Kılıçdaroğlu assesses post-election Turkey

CHP General Chair Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu said that, thanks to having lost his parliamentary majority, the 52% vote President Tayyip Erdoğan received does not signify that he will be able to manoeuvre very easily and indicated that, “He needs to make a coalition.” Intimating that he will speak face-to-face with Muharrem İnce in the coming days, Kılıçdaroğlu received journalists who cover him in his office following the 24 June elections.

-What do you think about Soylu’s proclamation?

We don’t take Soylu particularly seriously. He isn’t a minister to be taken seriously, in fact. For a minister who is supposed to ensure security to engage in provocation is a tragedy by itself. This is the point that basically needs to be dwelled on. Secondly, did Süleyman Soylu say this himself or did some people put him up to it? If somebody got Soylu to say it, this is the first step of a chaos plan, a plan for domestic conflict in Turkey. This will aid both FETO and the PKK. This rhetoric is rhetoric of service to the PKK. Soylu wishes to divide and separate a society that the PKK has been unable to separate and divide in 35 years. Soylu is clearly aiding the PKK. Soylu is being used. Looking at where he has been politically, he is a person who lends to himself to being used. He is figure in pursuit of self-interest. He is a figure who is looking whether a new space will open for him with this rhetoric. So, attention needs to be given to the person who got Soylu to articulate these sentences and not to Soylu.

-On election night, a person got up and said, “I have spoken to İnce on the phone. Don’t go anywhere. We will march on the Supreme Election Council.”

You need to be on your guard against provocateurs in such places. That was most probably another provocateur. I don’t think Mr İnce said any such thing as, “Don’t go away. We’re marching.” If he were to say it, anyway, he would come out and do so. There is a need to find him. The identity of those who staged the attack on the CHP’s wreath in Bursa also needs to be looked into very well. They may have been guided provocateurs. Our Bursa Provincial Chair’s Office will make the necessary endeavours in this regard.

-There was footage of guns being fired on election day. There was also footage showing that very different things could possibly have happened that night.

A group including women firing the guns they were holding on election night and wishing to stage what in their eyes was a victory celebration by firing guns is a horrific spectacle. The moment this spectacle presents itself, the security forces must intervene. You will notice that the security forces moved into action one day later when the event made it into the media. There is a need to dwell on this. Society needs detailed information about this affair. This information cannot be given to Soylu, because he doesn’t have this administrative power. There is a need to find the man behind him who winds up the clockwork.

-There was an announcement from the AKP people before the election saying, “We’ll get out the hidden weapons.” Taking all this in combination, how should it be read? Does conflict beckon in the days to come?

The collapse of the meritocratic system in the state and the rendering functionless of the judiciary have brought concerns over safety of life and property very much to the fore. People have begun to arm themselves privately and form private protection teams to ensure their own safety of life and property. In fact, it has reached the point where arms were said to be buried in the Belgrade Forests and the person making that statement is not somebody uneducated. A novel approach to arming has been embarked on consciously for some time. Everyone is taking measures to ensure their own safety of life and property, because they are of the opinion that the state will not take measures. The person who first and foremost feels concern over the state’s inability to ensure security is Erdoğan. There are the Turkish Armed Forces and there is the Turkish Police Force. These two organisations are both the apple of all of our eyes. We criticise them from time to time, but the army, gendarmerie and police are the apple of all of our eyes as an existential necessity of the state. You cast all of these to one side and set up a separate security structure called SADAT at the Palace. This in one sense creates a philosophy that does not trust the Republic of Turkey State. It says, “I do not trust the Republic of Turkey’s security forces and military. I am setting up special mechanisms, special units to ensure my own safety.” Citizens look on and the person holding the office of state wielding most authority is creating special units to ensure his own safety. He does not trust the police, military and gendarmerie. And they then say, “I need to arm, too. Who am I to trust?” The basic factor that encourages armament is lack of trust felt in the state’s security forces being instilled at the top.

“He will be unable to manoeuvre easily”

Saying that President Erdoğan had only been able to get 52% of the vote with the MHP’s support, CHP leader Kılıçdaroğlu said, “Erdoğan needs a coalition. He no longer has independent will.”

-On the Nation Alliance axis, how do you assess the parliamentary arithmetic that has come into being following the elections?

