Political parties in Türkiye are working hard to finalize their candidate lists by the April 9 deadline. The relevant committees probably find it more difficult to select candidates today than ever. The already-complex selection process is further complicated by electoral alliances producing joint lists in certain districts and trying to predict how those decisions may influence the allocation of parliamentary seats.
Although the campaign period is already underway, presidential candidates largely refrain from picking rhetorical fights in the holy month of Ramadan.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s schedule features iftar dinners, groundbreaking ceremonies in the earthquake-hit zone, and the inauguration of significant projects. In this sense, the incumbent keeps reminding voters that he distinguishes himself from the rest through his history of public service, projects, and actions.
Meanwhile, the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) Chairperson Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, having received the opposition bloc’s endorsement, attempts to replace his combative attitude with a more inclusive approach. Yet some pro-CHP media personalities continue to threaten to hold the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) circles accountable and put them on trial. In this sense, what we see is reminiscent of the 2019 municipal elections. The CHP leadership claims to welcome everyone, but it continues to fuel polarization in an attempt to consolidate its base. As a result, it won’t be surprising to encounter more heated debates after April 9, especially after Ramadan.
What caught my attention in the current election cycle is the Hell, prayer rug, and reverse engineering, which support certain politicians, to make radical and essentialist distinctions and accusations. Let me elaborate: The essentialist, extreme, and alienating tone that pro-opposition commentators, academics, and media personalities have adopted to “unite the opposition” and mobilize voters have become a cause of concern. For example, the Good Party (IP) Chairperson Meral Akşener’s metaphorical stoning upon leaving the opposition bloc and Muharrem İnce’s ongoing treatment over his decision to contest the presidential election reflect the massive anger that the ultra-secularist opposition has accumulated. By contrast, the Felicity Party (SP), the Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA), and the Future Party (GP) did not encounter a similar reaction from conservatives for joining the CHP-dominated opposition bloc, also known as the “table for six.” In other words, Türkiye’s conservatives – some like to criticize for supposedly being obedient and believing in pre-determinism – have been reflecting on the country’s issues more rationally and with greater common sense than the ultra-secularists.
Domestic and international audiences agree that the May 14 elections are critically important. One must ask, however, what to make of the ultra-secularist rage that causes them to “lynch” fellow members of the opposition as “separatists?” How does referring to the next elections as "the last" makes sense? What kind of a metaphor has a former diplomat used by claiming they will “close the gates of hell” by changing the government?
I doubt that labeling the AK Party government in such ways could influence voters. Equating the current situation with “hell” is no less tragicomical than Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu clumsily reciting a Qur’anic verse at an iftar dinner hosted by the Felicity Party.
Has the main opposition party already exhausted the discourse of one-man rule? Is that why they exploit religious symbols and concepts at the expense of the AK Party and conservatives? That ultra-secularist reverse engineering attempt shall fail as soon as the CHP chairperson steps on a prayer rug with his shoes.
The People’s and Nation Alliance represent two different visions for Türkiye’s future. It is the job of opinion-makers to compare and interpret their respective policy papers, statements, and campaign pledges.
Why would anyone subject the country to an essentialist choice between power and morality? In an attempt to support Kılıçdaroğlu, some left-wing academics have been portraying the government as “evil” and the opposition as “good” – which suffers from essentialist radicalism. Their actions have long exceeded the limits of the all-too-familiar divide between “us” and “them” in politics. Are we to believe that allying with the Free Cause Party (HÜDA-PAR) and the New Welfare Party (Yeniden Refah Partisi) amounts to “misogyny,” but joining forces with the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and receiving PKK’s endorsement is about “working for people with problems” in Türkiye?
That academics assess the AK Party experience from an essentialist and radical standpoint, which goes beyond politicization, is a source of concern for the entire country.
