the results of june 24, 2018 elections the results of … · 2018-08-16 · dogu perincek both...

THE

RESU

LTS

OF

JUN

E 24

, 201

8 EL

ECTI

ON

S

KILIC BUGRA KANAT, HASAN YUCEL, MEGHAN BACKER

THE RESULTS OF JUNE 24, 2018 ELECTIONS

On June 24, 2018, Turkey held its first simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, welcoming in a new government system. These elections saw the formation of alliances and the use of tactical voting to ensure parties reached the necessary threshold to gain se-ats in Parliament. Through this new system, there was an increase in members of parliament, a newly established political party gaining seats in parliament, and a more diversified age range of members due to the age requirement being lowered for members to 18.

The alliance system brought about a new way for parties to campa-ign, as the opposition united behind a common goal to gain more traction against Erdogan. With multiple candidates vying for the presidency and multiple parties running for parliamentary seats, Turkey saw large rallies attracting supporters and non-supporters alike. Excitement spread through Turkey, leading to a high voter tur-nout that elected Erdogan as President and gave the AK Party the highest proportion of seats in parliament, with its alliance gaining a majority in parliament.

This report looks at the electoral process and campaigns during the two month period and compares the June 2018 election results with varying results over the past 16 years.

ANKARA • İSTANBUL • WASHINGTON D.C. • KAHİRE

REPORT



REPORT

9 789752 459946

COPYRIGHT © 2018

Bu yayının tüm hakları SETA Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı’na aittir. SETA’nın izni olmaksızın yayının tümünün veya bir kısmının elektronik veya mekanik (fotokopi, kayıt ve bilgi depolama vd.) yollarla basımı, yayımı, çoğaltılması veya dağıtımı yapılamaz. Kaynak göstermek suretiyle alıntı yapılabilir.

SETA Yayınları 117I. Baskı: 2018ISBN: 978-975-2459-94-6

Uygulama: Hasan Suat OlgunBaskı: Turkuvaz Haberleşme ve Yayıncılık A.Ş., İstanbul

SETA | SİYASET, EKONOMİ VE TOPLUM ARAŞTIRMALARI VAKFINenehatun Cd. No: 66 GOP Çankaya 06700 Ankara TÜRKİYETel: +90 312 551 21 00 | Faks: +90 312 551 21 90www.setav.org | [email protected] | @setavakfi

SETA | Washington D.C. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1106 Washington D.C., 20036 USATel: 202-223-9885 | Faks: 202-223-6099www.setadc.org | [email protected] | @setadc

SETA | Kahire21 Fahmi Street Bab al Luq Abdeen Flat No: 19 Cairo EGYPTTel: 00202 279 56866 | 00202 279 56985 | @setakahire

SETA | İstanbulDefterdar Mh. Savaklar Cd. Ayvansaray Kavşağı No: 41-43Eyüpsultan İstanbul TÜRKİYETel: +90 212 395 11 00 | Faks: +90 212 395 11 11


Kılıc Bugra Kanat, Hasan Yucel,Meghan Backer

7

ABSTRACT

On June 24, 2018, Turkey held its first simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, welcoming in a new government system. These elections saw the formation of alliances and the use of tactical voting to ensure parties reached the necessary th-reshold to gain seats in Parliament. Through this new system, there was an increase in members of parliament, a newly established political party gaining seats in parlia-ment, and a more diversified age range of members due to the age requirement being lowered for members to 18. The alliance system brought about a new way for parties to campaign, as the opposition united behind a common goal to gain more traction against Erdogan. With multiple candidates vying for the presidency and multiple parties running for parliamentary seats, Turkey saw large rallies attracting supporters and non-supporters alike. Excitement spread through Turkey, leading to a high voter turnout that elected Erdogan as President and gave the AK Party the highest propor-tion of seats in parliament, with its alliance gaining a majority in parliament.

There are many lessons that can be drawn from Sunday’s elections. First, the Turkish electorate, which likes to vote strategically, strategized a little more than usual on June 24. It is possible to argue that this trend will continue as the presiden-tial system becomes more strongly institutionalized. Therefore, the various political parties and their candidates must learn from voter behavior.

It also became clear that the 10 percent threshold has become obsolete – even for political parties without broader electoral alliances. Under the new system, Tur-key might move to lower the national threshold or create some type of single-mem-

ber district system. After all, the voters made it clear that local representation is more important to them now.

Finally, a lesson for Western governments: You have no choice but to reassess your priorities and work with Turkey under the leadership of Erdoğan. The moun-ting pressure on Turkey has backfired. Now, it is time to focus on cooperation.


Prof. Burhanettin DuranSETA General Coordinator

9

INTRODUCTION

On Sunday, June 24, 2018, Turkey held its first elections under the new system adopted after the 2017 referendum. The elections consisted of two simultaneous elections, the presidential and the parliamentary elections. The election campaign period was a little over two months from the date the elections were announced to the date they were held. The simultaneous elections witnessed a high voter turnout, a more diverse parliament with one additional new party, and alliances systems that were formed prior to the elections. The party candidates for the presidential elec-tions held rallies that created excited throughout the entire country. Additionally, Turkey witnessed a higher proportion of women were elected into parliament. MPs representation shifted from province to province, with parties witnessing a loss of representation from some provinces and gaining more in others. Recep Tayyip Erdo-gan won the Presidential elections with 52.59% of the votes in the first round, thus eliminating the need for a runoff presidential election. Muharrem Ince finished sec-ond, followed by Selahattin Demirtas, and Meral Aksener. Temel Karamollaoglu and Dogu Perincek both received less than 1% of the votes in the presidential election. Similar patterns were seen in the parliamentary elections, the People’s Alliance which includes the AK Party and MHP won 53.66% of the votes, the Nation Alliance, which includes CHP, the IYI Party, and Saadet Party (SP) won 33.94% of the votes, and the unaligned HDP winning 11.70% of the votes.