There is in fact a dual structure in parliament. First, the Ak Party has lost its majority in parliament. So, the ensuing result is obligatory cooperation. In this result, the Ak Party will continue on its way with the MHP. This is how things stack up in our eyes. Indeed, the MHP did not field a presidential candidate and it will not put up a candidate for parliamentary speaker, either. The Ak Party’s expectations were thus in a sense not fulfilled. It has lost its majority on the commissions and the structure on the commissions will thus have changed in a sense. While discussing statutes on the technical commissions, cooperation between the Ak Party and the MHP will most probably continue. The other parties will, if it is in Turkey’s favour, lend support and there will be no problem anyway, but, if it is to Turkey’s detriment, they will oppose it according to their own world views. So, I see the Ak Party being unable to find itself as untrammelled as it has in past legislative periods. The second is the presidency. Erdoğan’s party got 42% and he himself was propelled to 52% with the MHP’s support. The 52% does not does not signify that he will be able to manoeuvre very easily due to having lost the majority in parliament. He will have to look out there for the regulations he makes at decree level. He will shape and conclude those decrees taking account of the structure in parliament and make them known to the public within this framework. A point that merits initial attention will be the kind of cabinet and deputies that Erdoğan appoints. This is important. The ministers and deputy presidents he appoints, whether from inside or outside parliament or both from inside and outside parliament, will provide the indication of what Erdoğan wants to do.

“He needs the MHP”

Erdoğan needs to make a coalition. As to whether this will be an MHP-AKP coalition or a wider political base will be formed, we will have to wait and see. Erdoğan may wish, with the thought of creating that wide political base, to give the message, “OK, I’ve been elected but I’ve created a wider political base not just with the MHP. So, I’m setting out with the thought of embracing all segments of society.” Erdoğan cannot bring this endeavour to fruition without obtaining the MHP’s approval. Erdoğan no longer has independent will because he must get the MHP’s 100% approval while creating both the deputy presidents and the cabinet.

-There has been talk such as, “Bahçeli has been directing Erdoğan for a long time and acts thinking he’s the state.” Is this really so, or is the description “spare tyre” correct?

It doesn’t appear very correct to me to make comments in this regard because all these details will probably anyhow come to light within 15-20 days.

-Will Erdoğan make a fresh move in parliament so as not to be in need of the MHP? Like the Good Party?

Transfers of MPs do a discredit to democracy. A person who is elected leaving the party they were elected from and becoming an MP for another party is a betrayal of the citizens whose votes they gained. It doesn’t seem right to me for MP markets to be opened.

Meeting with İnce

-The election has finished. The CHP is being spoken about on TV programmes and the AKP is not. You could have done things to halt this. Why has there still been no face-to- face meeting?

We spoke on the phone but have not come into personal contact. We will do so. We have no hesitation about this. We also spoke on the phone on election night. Mr İnce has gone on holiday and we will speak after the holiday.

“Local election prospects inspire hope”

-What is your forecast for the local elections?

These results inspire us with hope over the local elections. The way things look to me at first glance is that we’ll get a good result in the local elections. We may take Ankara, İstanbul, Denizli, Balıkesir, Antalya, Mersin and Adana as I have said before. I have no hesitation here

-For two days you have been saying let’s get to work on the local elections. What kind of strategy will you contest them under?

We’ll determine this by first holding polls. There is a difference between parliamentary lists and local authority candidates. With parliamentary candidates, citizens vote far more for their party. The picture changes with local authorities. If they are satisfied with the mayor, they go and vote for the mayor. Or, if the candidate has displayed success, their stance has conveyed a warm message and they do a good job of influencing them, they may vote for them. The first thing we’ll do is to pick the local authority candidates as early as possible and make them know to the public. We’ll say, “This is our mayoral candidate. Go out and campaign, brother” without awaiting the Supreme Election Council timetable.

-If there’s a situation of the local elections being brought forward.

This cannot happen and the reason is that the Constitution would need to change. So, they must be in eight months.

-There are elections for parliamentary speaker. Could the Nation Alliance put up a joint candidate?

We’ll put up our candidate. We’ll determine our own policy in this context. If need be we’ll talk. We have no such thing. The Nation Alliance must maintain its presence in parliament, within the context of joint principles. Every party can of course express its own view within the joint principles.

-Will the leaders come together to assess the election?

Let’s first get this swearing-in done and then they most probably feel the need for an analytical study. There is a need to sit down and think again in this context.