Turkish presidential candidates’ economic pledges

There will be four candidates running for president. Each candidate has an entirely different character.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s election win seems certain in foreign media. All foreign media outlets sharing forecasts on the election result agree on this matter. They are publishing headlines along the lines of, “There is no leader who cannot be removed from power, except for Erdoğan.” Türkiye’s economy being in a much better state at the current conjuncture than other economies that are considered to be very strong may have a role in the background.

President Erdoğan is not really focusing on making economic pledges. He is showing reference what he has done to date for what more he will do. He is not resorting to election populism in the economy. He is focusing on problem-solving, and thus concretizing his policy. He avoids using non-existing problems as a political tool (such as hot money flow from abroad). His discourses are not ramblings. He is acting with the awareness that there is no problem he cannot solve. In addition, his alliance partners are supporting the trust in him with their attitude. They refrain from adopting an empty promise policy. They contribute to the solution will.

One other important matter is that President Erdoğan is offering economic actors a longer-term vision than four years only. This is an important detail for those for whom the economy is a determining factor in their vote. Being able to look into the future facilitates making decisions and career plans for generations.

The main opposition Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) presidential candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and the table of seven’s approach is the contrary. There is no vision. The likelihood of political crises big enough to lead to snap elections arising among the alliance even if they win reflects on the table partners’ discourses. It can’t even be said that those wanting to plan for the future are presented with a forecast for even four years. Every alliance partner, with the exception of the Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP), is making conflicting statements to imply they are strong economically. The candidate, on the other hand, is making populist pledges reminiscent of the 1990s. These discourses cannot be concretized either. He is focusing on non-existing problems such as bringing in money from abroad. While promising retirees a bonus payment equivalent to the minimum wage, the minimum wage earners’ July pay rise expectation is left in the lurch. The discourses involve tractors, housing, visas, unnecessary staff. Additionally, it is promised that investments such as atom energy, which have taken years, will cease. Bayraktar, health investments, among many others are listed as the achievements that will be affected (in fact, when the rate of Türkiye's health expenses against the gross domestic product is 5 percent, while the same rate is about 10 percent in developed economies).

In fact, all this false irritation is happening as the table of seven’s discourse appears to be based solely on the economy. If the table of seven had first agreed on the economy table before their presidential candidate, they may have progressed a little more consistently. At this rate, even their voters do not hesitate to say, “the economy will hit rock bottom in the even the seven-party candidate is elected.” It is perhaps because such comments are overlooked that the table of seven electorates attach no importance to the candidate. If the alliance sees this as a weakness, they can contemplate a solution.

Furthermore, though they see the economy as an important lever for election performance, they are carrying this into areas that cannot be opposed for the sake of balances within the alliance. For example, they are making discourses that appear to be against the foreign policy balance, which is almost perfect after the mon cher discussion. Accepting Sweden into NATO, siding with Ukraine, leaving Libya, and especially being lifeblood to the wiped-out Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) for the love of praise, while the public generally agrees with the existing policies on such matters, and sees them as national matters, developing a contrary discourse may also be the result of the failure to establish plausibility in the economy.

Meanwhile, Muharrem İnce and Sinan Oğan, who are running for president on the condition of 100,000 signatures, appear to be focusing on strategically indirect rather than direct solutions under the economy headline. They claim that solving the political and social matters they acknowledge as problems will have a positive effect on the economy.

For example, İnce claims he can indirectly support the private sector by focusing on the education, defense, and health fields. This approach stands against the table of seven, which is seen to push back defense and health and brings competition to the People’s Alliance.

Oğan, on the other hand, is focusing on the indirect effect of the desire for a change in the migrant policy on the economy. He claims that a Türkiye cleansed of migrants will ensure more effective employment opportunities and social expenditures.

In brief, the electorates are well aware of the composition presented by the candidates, and the resulting three general styles.

I am trying to have a somewhat opinion on the behaviors of voters from different income groups and economic capacities as well. Those who have investments in Türkiye, in other words, the business world, see the alliance of seven parties’ victory as a misfortune. They determined that hotel prices during the election week are quite affordable, and they consider this as a good holiday opportunity. Of course, I am sharing this determination on the condition that voting should be encouraged. The low-income group, on the other hand, wants consistency. As they have problems, they pay attention to who might be able to show a solution determination.

As a matter of fact, assuming the economy will be central to preferences is a Marxist approach that bases an expectation on the low-income group. But as Türkiye cannot be read in terms of class, and as the low-income group is affected more ideologically than economically, this assumption includes who the candidate is in the analysis. Frankly, it seems President Erdoğan would very easily win such an election if he ran in the opposition.

The upcoming election might be the clearest election about how President Erdoğan’s style is superior to his opposition, who run towards defeat in every election.