Analysis
April 19, 2011
Summary: On June 12, 2011,
Turkey will hold parliamentary
elections, the outcome of which
will determine whether the ruling
AKP can gain enough seats to
change the Turkish constitution
by itself or whether such an
effort will require the effective
participation of other parties.
In this analysis piece, Prof.
İlter Turan sheds light on the
particularities of the upcoming
elections in Turkey in terms of
the electoral system, candidate
designation, and the criteria
used by political parties while
determining their candidates.
Prof. Turan also discusses how all
parties, because of the pressure
to increase the number of
women and young persons and
the need to expand the basis on
which they try to build a winning
coalition, have introduced major
changes in their candidate lists.
Offices
Washington, DC • Berlin • Paris • Brussels
Belgrade • Ankara • Bucharest
The Prelude to an Election:
Turkish Political Parties Name Candidates
by İlter Turan
The excitement surrounding the
news of who will get on party tickets
for Turkey’s June 12 parliamentary
elections lasted until the evening of
Monday April 11, when parties handed
district lists to the High Board of
Elections, and has now been replaced
by joy, celebration, frustration,
protests, resignations, and a variety of
emotional outbursts by the aspirants.
Due to the peculiarities of the Turkish
electoral system, the composition of
the next legislature is already estab-
lished, give or take a few. What still
needs to be known is whether each
party will get the percentages the polls
predict and how many seats parties
will win in the elections. Turkey is
entering two months of intense elec-
toral competition. The outcome may
well influence how the Turkish polit-
ical system takes shape in the future.
As Turkey enters an electoral period, it
may be useful to offer a brief descrip-
tion of the Turkish electoral system,
the process of candidate selection, an
appraisal of the candidates, and why
the outcome of the elections may prove
critical for the future of the Turkish
political system.
The Electoral System
The Turkish electoral system is based
on proportional representation. The
electoral districts are multi-member
districts that are co-terminous with the
country’s administrative subdivisions.
After 1983, those districts with major
concentrations of population, such as
Istanbul or Ankara, were divided into
two or three sub-districts to reduce
their excessive size. Parliamentary
seats are distributed among districts
by the High Board of Elections,
comprised of members of the judiciary,
on the basis of their population during
the most recent census. Because
administrative electoral districts are
of varying size, the number of depu-
ties sent by a district to the Grand
National Assembly varies between two
and thirty. And because each of the
81 provinces gets a seat before the rest
are distributed, smaller provinces are
somewhat over-represented.
The party ticket in each district
contains the rank-ordered names of
candidates. After the completion of
the vote count in each province, the
High Board of Elections determines
the parties that have reached the 10
percent national threshold. Seats
in each district are then distributed
Analysis
among these “qualified” parties using an arithmetical rank-
ordering formula based on the actual number of votes each
has gotten. This means that the candidates of major parties
with high rankings, particularly in larger districts, are
assured of being elected the moment nominations become
formal. During the elections, parties basically strive to get a
higher percentage of the vote than the previous election in
order to have candidates further down the list elected.
The Turkish electoral system
is based on proportional
representation.
The 10 percent national electoral threshold is said to be the
highest in the world. All parties talk about lowering it. But
because it allows over-representation of the bigger parties in
the legislature, they choose to retain it. The national elec-
toral threshold has guided parties that do not expect to get
10 percent of the vote to devise means to gain access to the
parliament. Until the 2007 elections, a small party usually
negotiated with a “host” party that was assured of receiving
more than 10 percent of the vote for a number of electable
slots. In return, the small party would not participate in
the elections, directing its voters to the host party. After the
elections, the deputies of the small party would resign from
the party under whose banner they had been elected and
return to their original party.
In the elections of 2007, the Democratic Society Party
(DTP), an ethnic Kurdish party, devised a new way for
getting around the national threshold by offering indepen-
dent candidates whose party affiliation was unmistakable.
Its candidates won in 19 districts, including not only the
mainly Kurdish districts in the Southeast but also major
pockets of immigrants in metropolitan areas. This strategy,
however, requires a highly disciplined band of voters
concentrated in a particular locale that are willing to take
instructions from a party, and as such is open to few if any
other parties.
In the upcoming elections, no small party has opted for
cooperating with a host party. The Peace and Democracy
2
Party (BDP) that has replaced the DTP, which was closed
down by the Constitutional Court, however, is going to
employ the same strategy again. It anticipates doubling
the number of its parliamentary seats this time. In this
way, although there are 20 or so parties that will appear
on the ticket, the race will be confined to four parties: the
currently governing Justice and Development Party (AKP),
the major opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and
the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), and the BDP, which is
running independent candidates.
Becoming a Candidate
There are two basic ways of becoming a candidate for
elected positions in a democracy. The one best known to the
Americans is a primary election. At the opposite end is a
system best exemplified by Britain, where national organs of
a political party decide who shall be made a candidate. The
Turkish system offers both options. In its original planning,
it was anticipated that intra-party primaries would be the
standard method of identifying candidates, while national
party organs would intervene in a few districts where
holding primaries seemed problematic for one reason or
another. Practice has evolved in the opposite direction. All
parties have opted for determining their candidates at the
center. That the entire electoral process is condensed into
three short months to escape long drawn-out, expensive,
tension-ridden, and divisive campaigns has reinforced the
preference for centrally determined candidate designation.
The 10 percent national electoral
threshold is said to be the highest
in the world. All parties talk about
lowering it. But because it allows
over-representation of the bigger
parties in the legislature, they
choose to retain it.