T H E R E S U LT S O F J U N E 2 4 , 2 0 1 8 E L E C T I O N S

10

TABLE 1. 2018 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Muharrem Ince

Selahattin Demirtas

Meral Aksener

Temel Karamollaoglu

Dogu Perincek

Percent of Votes

52.59% 30.64% 8.40% 7.29% 0.89% 0.20%

Total Votes

26,324,482 15,336,594 4,205,219 3,649,233 443,766 98,926

TABLE 2. 2018 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION RESULTS

AK Party MHP People’s Alliance

CHP IYI Party

Saadet Party

Nation Alliance

HDP

Percent of Votes

42.56% 11.10% 53.66% 22.64% 9.95% 1.35% 33.94% 11.70%

FIGURE 1. 2018 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS

FIGURE 2. 2018 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION RESULTS

11

VOTER TURNOUT

Voter turnout for the June 2018 elections was 87%, the highest percent for both past presidential and general elections. Only the 2014 local elections had a higher percent of voters turnout for the elections with 88.64% of voters voting. Voter turnout was high due to many factors including high enthusiasm of Turkish citi-zens to exercise their right to vote.1 Although the campaigning period was short at just over two months long, presidential candidates were able to incite excitement among their supporters for both their presidential candidacy race and for their par-ties in parliamentary elections.2 Rallies were held in public squares that attracted millions of supporters around the country. Engaging with voters in public spaces like the rallies provided voters with a platform to feel more value in their vote and placed even more importance on the need for them to vote in this year’s election. Additionally, social media activism of the candidates was very influential and at-tracted the interest of millions of voters in Turkey to vote in the election. Both the opposition and the AK Party used social media aggressively in order to convince the voters to go to the ballots. The organizations supporting the opposition and the AK Party constantly emphasized how important is to vote in the election and

1. Sener Akturk, “Turkey’s fifth republic and the 2018 elections,” Daily Sabah, June 27, 2018, https://www.dailysa-bah.com/op-ed/2018/06/27/turkeys-fifth-republic-and-the-2018-elections.

2. Talha Kose, “Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections: many winners, few losers,” TRT World, June 26, 2018, https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/turkey-s-presidential-and-parliamentary-elections-many-winners-few-lo-sers-18454.


12

one vote can make the difference. Both the opposition and the AK Party tried to appeal to the more than 1 million young voters who were voting for the first time in this election.

FIGURE 3. VOTER TURNOUT (2002-2018)

More specifically, effective campaigns by the opposition mobilized people which constituted a challenge and their campaigns encouraged the AK Party to further their mobilization attempts. Particularly Muharrem Ince, as an opposition candidate for the presidency, successfully attracted large crowds to his rallies in major cities. His rhetoric and his mobilization of the opposition influenced some alienated opposi-tion voters, who had previously lost their hopes to win an election, to go back to the ballot box. Some of the sympathizers of the parties who had no chance to pass the 10 percent threshold also went to the ballot box in this election due to the alliance system. This resulted in higher turnout rates than ever before in June 24 elections. The high participation rates to the election campaign rallies were a preview of high turnout rates in the election.

In the face of the oppositions’ mobilization of the masses that challenged the AK Party, the AK Party increased its efforts to effectively mobilize its base in response. This was apparent at the June 21 Yenikapı mega-rally which drew tens of thousands of AK Party supporters. The popularity of campaign rallies and the ability of the opposition to engage with voters in new ways led to the AK Party to further increase its efforts for campaigning. The result spurred excitement nationwide, leading many to vote in this year’s elections.

V O T E R T U R N O U T

13

FIGURE 4. 2018 ELECTION TURNOUT RATE

Turkey’s diaspora also participated in the elections, 1,486,532 people among Turkey’s diaspora voted in the June 2018 elections. Almost half of these voters were from Germany. Approximately 718,0003 Turkish citizens voted in Germany during these elections. The turnout rate in this election for the diaspora was around 49%. The turnout rate fluctuated around the world. In Germany and France turnout rate was around 50%, whereas in the US the turnout rate was around 34%. In terms of parliamentary votes, over 50% voted for the AK Party, followed by HDP with nearly 18% of the votes, and then CHP with 16.5%. The People’s Alliance secured approximately 60% of the votes for the 2018 parliamentary elections while the Na-tion Alliance won 22.5% of the votes and HDP received 17.30% of the votes. The presidential votes for the diaspora community mirrored the parliamentary party af-filiations, with the exception that parties who voted for HDP in the parliamentary supported Ince in the presidential elections. Erdogan won 59.4% of the votes in the elections whereas Muharrem Ince receive 25% of the votes. Demirtas’s votes reached 11% and Meral Aksener did a very poor job among Turkey’s diaspora and received only 3% of the votes.

3. “Half of Turks in Germany voted in 2018 election,” Duestche Welle, June 20, 2018, https://www.dw.com/en/half-of-turks-in-germany-voted-in-2018-election/a-44306175.


