Türkiye’s elections spell what disaster, for whom?

As Türkiye is fast heading towards the elections, we are starting to hear loud and clear voices showing that the outcome of these elections is not limited to Türkiye. Let alone hear, some groups are directly and openly joining in the election campaigns like a party. Though this is disturbing particularly to the People’s Alliance, and in fact, seems like an intervention, all the anti-Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan comments have a valid excuse: The achievements and accumulation of power presented under Erdoğan’s leadership, and the impact of which is felt increasingly by the day in the international community during the AK Party’s 20-year rule.

It is thanks to these achievements and the power accumulation today that in terms of the elections, what happens in Türkiye does not stay in Türkiye. As a matter of fact, nothing that happens in Türkiye, in general, is limited to Türkiye. It is this reality that had the Washington Post (WP) to publish the headline, “the most important election” in reference to the elections in Türkiye – as will have an impact on world politics – meanwhile claiming that the results of the numerous elections taking place around the world in 2023 may be neglected.

The capacity of elections in one country to affect other countries, and international equilibriums is largely proof of that country’s power as well. Hence, the U.S. elections concern everyone, for example. WP openly mentions that much will change regardless of whether Erdoğan wins or not.

The U.S. and EU countries’ current leaders do not hesitate to wish defeat upon Erdoğan, because Erdoğan has had the audacity to almost halt NATO’s operation in favor of his own country. Yet, in an equation without Erdoğan, Türkiye wouldn’t have had the courage to use its right to veto in NATO; it would have been ignored, and the process there could have continued on like clockwork. In the meantime, NATO-member countries could have continued on with their support to terrorist countries against Türkiye, and joined the union despite this without being blocked by Türkiye’s veto.

Instead of appreciating Erdoğan’s effective leadership diplomacy in the Ukraine war, the WP additionally mentions concerns that all this power accumulation has taken Türkiye out of control. Interpreting these efforts as steering closer towards Russian President Vladimir Putin, rather than seeing it as a country seeking its own interests is their own illusion. They are the ones who make love to the devil when it suits their own interests.

Now, the Economist’s cover expressing its stance regarding Türkiye’s elections is being discussed. The magazine that illustrated President Erdoğan’s silhouette on the moon crescent on the Turkish flag, stated in its election analysis, “Türkiye is on the verge of disaster.” It is clear that whatever they are representing, Erdoğan winning the elections is a disaster for them, and they openly declare this.

But why should the public approval of a ruling government that has been ongoing for two decades for another five years through a democratic choice be a disaster in terms of the powers represented by the Economist? Do they think they will experience worse than what they have been experiencing in the last two decades?

Sure, Erdoğan has already shown through everything he has done in the last two decades what he will do. If he does win another five years in office, this will not be through his own authoritarian decision but through the people’s votes, in other words, via elections, the clearest manifestation of democracy. Why is this a disaster for the Economist, which claims it takes democracy as its basis, and those behind it?

The real disaster is that if Erdoğan wins, all the investments made in the opposition will go to waste. They thought this time round they really could remove Erdoğan, who they tolerated somehow because he took Türkiye out of their control for two decades. Yet, in the current picture, all these hopes appear to be in vain. They can see the opposition against Erdoğan promises no hope, and that they are not capable of ousting Erdoğan. After stating in the WP that the opposition presents no vision in the economy or any other field, the fact that Erdoğan is leading in the polls is stated with great disappointment.

The disaster the Economist sees is no different: The disappointment created by the opposition, which they supported and backed with investments, with respect to doing what they wanted.

More interestingly, an election campaign in Türkiye with these foreign actors' expectation packages will serve Erdoğan only.

Because what they openly want from Türkiye is a greater concession in NATO, in relations against Greece, in the East Mediterranean, in relations with the EU, in the fight against terrorism, to stop its investments in the defense industry, and stop seeking different alliances to meet its own defense needs. While Erdoğan’s policy in all these areas has made Türkiye an important international power, which campaign can possibly win? Which promise based on making concessions in these areas can seem appealing or convincing to the Turkish public?

Surely this is not the first time the Economist has aligned with the opposition front in the elections against Erdoğan. It made similar outbursts in previous elections as well. But it had no impact on Türkiye’s elections.

The outcome of Türkiye’s elections may affect the whole world, but the Republic of Türkiye citizens alone will vote in these elections. This is the most important factor that the opposition seeking allies and support from outside Türkiye needs to remember.