What type of a coalition should be formed?

It is reported that Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu's desire is to try a coalition first and foremost. My observations regarding the Prime Minister is also in the same direction.

Taking into consideration political stability and the lack of reconciliation culture in Turkey, there is no doubt that a single-party government is the most preferable. However, new elections which would be carried out do not guarantee such a picture. Furthermore, even if it does, it could give the conclusion that the single party majority government could conceal, rather than resolve the flaws –which were pointed by the electorate, and virtually felt at all levels-.

As a matter of fact, single-party governments can produce distress, issues, and extremities after a while, due to overconfidence. The AK Party experienced this story and as a result, it lost votes when the electorate saw this and punished them.

The coalition reality facing Turkey could be approached from this perspective.

Without a doubt, the ability to create a coalition government and its success will be good for the polarization disease in the country, and furthermore create a crucial first step towards the need for “reconciliation” and “construction.”

The conditions for a coalition are not an easy feat at all, while expectations are either “revanchist” or have a “single truth”. The accusations are at their maximum with corruption and conspiracy; likewise polarization is also at its maximum, while the directions regarding foreign policy are different and two opposite parties, such as the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) came out of the elections with more strength.

However, despite all of this, the coalition talks and attempts have a chance and perhaps from this perspective there is an opportunity in front of Turkey based on the reasons I highlighted above.

What type of a coalition would this be? More so, what type of a coalition should this be?

It is not possible to form a coalition without the AK Party, and it would not be right to form one without it.

Abstract political conditions do not exist for the three opposition parties to come together, at least when the Kurdish issue is taken into consideration. At the most, it does not seem possible for a structure, which is fixed on getting revenge with the AK Party, to be imagined as running after a periodic has-been and a candidate for creating known state crises by clashing with the presidency.

Let's talk about the options…

The same way the HDP does not want an AK Party-HDP alliance, the AK Party does not want this either, as it does not trust the Kurdish movement and would conceive this situation as a threat to its votes and its perish. With the exception of the resolution process, the themes of these two parties from foreign to domestic politics do not coincide, and if they do, they will make Turkey ungovernable.

A coalition between the AK Party and the MHP is, of course, possible. Even if the two parties, which are ideologically close to each other, agree on issues including corruption and the position of the president, such a coalition would result in a new statist and security-focused “right-wing” wave. While the most important issues in Turkey are fundamental rights and freedoms, democracy, and rule of law, and while the resolution process had become an inseparable part of democratic stability, the stability created by such a coalition would only be on paper.

The last possibility left is a coalition between the AK Party and the Republican People's Party (CHP). It is evident that such a coalition would be supported by the society, the business world, and the international arena. Such a coalition –whose existence would even indicate a state of reconciliation- could focus on the resolution of the Kurdish issue, a preparation for a constitutional change, the revision of the judicial system in line with the qualification basis, the bases of the rule of law in fighting the parallel structure and principles for transparency.

The obstacles in front of such a model – which has wide-legitimacy and distributes risks in a proportional manner-, seem negotiable.

Which ones and how?

To be continued tomorrow…