14

FIGURE 5. 2018 DIASPORA VOTING PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

FIGURE 6. 2018 DIASPORA VOTING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

FIGURE 7. 2017 DIASPORA VOTING IN TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

15

AK PARTY LEGACY

Since the AK Party became a participating political party in Turkey’s government in 2002, it has won the most votes for every referendum, general, presidential, and lo-cal, election compared to any other party. The AK Party entered into the government as the largest party in parliament in the 2002 general elections, securing 34.28% of the vote share with 10,808,229 votes.4 Over the past 16 years, the party has enjoyed relatively stable support, winning every election with an average of 40% - 60% of the votes. The highest support for the party was seen in the 2007 referendum, in which the party secured 19,422,714 votes, 68.95% of the total votes.5

As a popular party among the Turkish populations, the AK party has excelled in all elections on national and local levels. Despite the constant fluctuation in voting habits of AK Party supporters, the party has a large following at every election. Its core supporters have provided the party with the capabilities to continually win the majority of the votes without a need for a coalition government in every election held since 2002, except the June 2015 elections.

In the local elections, AK Party received its lowest support in the 2009 elections receiving 15,353,553 votes, 38.80% of the total votes, while it gained the highest support in the 2014 local elections receiving 17,952,504 votes, 43.13% of the total votes.6 In 2004, AK Party won 12 metropolitan municipalities and 1,750 municipal-

4. Supreme Board of Elections, “Past Elections,” http://www.ysk.gov.tr/en/past-elections/1852.




16

ities, holding the majority of the municipalities all around the country.7 AK Party’s increasing support stalled in the local elections in 2009, holding the majority of the municipalities in Turkey.8 The AK Party has won the majority across the country, averaging between 38% - 55% of the votes.

There have been three referendums since the AK Party has led the government, each referendum receiving over 50% of the votes. AK Party received the highest support in the 2007 referendum receiving 19,422,714, while it secured the lowest percent of votes in the 2017 referendum. In 2007, AK Party government passed a number of electoral reforms to the Turkish Constitution with a clear majority of 68% of the total votes.9 In the 2010 referendum, 58% of the total voters approved the constitutional amendments proposed by the AK Party government, a 10% de-crease from the 2007 referendum.10 The decline in support for referendums further decreased in the 2017 referendum in which AK Party succeeded with only gaining 51.4% of the votes to pass the reforms.

Since 2014, the first year the president was directly elected, Erdogan has won over 51% of the votes, with the June 2018 election winning a majority of the votes at 52.59% after receiving 21,335,581 total votes.

The AK Party has led in all general elections as well, but with the most fluc-tuation in voting compared to the local and presidential elections and the referen-dums. In general elections, the AK Party has received 34% - 50% of the votes. The highest support the party has received thus far in general elections was in 2011 with nearly 50% of the votes. AK Party received its first support in 2002, winning over 10 million votes and 34% of the total votes. In the 2002 election, a political party had achieved an absolute majority in the parliament for the first time in 15 years.11 In 2007, winning 46.58% of the total votes allowed AK Party to form the govern-ment in the 23rd parliamentary term once more.12 Since the 2011 general elections in which the party won its highest general elections percent, the party’s support has shifted between 40% - 50% for the last three general elections. The June 2018 election results falls in between the June 2015 and November 2018 election results.

7. “Turkey Elections,” Daily Sabah, 2018, https://www.dailysabah.com/election-results.

8. Ali Çarkoğlu, Turkey’s Local Elections of 2009: Results, Trends And The Future, (SETA Report, Ankara: 2009).

9. “Results of Previous Constitutional Referendums In Turkey,” Hurriyet Daily News, April 16, 2017, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/results-of-previous-constitutional-referendums-in-turkey--112082.

10. “Erdogan Pulls It Off,” Economist, September 13, 2010, https://www.economist.com/newsbook/2010/09/13/erdogan-pulls-it-off.

11. “Erdogan Triumphs - With Plenty Of Help From His Enemies,” Economist, November 7, 2002, https://www.economist.com/europe/2002/11/07/erdogan-triumphs-with-plenty-of-help-from-his-enemies.

12. “Turkey Elections,” Daily Sabah, 2018, https://www.dailysabah.com/election-results.

A K P A R T Y L E G A C Y

17

June 2015 had experienced a new low support; however, in November the support surged once more for AK Party to win nearly 50% of the votes. June 2018 results fell under the November 2015 results, with the party winning approximately 42.5% of the votes.

The 2002, 2007, 2011 and the November 2015 general elections gave AK Party a majority without forming a coalition government in the parliament. Additionally, three referendums were passed with a majority, supporting the AK Party further in its efforts as a leading political party in the government. The popularity of the party is unwavering as it has enjoyed majority wins throughout its existence. Despite the varying voter turnouts for previous elections and a growing voting population, the AK Party has consistently received the majority support needed to be the leading party in the government.

TABLE 3. AK PARTY TOTAL VOTES

General Elections Presidential Elections Local Elections Referendum

2002 10,808,229

2004 13,447,287

2007 16,327,291 19,422,714

2009 15,353,553

2010 21,787,244

2011 21,399,082

2014 21,000,143 17,952,504

June 2015 18,867,411

November 2015 23,681,293

2017 25,157,463

2018 21,335,581 26,324,482

In this election, there seems to be a significant difference between AK Party votes for the parliament and Erdogan votes for the presidency. There is almost a 5 million and 10% difference between Erdogan and AK Party. Although this has been explained as a result of the alliance with the MHP, the fact that AK Party lost votes compared to November 2015 elections and Erdogan won votes compared to the 2017 referendum demonstrated an emerging gap between the popularity of Erdogan and AK Party. In his first address to the nation on the night of election Erdogan


18

himself recognized this fact and said that in the parliamentary elections, the party could not perform as it needed to. Many analysts were expecting these results before the election and Erdogan tried to avoid this outcome by nominating most of the ministers in the current cabinet, including the Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, to the parliament, considering this would probably strengthen the parties likelihood of remaining the incumbent party in power. Despite this move the party lost 7 percent of the votes compared to November 2015 elections,