Analysis
In designating candidates from among a large number of
aspirants, the national leadership is naturally constrained
by the preferences of the party’s provincial branches, the
expectations of voters, and the “manpower” needs of the
party among others. The challenge is indeed formidable. In
regard to the oncoming elections, in which 550 seats will
be contested, while the AKP expects to win 300 or so, it has
received over 6,000 applications. In the CHP, which may
have around 120 safe seats, the numbers reached almost
4,000. These include, in addition to the incumbents, retired
high-ranking bureaucrats, university professors, journalists,
union and other civil society leaders, and many who have
toiled in provincial organizations for years, hoping that one
day their turn to serve in the legislature would come. The
aspirations of some are fulfilled, but many are frustrated.
This time, expressing that intra-party democracy would be
enhanced by the holding of primaries, the CHP chose to
hold primaries in 29 districts where a number of incum-
bents failed to get to an “electable” spot on the ticket. Time
will tell if the party will bring more districts into holding
primaries in the future.
Candidate Selection as a Method of Change
Observers look for signs of change as the parties announce
their candidate lists. This time, it seems, all parties have
introduced major changes. Changes in the CHP were
expected since the party had recently changed its leader.
The new leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, had already begun to
change members of the leadership cadre and ideological
underpinnings of the party, moving from a strongly nation-
alistic line to one in closer conformity with social democ-
racy. Not surprisingly, 64 of 101 incumbents did not make
it to the list. But the mood for change has not been confined
to the CHP. The governing AKP list failed to include 167
of 333 incumbents. MHP removed 26 out of 72. The few
incumbents who chose not to run are included in these
figures. Also, in each party, some incumbents have been
placed in non-electable places on the ballot.
What does this major turnover of candidates and therefore
turnover of deputies indicate? To begin with, all parties
came under pressure to increase the number of women
and young persons. Although the numbers are in need of
improvement, each party has increased its number of elect-
able women considerably. The percentage of women in the
3
The new leader, Kemal
Kılıçdaroğlu, had already begun
to change members of the
leadership cadre and ideological
underpinnings of the party, moving
from a strongly nationalistic line
to one in closer conformity with
social democracy.
next parliament may reach 20 percent, more than double
the current figure. The Turkish parliament will also have a
few members younger than 30 for the first time.
Second, all parties have tried to expand the basis on which
they try to build a winning coalition. The CHP has given
places to a prominent Kurdish lawyer noted for his record
in striving for the improvement of the observation of
human rights, to leaders of civil society organizations, and
to persons who are more familiar with the operation of the
market economy. Nevertheless, the party continues to be
faced with a dilemma. Its constituents include many voters
who saw the Turkish military as a guarantee for the protec-
tion of the regime’s secular character. They find the ongoing
Ergenekon trials as an effort by the religiously oriented
government to undermine the (political) power of military.
Two persons, a university professor traditionally associ-
ated with the center right and a journalist, both still under
arrest, have been put on electable spots. While such gestures
may keep the loyalty of the ideological secularists often
suspected of pro-military sympathies to the party, there is
no question that the AKP will take the opportunity to dwell
upon the questionable pro-democracy credentials of the
major opposition.
The MHP has recruited some former politicians of the
center right as candidates, hoping to appeal to those who
Analysis
had supported the True Path and Motherland parties in
the past but do not find a party to their taste in the political
arena these days. It has also made peace with those that
had a falling out with the party earlier. These persons are all
placed in electable positions on district tickets. The AKP, on
the other hand, has emphasized hard work and effectiveness
as a criterion for eliminating some of the incumbents.
Prelude to a New Constitution
The stage is set for one of the most critical elections in
Turkey’s democratic history. The outcome will determine
whether the AKP will achieve enough of a majority to make
a new constitution by itself or whether such an effort will
require the effective participation of other parties. That,
in turn, many observers feel, will determine the nature of
Turkey’s regime.
İlter Turan, Professor, Bilgi University
İlter Turan is currently a professor of political science at Istanbul’s Bilgi
University, where he also served as president between 1998-2001. His
previous employment included professorships at Koç University (1993-
1998) and Istanbul University (1964-1993), where he also served as the
chair of the International Relations Department (1987-1993), and the
director of the Center for the Study of the Balkans and the Middle East
(1985-1993). Dr. Turan is the past president of the Turkish Political
Science Association and has been a member of the Executive Commit-
tee and a vice president of the International Political Science Associa-
tion (2000-2006). He has served as the program chair of the 21st World
Congress of Political Science in Santiago, Chile, July 12-16, 2009. He is
board chair of the Health and Education Foundation and serves on the
board of several foundations and corporations. He is widely published
in English and Turkish on comparative politics, Turkish politics, and
foreign policy. His most recent writings have been on the domestic and
international politics of water, the Turkish parliament and its members,
and Turkish political parties. He is a frequent commentator on Turkish
politics on TV and newspapers.
About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-par-
tisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to
promoting better understanding and cooperation between North Amer-
ica and Europe on transatlantic and global issues. GMF does this by sup-
porting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic sphere,
by convening leaders and members of the policy and business communi-
ties, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic topics, and by
providing exchange opportunities to foster renewed commitment to the
transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF supports a number of initia-
tives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 through a gift from
Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF
maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition
to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has six offices in Europe:
Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest. GMF also has
smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm.
About the On Turkey Series
GMF’s On Turkey is an ongoing series of analysis briefs about Turkey’s
current political situation and its future. GMF provides regular analysis
briefs by leading Turkish, European, and American writers and intellec-
tuals, with a focus on dispatches from on-the-ground Turkish observers.
To access the latest briefs, please visit our web site at www.gmfus.org/
turkey or subscribe to our mailing list at http://database.gmfus.org/
reaction.