The fact that President Rauf Denktash backed the parties supporting the status quo, and the fact that he gave speeches at the election rallies like a party militant, caused him to lose his objectivity. This fact could be expected to bring along another debate.
Denktashs situation
Denktash won the 2000 elections by getting 43 percent of the votes in the first round of voting. This, along with the fact that he lost his objectivity, may lead to the questioning of the presidents legitimacy.
Denktash may have guessed such a debate could begin, and may have deliberately chosen to increase instability in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) until May 1, 2004. Denktashs approach and attitude from now may lead to the questioning of his own legitimacy.
The opposition in Cyprus used to get a maximum of 40 percent of votes in every election up to now, throughout history. The Turkish government did not openly interfere in the elections to undermine support for the opposition, but it is known that anti-solution lobbies in Turkey were in the streets of Cyprus before the elections trying to influence voters.
In this respect, elections in Cyprus were also a destiny choice for such circles. Intellectual circles called on the people to support Denktash even through publishing newspaper ads. Although elections were not directly about Denktash, both himself, and those who love him, dragged Denktash into this competition.
Going beyond the Annan Plan
This was good in a way: The people showed their determination for a solution even though Denktash supported an anti-solution approach. While the parties in support of the status quo spread fear and intimidated the people, the pro-solution parties did not succeed in going beyond discussions about the Annan Plan in their election campaign.
However, if they had been able to make statements that went beyond the Anna Plan, the elections could have resulted in a much stronger victory for them. Even though this tactic is wrong, it does affect the elections.
The fact that the pro-status quo parties used up state sources for the elections, also played an important role in the result of the elections.
Transferring lawmakers
What will these elections lead to? First of all, Denktash may appoint the pro-status quo parties to form the government, saying he does not trust the pro-solution parties.
This may lead to arguments. The pro-status quo parties may transfer one or two lawmakers from the pro-solution parties and form the government.
This scenario of course, could lead to a crisis. However, this development would be completely in line with Denktashs attitude during the elections.
Three-party coalition
The second scenario is that, Denktash may appoint Mehmet Ali Talat, the head of the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) to form the government. Since the pro-solution parties do not have enough seats in the parliament to form the government by themselves, Talat would have to pull in Democratic Party and form a three-party coalition.
In this case, the pro-solution parties may attempt to take initiatives toward a solution although they would be in a coalition they do not really prefer.
If Denktash resigns
The third scenario is that, Denktash may resign and put presidential elections on the agenda. This would lead to a search for a negotiator instead of a search for a solution before May 1, 2004.
Such a development would force the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government to get involved in the issue. AKP still does not have a clear attitude toward solution in Cyprus.
In such a case, the Cyprus problem would become deadlocked and Turkey-European Union (EU) relations would be negatively affected.
Early elections?
It is possible to say that none of these three scenarios would be able to prevent a future crisis.
The pro-status quo parties may attempt to waste time so that there is no solution before May 1, 2004, and new elections are held after Greek Cypriots join the EU.
In that case, pro-solution parties, that aimed Europe in spring, and Peace, would not be able to do much.
Failing to join together
The fact that the opposition parties failed to act together in these elections, probably prevented them from gaining a clear victory over the pro-status quo parties.
The pro-peace and pro-solution parties should have joined forces for the elections. The mass pro-Annan plan demonstrations by the Turkish Cypriots who were in support of peace were a clear sign of that.
The failure of the pro-peace parties to join forces for the elections negatively affected the success of those who were in support of peace. The fact that such a strong peace movement could not gather under a single list, may have caused a historic opportunity to fade away.
Some may argue such a move would cause polarization. But these elections lead to a polarization anyway. Joint action in this case may have lead to the creation of a greater power. Debates at this point would affect future developments. (MH/NM)
_____________________________________________________
Assistant Associate Professor Dr. Mehmet Hasguler, Canakkale, 18 Mart University, International Relations Department.
