Is the triumphant victory for Tayyip Erdogan a defeat for the West?

Read More

It almost seemed like the end of an era for Tayyip Erdogan, after the first round of elections. The opposition political parties, which consisted of at least six major parties ganged up on the strong man of Türkiye and prevented him from securing an outright victory during the first round of elections. 

This performance by the opposition coalition was unprecedented and historic, considering the preeminence of President Erdogan in contemporary Turkish politics. 

According to their electoral system, the president of Türkiye must be elected directly by the people with a simple majority of more than 50% of the popular vote. The reign of Erdogan has seen massive changes for better or for worse, both in issues of governance and geopolitical establishment of Türkiye. 

Up until the referendum of 16 April 2017, the presidency was nothing but a ceremonial seat of power in a parliamentary system of governance. But today this is a different story. 

The real executive powers since 2018 reside in the person at the helm of the presidential system of governance. This was after Erdogan narrowly won the controversial referendum with 51.4% yes votes to 48.6% no votes as published by APCO in “The 2017 Turkish Constitutional Referendum” (Gungen, 19 April 2017). 

Among the many issues of contention during this referendum, the issue of 1.7% invalid votes ignited much debate and generated dissent.

Despite Erdogan being at the helm of power for 20 years, he still managed to come through this year’s heavily contested general election. However, the opposition coalition led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu had put up a fight like no other. 

First and foremost, they stopped Erdogan from comfortably acquiring the needed threshold, and forced a run-off in two weeks after the initial election date of 14 May. This act almost relegated Erdogan to the political dustbin of Turkish politics. Unfortunately, the opposition coalition came tumbling down on 28 May, when the sultan of Istanbul prevailed with 52.1% of the total votes cast, while his opponent secured only 47.8% in an election that recorded an impressive 85% voter turnout.

Most political pundits and geopolitical analysts from the West saw the performance of the united opposition in the first round of elections as a significant opportunity to stop Erdogan in his tracks and retire him from active politics.

The run-off provoked mixed reactions. However, the lessons to be learned about elections in Türkiye cannot be ignored by anyone. The coming together of opposition political party leaders attempting to stop what they called an authoritarian rule of the president is an important lesson. 

Even though the Nation Alliance did not win the election, the unity of purpose they displayed is admirable. The mature way in which they conducted campaigns and their selfless attitudes towards each other within an alliance of six political parties should not be overlooked. This is an example of how any serious united opposition front should go about forming coalitions and working together.  

Despite the allegations by his opponents that Kilicdaroglu was the puppet of the West, he stayed the course and focused on trying to win the election. However, towards the finishing line, it became increasingly clear that Kilicdaroglu got a bit desperate as the elections went to the run-off and started saying just about anything to secure votes — for example, his anti-immigrant rhetoric was uncalled for and unnecessarily extreme. 

The strategic location of Türkiye in the Middle East, as well as its membership to Nato made this election crucial, especially for the West. The leadership of Erdogan has been somewhat of a thorn in the flesh of Nato with regards to the war in Ukraine and later on the admission of other countries into the alliance, such as Sweden and Finland. 

There are many reasons why Türkiye vetoed the admission of Sweden and Finland to Nato, and among these is the complex relationship between Türkiye and Russia. This veto halts the seeming expansion of Nato eastward, towards the doorstep of the Russian Federation. 

The Foreign Policy Research Institute indicates that there are direct benefits accrued to Türkiye from Vladimir Putin for Erdogan’s manoeuvres within the alliance; for example, Russia provides Türkiye with energy and is building a nuclear reactor in Akkuyu, for which Moscow has recently provided Ankara with much-needed new financing. 

Thus, the seemingly fearless, tough and independent posture of Türkiye’s position in the region and within the alliance is worrisome for Western countries. Erdogan makes no apologies about his cordial relations with the president of the Russian Federation and is warming up to President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. 

This, of course, is not a popular position for anyone within or sympathetic towards Nato’s alliance.

It is against this background that several reports in the past suggested that the failed coup attempt of 2016 to topple Erdogan was orchestrated and supported by some Western countries. To occupy the office of president for a country at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, and at the same time be a member of Nato is no easy task. 

Interestingly, the re-election of Erdogan triggered celebrations of his victory in far-flung places such as Lebanon, Germany and even in the US (New Jersey) by his supporters and those of Turkish descent — a sign of his popularity and that of the People’s Alliance at home and abroad.

This election can serve as a learning experience, or even as a warning, for other political players across the globe.  

The Turkish election of 2023 broke all predictions and expectations. Usually, whenever people turn out in huge numbers during a general election, it serves as a sign that the people are unhappy with the status quo and therefore want change. Hence, to have recorded 85% voter turn-out and the incumbent retaining power is unprecedented. If anything, many would have drawn the conclusion that the people were going to overwhelmingly vote for change. 

This was not to be in this election, because in the first and second rounds Erdogan and his allies’ party, the People’s Alliance, prevailed. In the first round, the president only managed to get 49.4% of the votes, just slightly short of getting 50% to win. The People’s Alliance secured 52% in the second and final round of the election. 

Therefore, the correct reading of the huge turnout on voting day could be attributed to the assumption that most people are happy with the regime, and did not wish to take a chance on change.

Another valuable lesson is that during an election where no candidate secures 50% or more, as a required threshold in the first round of elections, the second round of that election may favour the incumbent. That is why it is very important for the opposition to be calculative and deliberate in any country that has a 50% +1 threshold as an electoral rule. 

Therefore, in an election where the opposition is fragmented and the incumbent is a strong candidate, there is no room for selfishness among the opposition candidates who have decided to form a coalition. 

A well-organised and united front is the only viable option for a feasible chance to defeat a strong and authoritarian regime. The opposition alliance of CHP and other parties led by Kilicdaroglu tried and performed very well, only falling short of victory itself. 

In the final analysis, President Erdogan will go down in history as one of the most consequential figures of the Turkish political establishment, and the region at large. He is indeed the sultan of Istanbul for many people within and outside the borders of his country.  

Aaron Ng’ambi is a geopolitical analyst and newspaper columnist, leadership instructor, and a social entrepreneur.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.