for the president is three years away. Still, in a way the local polls was a rehearsal of both the next parliamentary elections and the presidential poll and in this most trustworthy public opinion poll the ruling AKP and more so Prime Minister Erdoğan was told by the nation that a downfall has started. Indeed, this was the first-ever election that the AKP has seen its votes plummet compared to the previous election, though the increased collective vote of the two biggest opposition parties still hardly make the 39 percent vote the AKP received in municipal assembly elections. Still, 39 percent is less than the 47 percent the AKP received in the July 2007 parliamentary or the 42 percent the ruling party received in the 2004 local polls and is definitely the nation showing the AKP a "yellow card."

If we are to concentrate on what were the messages of the nation in this local polls, we have to underline that as much as they were a "yellow card" to Erdoğan’s arrogance, yelling at the opposition and the oppression of the critical media, over confidence, nepotism, and absolute ruler obsession, the results were also heralding the popular demand for the resumption of the reform drive on the one hand and a declaration by the nation that election bribery may not pay off all the time. Though Erdoğan preferred to ignore the impacts of economic crisis on the masses, the results showed as well the discontent with the poor economic performance of the AKP government. The results were as well a strong warning to the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, that in order to become an alternative to the AKP it needs to reform its worldview, program and of course leadership.

Was it not interesting to see something like a horse race in Ankara and Istanbul elections where the CHP narrowly lost the mayoral elections to the AKP? Was it not interesting to see Istanbul candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu winning some 15 percentage points higher than the average 23 percent vote the CHP received in this elections? If Kılıçdaroğlu was made a candidate from Istanbul in a bid to kill prospects of his political elevation, then Baykal has made a very serious mistake because for the first time in many years there is now a very strong alternative to Baykal as the leader of the CHP.

On the other hand, Sunday’s election showed the return of the Islamist Saadet (or Felicity) Party, or SP, and its new leader Numan Kurtulmuş. Even though the SP received only slightly more than 5 percent of the overall vote, with its new leader the party indeed tripled its electoral support compared to 2004. The National Movement Party, or MHP, on the other hand, has approached its 1999 level of 18 percent by winning 16 percent of the vote on Sunday, an almost three percentage points more than what it received in the 2007 polls.

Geographical divide

The results also showed a very deep geographical divide in the country. While the Southeast mostly went to the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party, or DTP, almost the entire Mediterranean coastline, the Aegean and Thracian Turkey have gone to the CHP, the Black Sea region was dominated by the CHP and the MHP, while central Anatolian regions have become the AKP’s powerbase, though the AKP maintained a strong presence throughout the country. Bottom-line is that in an election which was not traumatized with secularist concerns but concentrated more on economy, corruption allegations and charges of nepotism, electorate has found the saddle of the lost donkey by serving AKP a very strong warning. This election has produced a result with long-term consequences.