FIGURE 8. AK PARTY PERCENT OF VOTES

19

PARTY COMPARISONS IN GENERAL ELECTIONS

Aside from the IYI Party, which entered elections for the first time in 2018, the other five parties which have secured the most votes since the June 2015 elections have all experienced a shift in voting. In June 2015, AK Party and CHP both had fewer votes compared to the November 2015 elections. AK Party received 18,867,411 votes in June 2015 while securing 23,681,926 votes in November 2015.13

FIGURE 9: COMPARISON OF AK PARTY VOTES



20

CHP received 11,518,139 votes in June 2015 and secured 12,111,812 votes in November 2015.14 Both parties also saw the percentage of votes increase from the June 2015 elections to November 2015 elections. Similarly, both parties saw a decline in votes and percent of total votes from November 2015 to the June 2018 election.

FIGURE 10: COMPARISON OF CHP VOTES

Despite the decline compared to November 2015 elections (49.5%), AK Party’s votes remained above the June 2015 elections (40.9%), receiving 42.56% of the vote share with 21,335,581 total votes. Aforementioned, the presidential candidate of the AK Party, Erdogan, received (52.59%) over ten percent more votes than the AK Par-ty (42.56%). However, CHP saw lower support than both its June (25%) and No-vember (25.3%) 2015 elections, receiving 22.54% of the vote share with 11,348,878 total votes. Due to the performance of Muharrem Ince during the campaign, many expected a reflection of this popularity in the CHP votes. However a major gap emerged between Muharrem Ince (30.64%) and the CHP (22.64%) in the elections. As will be stated below, the tactical votes of the CHP caused the decline instead of an increase in the CHP votes.


P A R T Y C O M P A R I S O N S I N G E N E R A L E L E C T I O N S

21

FIGURE 11. AK PARTY VOTES COMPARISON

FIGURE 12. CHP VOTES COMPARISON

MHP, HDP, and the Saadet Party (SP) all saw similar patterns in elections between the June 2015 and November 2015 elections with a decline in total votes and percent of votes. However, HDP and the SP received a larger share of votes in the June 2018 elections compared to the November 2015 elections, albe-it a smaller proportion compared to June 2015. HDP narrowly passed the 10% threshold to enter parliament in November 2015 with 10.76% of the votes after experiencing a 13.12% share in June 2015. In 2018, HDP saw a 11.70% share of


22

the votes, receiving a total of 5,865,977 votes. The difference between the votes of Selahattin Demirtas, the presidential candidate of the HDP, and the HDP’s votes was also important. In the case of AK Party and CHP, the presidential candidates of the parties gained more votes than the political parties. However in the case of HDP, the presidential candidate Selahattin Demirtas received less votes (8.40%) than the HDP (11.70%). While the SP remains out of the parliament, it secured 1.35% of the votes compared to November 2015 when it won 0.68% of the votes. However, the share for 2018 remained lower than its 2.06% share of the votes in June 2015.

FIGURE 13. COMPARISON OF HDP VOTES

FIGURE 14. COMPARİSON OF MHP VOTES

P A R T Y C O M P A R I S O N S I N G E N E R A L E L E C T I O N S

23

MHP was the biggest surprise for almost everyone. After the IYI Party’s emer-gence and the lack of any campaign work by the party, many analysts and opinion polls expected the MHP would perform poorly and receive no more than 7% in the elections. However, the party received 11.10% of the votes. In the previous elections MHP saw a decline in total votes and percent of votes from June 2015 to the June 2018 elections. Its largest decline in voter support occurred between June 2015 and November 2015 when it lost nearly 4.5% of its votes. MHP shares of votes fur-ther declined, although minimally, from 11.90% in the November 2015 elections to 11.10% in the June 2018 elections, but as mentioned before less than anybody had expected. The IYI Party participated for the first time in elections in this recent June 2018 elections, garnering 4,990,710 votes which was 9.95% of the total votes. Due to the alliance system, the party was able to gain seats in parliament, despite not meeting the 10% threshold requirement. Similar to the case of the HDP, the presidential candidate of the party, Meral Aksener received less than (7.29%) the party votes (9.96%). Both the party and its candidate performed less than expected. The trends from November 2015 to the 2018 elections demonstrate that some voters from the leading parties shifted their votes to the smaller parties, increasing their vote percents for the 2018 elections.

FIGURE 15. ELECTION PARTY COMPARISONS


24

FIGURE 16. ELECTION PARTY COMPARISON BY PERCENT

THE NEW ALLIANCE SYSTEMThe adoption of the new system based on alliances of political parties when entering an election produced several unexpected results for political parties. The idea behind the introduction of the alliance system is to ensure the representation of political par-ties in the parliament even though they do not pass the threshold. However, forming an alliance does not guarantee proportional representation in all specific provinces of Turkey.

One notable example was the case of Saadet Party which gained approximately 676,760 votes representing 1.4% of the total votes in this election. According to this new alliance system, the Saadet Party’s votes were allotted to CHP and IYI Party in the Nation Alliance. This allowed CHP to win deputies from cities where CHP had never held any seats for many years.15 These cities include Adıyaman, Karabük, Karaman, Kars, Kastamonu, Kırıkkale, Kırşehir, Kütahya, Nevşehir, Şanlıurfa and Yozgat.16 For example in Elazığ, CHP was able to hold a seat for the first time in 41 years.17 Also, Saadet Party helped the other political party in the Nation Alliance, the IYI Party, to gain an additional three seats in parliament.18

15. “Felicity Party Votes Help CHP Secure Seats In 11 Provinces,” Daily Sabah, June 25, 2018, https://www.daily-sabah.com/elections/2018/06/25/felicity-party-votes-help-chp-secure-seats-in-11-provinces.

