Just one day after the meeting of the six-party opposition table in Turkey, and in anticipation of another meeting scheduled after only a few days, the head of the Good Party, Meral Aksener, went out in a press conference after a meeting with the leaders of her party to announce that she did not approve the nomination of the head of the Republican People's Party and opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu for the presidential elections. table harmonic filter.
beyond the elections
For political parties and their leaders in particular, the desired or expected outcome of the elections is not the only criterion by which they formulate their positions and decisions.
Post-election outcomes are sometimes heavier in the decision-maker’s balance than their results, whether with regard to the party’s position in political life or the position of the party’s leader in it, i.e. accounts of budgets and finances within and between parties.
Therefore, for example, in the 2018 elections, opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu presented his traditional rival in the party, Muharram Ince, as a candidate for the presidential elections, "to lose to Erdogan as well," and then lose his strongest card against him within the party, while the latter accepted the candidacy with the aim of weakening the first in the leadership of the party and his succession in it.
In the elections themselves, Meral Aksener also thwarted the idea of a consensus candidate when she insisted on running to maximize her party's chances in the parliamentary elections, which is what happened.
Kılıçdaroğlu could market his reversal in his decision as giving priority to the public interest represented by the unity of the six-party table and then winning the elections, recalling some of his previous statements of his desire to retire in the coming period and his lack of intention to continue in political work.
For similar reasons, Kilicdaroglu resolutely refuses to nominate a mayor from within his party for the presidency of the state, as that may mean losing his position, and mayors refuse to run without the will of their party and its president so as not to risk their positions in the municipality and the party.
By the same logic, it is possible to understand the extent to which the new small parties on the political scene, especially those that defected from the Justice and Development Party, are linked to the Republican People’s Party and its decision, as their entry into parliament and their survival in political life after the elections depend to a large extent on it.
Returning to Aksener, despite the importance of the elections to her, her main goal is to make her party the largest of the opposition parties and perhaps of all political parties under the dome of the next parliament on the one hand, and to inherit the Nationalist Movement Party after the departure of its elderly president, Devlet Bahceli, on the other hand, and to represent the center-right movement on the one hand. third.
With regard to the elections themselves, Aksener wants to remain in the position of "kingmaker", by specifying the name of the consensus candidate for the six-party table, so she will have this credit for electing the president, and her support for Yavas and Imamoglu was one of the most important reasons for their victory in the municipal elections in 2019.
Options
Officially, Aksener did not announce her party's withdrawal from the six-party table, but the content, style, and formulations of her words mean that in practice.
However, this does not seem inevitable or a final decision.
From the moment she announced her party's position, the political scene in Ankara ignited, and statements, statements, and meetings accelerated in order to search for a solution to the dilemma in which she put the coordination framework of the opposition.
Here, the six-party table appears - until now - and with it the good party led by Akshnar before several possible options or scenarios, the most important of which are:
One, the return of the Good Party to the Hexagonal Table.
This seems like a very weak possibility after all that Akshnar said about the heads of the other five parties, led by Kılıçdaroğlu, from giving personal interests over the interest of the nation to trying to impose certain options away from the collective mind and consultation, but it is certainly still an option, especially after the initial position he took. It was issued by Yavas and Imamoglu, which included their rejection of the idea of running for the presidency “outside the will of the head of our party,” Kilicdaroglu.
Therefore, the two men can play the role of mediation between Aksener and the six-party table, given their good relations with both of them, in addition to their symbolic position as potential candidates, and other parties can play the same role, which is very expected.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that there will be a consensus within the good party on the decision to leave the six-party table. If Aksener faces strong opposition within her party, this will be one of the motives for the return.
The second option is to specify the name of a different candidate, meaning that the good party will return to the six-party table, but on the basis of choosing a candidate other than Kilicdaroglu, Yavash (the most likely), Imamoglu, or others, and perhaps from outside the six-party table and/or its parties.
This is also a remarkably unlucky option, because Kilicdaroglu will appear as if he had come down to Akshnar's desire, which will appear stronger than him, and this will be rejected by him and his party alike.
However, it remains a possible option if one or some of the parties of the six-party table back down from supporting his candidacy, or pressure within the Republican People's Party results in him withdrawing his candidacy, or he concludes from the consultations that he is conducting that finding an alternative to a good party will not be easy to reach.
If this was an option, Kilicdaroglu could this time market his retreat as giving priority to the public interest represented by the unity of the six-party table and then winning the elections, recalling some of his previous statements of his desire to retire in the coming period and his lack of intention to continue in political work.
The third option is for the good party to remain outside the six-party table.
This likely option, which will turn it into a “five-party table” in principle, contributes to the sharpness with which Akshnar formulated her position, the accusations she leveled against other parties, the trust gap that deepened, the difficulty of getting off the tree, and the positions of the four other parties that seem to remain on their position on the candidacy Kilicdaroglu, who started looking for an alternative to the already good party.
This alternative may be some left-wing parties, led by the Peoples' Democratic Party, which may not join - and it is difficult for it to join the table officially, but it can support Kilicdaroglu by not presenting a candidate of his own or by his alliance, significantly increasing his chances.
In such a case, the good party will have to present its own presidential candidate, this time it may be Aksener herself or any other personality, and it may enter into a new alliance with some other small parties.
Indeed, the party's approach to the Justice and Development Party and the People's Alliance may be a possible option, especially if it appears that the Democratic Peoples will support Kilicdaroglu, even if its formal joining of the ruling coalition is very unlikely.
Finally, there is no doubt that the great disagreement that erupted between the opposition circles, specifically the six-party table, has been remarkably deducted from the balance of the table and demonstrated the competition and the inability to understand and coordinate between them, just weeks away from the fateful elections, and this is certainly in the interest of President Erdogan.
However, this does not necessarily mean that he won in the first round, because the opposition's presentation of more than one candidate (as it appears to happen) increases the chances of indecisiveness in the first round and resorting to a run-off in the presidential elections.
It is logical and expected that the run-off will be subject to the logic of negotiation, bargaining, and conclusion of deals between the various parties, a matter whose outcome and impact on the outcome of the elections cannot be determined from now, as all possibilities remain open, including the possibility of an alliance of some of today's opponents.