In the local elections of 29 March, it was the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) which increased its share of the votes by the highest percentage. The party received 16.07 percent of the province municipal council votes, a 5.62 percent increase compared to the local elections of 2004, and a 1.8 percent increase compared to the general elections of 2007.
Bahçeli called for more compromise
MHP party chair Devlet Bahçeli has evaluated the result thus: “All parties and politicial institutions, especially the ruling party, must carefully interpret the message of the polls. The policies of the new period must be based on more compromise, more collaboration and more mutual respect.”
Journalist and writer Tanıl Bora, known for his work on nationalism, points to several factors which have contributed to the increase in support for the MHP.
Successful grass roots campaign: Ever since Bahçeli has been the chair of the MHP, there has been great care taken with organisational work on the ground. The success in 1999 which made the party part of the coalition government was also based on patient grass roots work.
A move to the centre: The rise in votes is also due to the fact that the MHP does not only appeal to the more extreme nationalists, but has succeeded in becoming a party closer to the centre, receiving the support of people with more general nationalist sentiments. Of course this forces us to think about the importance of nationalism in the political centre. The ubiquity of nationalism in current politics has perhaps robbed the MHP of its monopoly, but it still benefits from being a “registered trade mark”.
Candidates: There were many candidates in these elections that did not look like typical MHP supporters. The most striking example was Mansur Yavaş, mayoral candidate for the Greater Ankara Municipality. On the one hand, the young, mostly male, members of the nationalist “Hearths of Ideals” (Ülkü ocakları) organisations form the core of the MHP; on the other hand, many candidates displayed a different line in both manner and content of speech, distance to radical political action, and concern for local issues. It has been said that the Ülkü ocakları were accused of being “bland” by their base. But it was a successful strategy.
Local reactions to Kurds: Ever since the mid-90s, the MHP has moved beyond its “classic constituencies” of Central Anatolia to the coasts of the Aegean and the Mediterranean.The support there has increased. One of the reasons for this support is local reactions to and fears about displaced Kurds living in small clusters in these areas, in terms of having to share scarce resources and competing for work.
Apart from in Izmir, the CHP also used this anti-Kurdish sentiment to get support.
AKP and DP lost votes
Together with the Democratic Party (DP), which received 3.72 percent of the province municipal votes, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) was the only party to lose points in this election.
CHP is laicist-nationalist
The Republican People’s Party (CHP), so Bora, is not a social democrat, but a laicist-nationalist party. While the party managed to attract the votes of the socially marginalised in some cities, such as in Izmir, it is still mostly a party of the “white Turks”, i.e. the priviledged. Bora argues that the party management is still far from applying social democratic policies.
The left is not strong
On 29 March, the Labour Party (EMEP) and the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP) won in one district municipality each. According to Bora, the left in Turkey has not been important in any elections since 1991. While a few victories of the left may represent some hope, there is no indication of a strong orientation towards left politics. (TK/AG)