16. “Felicity Party Votes Help CHP Secure Seats In 11 Provinces,” Daily Sabah, June 25, 2018, https://www.daily-sabah.com/elections/2018/06/25/felicity-party-votes-help-chp-secure-seats-in-11-provinces.

17. “Opposition CHP seeks to expel deputy over party leadership criticism”, Daily Sabah, June 28, 2018, https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2018/06/28/opposition-chp-seeks-to-expel-deputy-over-party-leadership-criticism.

18. “Saadet’e Verilen Oylar CHP’ye Yaradi!”, A Haber, June 28, 2018, https://www.ahaber.com.tr/gun-dem/2018/06/28/saadete-verilen-oylar-chpye-yaradi.

25

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

There are five parties which were able to form groups in parliament after this year’s elections, AK Party, MHP, CHP, the IYI Party, and HDP. In addition to these par-ties who were able to have more than 20 members in the parliament, some other party members were elected to the parliament from the list of these five political parties. For instance two members of Saadet Party were elected to the parliament from the CHP lists, one member of Great Unity Party (BBP) was elected to the parliament from the AK Party lists and one member of Democrat Party was elected from the IYI Party lists. Although the total number of MPs increased from 550 to 600, individual parties saw both declines and increases in their number of MPs. The AK Party is the only party who saw a decrease in MPs, even though the party still has the largest share of MPs in parliament. In the November 2015 elections the party won 317 seats in the parliament and in June 2018 it lost 22 members to receive 295 seats in the parliament. CHP slightly increased its seats in the parlia-ment. In November 2015 the party gained 134 seats in the parliament and in June 2018 the seats that the party earned climber to 146, despite the decrease in its per-centage. The number of seats that HDP received also expanded in this election. In the last general election the party gained 59 seats, in June 2018 elections the party earned 67 seats. MHP’s seats in the parliament also increased in this elections from 40 to 49. Finally, the IYI Party was able to secure seats for parliament after its first run in elections. The youngest MP is 22 years old, representing the AK Party, and


26

the oldest is 79 representing CHP.19 The 22 year-old will be the first MP under the age of 25 for Turkey, due to the government’s recent decision to lower the age from 25 to 18 as a qualification for running. The table below depicts the total number of representatives from each province.

TABLE 4. MPS ELECTED TO PARLIAMENT

November 2015 Election June 2018 Election

ProvinceAK

PartyMHP CHP HDP

AK Party

MHPPeople’s Alliance

TotalCHP

IYI Party

Nation Alliance

TotalHDP

Adana 6 3 4 1 5 2 7 4 2 6 2

Adiyaman 4 0 0 1 4 0 4 1 0 1 0

Afyonkara-hisar

3 1 1 0 3 1 4 1 1 2 0

Agri 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Aksaray 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 1 0

Amasya 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Ankara 16 4 5 1 15 5 20 10 5 15 1

Antalya 7 2 5 0 6 1 7 5 3 8 1

Ardahan 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Artvin 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Aydin 3 1 3 0 4 0 4 3 1 4 0

Balikesir 4 1 3 0 5 0 5 3 1 4 0

Bartin 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Batman 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 4

Bayburt 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Bilecik 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Bingol 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 1

Bitlis 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1

Bolu 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Burdur 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

19. “Colorful figures from athletes to actors win seats in Parliament,” Daily Sabah, June 26, 2018, https://www.dailysabah.com/elections/2018/06/26/colorful-figures-from-athletes-to-actors-win-seats-in-parliament.

M E M B E R S O F P A R L I A M E N T

27

Bursa 11 2 5 0 11 2 13 5 2 7 0

Canakkale 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0

Cankiri 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Corum 4 0 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0

Denizli 4 1 2 0 4 0 4 3 1 4 0

Diyarbakir 2 0 0 9 3 0 3 0 0 0 9

Duzce 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0

Edirne 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 0

Elazig 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 1 0

Erzincan 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Erzurum 5 1 0 0 4 1 5 0 1 1 0

Eskisehir 3 0 3 0 3 1 4 2 1 3 0

Gaziantep 8 1 2 1 8 2 10 2 1 3 1

Giresun 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0

Gumushane 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Hakkari 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

Hatay 5 1 4 0 5 1 6 4 0 4 1

Igdir 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

Isparta 2 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 0

Istanbul 46 7 28 7 43 8 51 27 8 35 12

Izmir 8 2 14 2 8 2 10 14 2 16 2

Kahraman-maras

7 1 0 0 6 1 7 1 0 1 0

Karabuk 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Karaman 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Kars 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 1

Kastamonu 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Kayseri 7 1 1 0 6 2 8 1 1 2 0

Kirikkale 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0

Kirklareli 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0

Kirsehir 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Kilis 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Kocaeli 7 1 3 0 7 1 8 3 1 4 1


28

Konya 12 1 1 0 10 2 12 2 1 3 0

Kutahya 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 0

Malatya 5 0 1 0 4 1 5 1 0 1 0

Manisa 5 1 3 0 5 1 6 3 1 4 0

Mardin 2 0 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 4

Mersin 4 2 4 1 4 2 6 3 2 5 2

Mugla 2 1 3 0 2 0 2 4 1 5 0

Mus 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Nevsehir 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Nigde 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Ordu 4 0 1 0 3 1 4 2 0 2 0

Osmaniye 2 2 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0

Rize 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0

Sakarya 5 1 1 0 4 1 5 1 1 2 0

Samsun 6 1 2 0 5 1 6 2 1 3 0

Siirt 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

Sinop 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Sivas 4 0 1 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 0

Sanliurfa 9 0 0 3 8 1 9 1 0 1 4

Sirnak 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Tekirdag 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 1 4 0

Tokat 4 0 1 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 0

Trabzon 5 0 1 0 4 0 4 1 1 2 0

Tunceli 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Usak 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Van 2 0 0 6 3 0 3 0 0 0 5

Yalova 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0

Yozgat 4 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0

Zonguldak 3 0 2 0 3 0 3 2 0 2 0


29

FEMALES IN PARLIAMENTAfter the 2018 elections, the number of female MPs amounts to 103 out of a total of 600.20 The percent of female MPs has increased to 17% from 14.7% of the previous parliament. The women in parliament represent 48 provinces in Turkey.

FIGURE 17. PERCENT OF WOMEN AND MEN IN PARLIAMENT

HDP voted the highest percent of women into the parliament with 37% of its MPs being female. AK Party followed with females comprising 18% of its MPs. Twelve percent of CHP’s candidates are women, while 10% of MHP’s MPs are women. Lastly, 7% of the IYI Party’s MPs are women. Both HDP and CHP de-creased their share of women represented in parliament from the last parliament. The AK Party increased its percent of women as members parliament the most, growing from 11% to 17.6% after this year’s election. MHP also increased its proportion of women represented in parliament. The IYI Party, which is led by a woman, elected the lowest percentage of women to parliament at 6.9% of its representatives.

20. Çiçek Tahaoğlu and Hikmet Adal, “497 Erkek - 103 Kadın Vekil Meclis›te,” Bianet, June 25, 2018, http://m.bianet.org/bianet/toplumsal-cinsiyet/198576-497-erkek-103-kadin-vekil-meclis-te.


30

FIGURE 18. WOMEN AND MEN IN PARLIAMENT

EDUCATION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENTThe education level ranges for the 600 candidates. However, the majority of the 600 MPs have received a bachelor’s degree or higher for their education.21 The AK Party has 284 members of parliament who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 11 members who have a high school education. MHP has 43 members who have an education of a bachelor’s degree or higher, with 6 of its MPs receiving a high school education as their highest form of education. Both parties have no members that have received lower than a high school education represented in parliament. CHP has members of parliament with all levels of education. The party has 129 members who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher, 13 members who have received a high school education, and 4 members represented who have received less than a high school education. The IYI Party, similar to AK Party and MHP have no mem-bers represented who have received less than a high school education. The IYI Party has 38 members represented who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher and 5 members who have received a high school education. Lastly, HDP has members representing all three levels of education. It has 51 members who have an education level of a bachelor’s degree or higher, 11 members with a high school education, and 5 with lower than a high school education in parliament. Overall, 545 members

21. The education levels were found by cross-referencing the list of new MPs with the Supreme Election Board’s list of all candidates.


31

have received a bachelor’s degree or higher, 46 members have received a high school education, and 9 members have received below high school level education.

FIGURE 19. LEVELS OF EDUCATION AMONG MPS

33

VOTING BEHAVIOR

In the run up to the June 24, 2018 Turkish general election, various organizations carried out opinion polls to measure estimate voting behavior in Turkey. Listed be-low are the predictions of polls for May and June conducted by research companies Gezici, Konsensus, Konda, Mediar, Piar, and Sonar. These research companies moni-tored the voting behavior of the Turkish voters in Turkey. As seen in detail below, the pollsters had mixed results in predicting the election outcomes. For instance, MHP vote predictions were significantly different for most of the research companies. None of the companies could predict the votes of the MHP in the election. The gen-eral expectation was that it would receive less than 7% of the votes in the election. Similarly, most of the public opinion polls failed to predict the votes of the CHP in the election. Partly due to the success of Muharrem Ince, many were expecting that the CHP will perform better than the November 2015 elections. Some of the polls predicted the AK Party votes would range between 42% - 44% in the elections. Ad-ditionally, in terms of the HDP votes, most of the polls correctly predicted that the HDP will pass the 10% threshold. In terms of presidential elections, a majority of the polls predicted that the election will go to a second round, thus Erdogan will gain less than 50% of the votes, which turned out to be incorrect. They had predicted the votes for both Demirtas and Aksener to be higher than they actually received in the election. The only candidate that the polls predicted close to the actual results was the votes of Muharrem Ince.


34

FIGURE 20. PUBLIC OPINION POLLS OF LEADERS

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R

35

FIGURE 21. PUBLIC OPINION POLLS OF PARTIES


36

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan secured the presidency getting 52.6% of the votes in the June 2018 elections. Receiving more than 26.3 million of the total 56.3 million votes, which is 11 million votes more than his closest opponent. Erdoğan also exceeded his votes in the last presidential elections. In 2014 presidential elec-tion, Erdoğan gained 51.8% of the votes, which amounted to around 21 million. Therefore, he increased his votes by 0.8%, or 5.3 million from 2014 to 2018. He also exceeded the votes that he received in the constitutional referendum. The alli-ance that he built with the MHP provided better results this time compared to April 2017 referendum. Contrary to expectation a great majority of the MHP voters voted for Erdogan in the presidential elections. He received the majority of the votes in the 63 of the 81 provinces. Compared to the referendum he gained the majority of the votes in major cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Bursa. This was extremely important considering that the referendum lost in Istanbul, which was interpreted as a psychological blow by many experts. Nine months from now, there will be local elections and these election results provided some relief for AK Party in regards to the coming elections. His charismatic leadership was key to reach the majority of the votes in the election.


37

AK Party won only 42.6% in the parliamentary elections, 10% lower than the leader of the party. Plus, AK Party received a lower percentage of votes obtained than in the November 1, 2015 elections. The question remains as to how and why AK party lost this number of votes in this election. In this regard, President Erdogan gave several important remarks on the balcony of the AK party headquarters in Ankara, making a brief comment on the shift of votes from AK Party to MHP. President Er-dogan underlined that the country voted for services.22 Most importantly, he stated that “we have received the message that has been given to us in the ballot boxes.” He also added that “we will fight even more with the strength you provided us with this election.” Then, Erdoğan mentioned his future plans for Turkey, emphasizing that “Turkey has no moment to waste, we know that.”

It is important to understand that AK Party votes declined compared to Novem-ber 2015 elections in all of the regions except Southeast Turkey. In some provinces, AK Party lost more than 7% of its votes from November 2015. The only provinces that AK Party successfully increased its votes were mostly Kurdish populated South-eastern provinces. This demonstrated a trend since the November 2015 elections. Both in November 2015 and April 2017 referendum, AK Party were able to increase its votes and its number of seats in the parliament in the region. For instance, in provinces such as Diyarbakir, Bitlis, Hakkari and Sirnak. Although there are differ-ent explanations for this trend, the residents of these regions seem to be expecting more service from the AK Party in the region. The operations against the terrorist groups in the region might have increased the confidence of the voters for the AK Party and its determination to crack down on the groups that also generated social and economic pressure over the society.

There are different explanations provided for the swing of the AK Party votes to MHP in the elections. First of all, some experts interpreted that former AK Party voters, who were not comfortable with the current AK Party policies but at the same time reluctant to vote for opposition voted for MHP.23 Nevertheless, former AK Par-ty voters did not intend to prevent the People Alliance from gaining the majority in the parliament.24 It was also observed that in the metropolitan cities, young people

22. Kate Lyons, Verity Bowman, and Jon Henley, “Turkey elections 2018: Erdoğan Declared Winner - As It Hap-pened,” Guardian, June 24, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/jun/24/turkey-elections-muhar-rem-ince-recep-tayyip-erdogan-polls-live-updates-2018.

23. İpek Özbey, “Konda Genel Müdürü Bekir Ağırdır Sonuçları Değerlendirdi… Hangi Oy Nereye Gitti?,” Hürri-yet, June 26, 2018, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/konda-genel-muduru-bekir-agirdir-sonuclari-degerlendir-di-hangi-oy-nereye-gitti-40877223.

24. “NTV Türkiye’nin Seçimi Özel - İhsan Aktaş, Mahmut Övür, Bekir Ağardır, Tanju Tosun,” June 25, 2018, accessed June 27, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWW04teRE5Q&t=6038s.


38

tended to vote for MHP and HDP, instead of AK Party and CHP. This has also been a trend in the last few elections. MHP and HDP are gaining the majority of the youth votes in the elections. 25

The biggest surprise of the election was the MHP getting 11.1% of the votes in the parliamentary elections. As seen above, with the exception of the research company ORC, none of the polls succeeded in predicting the votes gained by MHP in the actual June 24th election. MHP had received 11.9% of the votes in the par-liamentary elections on November 2015. Although, after the foundation of the the new nationalist the IYI Party by the former MHP deputy Meral Akşener, it was pre-dicted that the votes of MHP would shift to the IYI Party. Almost doubling its elec-tion poll predictions the MHP has become a key party in Parliament. Many experts explained that there was a tendency among the voters to reward MHP for its stand in critical issue areas including the July 15th coup attempt and constitutional refer-endum. The conservative Anatolian AK Party voters shifted their preference towards the MHP in this election. Previous studies on the voting behavior of the MHP voters demonstrated that the party loyalty is a critical part of the voting behavior. Especially in Central and Eastern Anatolia, the expected shift from MHP to IYI Party did not take place due to this loyalty.

On the other hand, Akşener’s IYI Party got 10% in the parliamentary elections; while Akşener, as a presidential candidate, received 7.3% of the votes. When looking at the map IYI Party seems to attract the nationalist voters in the coastal areas such as Ad-ana and Antalya. The secular nationalist voters in the Western Anatolia, who vote for the CHP generally also voted for the IYI Party. Meral Aksener had a serious dilemma during the campaign period. On the one hand the branches of the IYI Party was formed by former MHP members and it has an ideologically nationalist base. However, Meral Aksener did not want to constrain herself with the nationalist base and wanted to have a larger audience that would include center right voters. She not only mentioned that despite her nationalistic background she became an MP with center right Dogru Yol Partisi but also expressed that Selahattin Demirtas should be released from the prison to campaign, which generated reaction from the nationalist base. However, despite her overtures she also failed to attract center right voters from the AK Party.

Receiving 11.7% of the parliamentary votes, HDP increased its votes by 1% compared to its 10.8% in the November 2015 elections. HDP’s high number of

25. İpek Özbey, “Konda Genel Müdürü Bekir Ağırdır Sonuçları Değerlendirdi… Hangi Oy Nereye Gitti?,” Hürri-yet, June 26, 2018, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/konda-genel-muduru-bekir-agirdir-sonuclari-degerlendir-di-hangi-oy-nereye-gitti-40877223.


39

votes was interpreted multiple different ways by experts. One of the most significant dimensions of these results was that HDP lost votes in all of the cities in its strong-hold in Turkey, namely in Southeastern Anatolia. In some of these cities the HDP also lost seats in the parliament. Particularly alarming for the HDP was the sharp decline in the votes of its presidential candidate Selahattin Demirtas. Coupled with the decline in votes in the parliamentary election in southeastern Turkey, the results in the southeast were interpreted as the reaction of the Kurdish voters to the HDP. Losing votes to AK Party in the southeastern region the HDP compensated this loss in the west with the help of the voters of the CHP. In all of the regions other than the southeast, HDP increased its votes.

TACTICAL VOTESThis election saw parties working together to ensure they met the threshold to be represented in parliament. The tactical voting took place mostly as a result of the presence of two elections at the same time. For the opposition the major target was the AK Party majority in the parliament and Erdogan’s presidency. Thus, the oppo-sition voters intended to unite behind a candidate that can force Erdogan for the second round and possibly defeat Erdogan at the ballot. Similarly, for some voters of the opposition priority of voting was to end the AK Party majority in the parlia-ment. HDP did benefit most from this tactical voting action. Some of the famous CHP sympathizers and opposition figures indicated that the HDP’s presence in the parliament is the only possible road to an AK Party minority in the parliament. The main reason was in the areas that HDP mostly gained seats in the parliament the second most powerful political party is AK Party. Thus, in the case of the HDP’s failure to pass the threshold a large portion of these seats would go to the AK Party, and provides AK Party to obtain a clear majority in the parliament. Some of the tac-tical votes provided to HDP not only aimed to help HDP to get in the parliament, but also represented the wish for HDP to become the only true “leftists party” in the parliament. The campaign of “one vote for Ince and one vote for HDP” has been successful since the HDP’s votes decreased while CHP increased. While the People’s Alliance still retained a coalition majority, AK Party did not receive a majority alone due to HDP’s ability to overcome the threshold rule. The success enjoyed by HDP made a loss of more than 60 seats in the parliament.26

26. Talha Köse, “Turkey’s Presidential And Parliamentary Elections: Many Winners, Few Losers,” TRT World, June 26, 2018, https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/turkey-s-presidential-and-parliamentary-elections-many-win-ners-few-losers-18454.


40

Similarly, parties shifted votes for the presidential election. MHP united behind Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the AK Party, which proved to be a successful alliance to ensure Erdogan won with a majority at 52.59%. The People’s Alliance secured 53.66% of the parliamentary votes, further showing that the majority of both parties voted from Erdogan in the presidential election. Muharrem Ince won 30.64% of the presidential votes, while his party CHP only won 22.64% of the parliamentary votes. The 8% difference demonstrates that party affiliations shifted in the presidential elec-tions as members of the IYI Party and SP voted for Ince and that CHP affiliates who voted for HDP in the parliamentary election still voted for their candidate in the presidential election. Thus the difference between party and candidate votes for the HDP and IYI Party demonstrated that the voters who voted for their own parties in the parliamentary elections preferred to vote for Ince in the presidential election. It was the continuation of the strategy of one for the HDP and one vote for Ince.

41

APPENDIX

The tables in the appendix compare the percents of both the presidential and parlia-mentary elections with the previous 2017 referendum, 2014 presidential elections, and 2015 general elections.

A P P E N D I X

43


44

A P P E N D I X

45


46

A P P E N D I X

47


48

KILIÇ BUĞRA KANAT

Kilic Bugra Kanat is the Research Director at the SETA Foundation at Washington DC. He is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Penn State University, Erie. Dr. Kanat received his PhD in Political Science from Syracuse University; a Master’s in Political Science from Syracuse University;a Master’s in International Affairs from Marquette University. He was awarded the Outstanding Re- search Award and Council of Fellows Faculty Research Award at Penn State, Erie. He participated in Future Leaders Program of Foreign Policy Initiative. Dr. Kanat’s writings have appeared in ForeignPolicy, Insight Turkey, The Diplomat, Middle East Policy, Arab Studies Quarterly, Mediterranean Quar-terly, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Stud- ies, and Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. He is a columnist at Daily Sabah. He is the author of A.Tale of Four Augusts: Obama’s Syria Policy

HASAN YUCELHasan Yücel completed his undergraduate studies in law at the Ankara University (2014), and hol-ds an LLM from College of Europe in Belgium (2015). He interned at the International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Netherlands for 8 months and worked as a researcher at the Beijing Normal University in China for 6 months. He joined the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands as an external PhD researcher in international law in 2016. He is currently working as a non-resident visiting researcher at SETA DC.

MEGHAN BACKERMeghan Backer received her master’s degree in International Affairs: Global Governance, Policy, and Security from American University. She received her bachelor’s degree from The Ohio State University in International Affairs and Spanish with a focus on Western European Studies. Meghan’s research interests include international security, international development, human security, refuge-es, and politics and history in the MENA region and Europe.

THE

RESU

LTS

OF

JUN

E 24

, 201

8 EL

ECTI

ON

S



On June 24, 2018, Turkey held its first simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, welcoming in a new government system. These elections saw the formation of alliances and the use of tactical voting to ensure parties reached the necessary threshold to gain se-ats in Parliament. Through this new system, there was an increase in members of parliament, a newly established political party gaining seats in parliament, and a more diversified age range of members due to the age requirement being lowered for members to 18.

The alliance system brought about a new way for parties to campa-ign, as the opposition united behind a common goal to gain more traction against Erdogan. With multiple candidates vying for the presidency and multiple parties running for parliamentary seats, Turkey saw large rallies attracting supporters and non-supporters alike. Excitement spread through Turkey, leading to a high voter tur-nout that elected Erdogan as President and gave the AK Party the highest proportion of seats in parliament, with its alliance gaining a majority in parliament.


ANKARA • İSTANBUL • WASHINGTON D.C. • KAHİRE

REPORT



REPORT

9 789752 459946

the results of june 24, 2018 elections the results of … · 2018-08-16 · dogu perincek both...

Documents