As we head towards the election and upcoming period, there are three matters in politics keeping our minds busy. First one is; the matter of the new Constitution that lies on top of the agenda with the recent arguments over the Presidential system. Second one is; the Resolution Process, or more generally, the Kurdish issue. As for the third one; it’s the rulership cycle within AK Party, which gained a dominant party quality, or in other words, the rulership equation.

These matters, which also surround the democracy- authoritarianism, liberalist-security policies and state of affair arguments, are interlocked like a flock….

Let’s start with the third one.

AK Party has reached a critical point from the aspect of their own story. When the founder and important source of the party’s legitimacy, Tayyip Erdoğan, had become the President, a new table was revealed. Now, there are two rulership fields, or the rulership has two wings; the Government and Prime Minister, and, Presidency and Erdoğan. Regardless of the harmony and unity to any extent, it’s clear that, there are two different people, two different sensitivities and two different squads. The first one is gaining its strength from his charisma, leadership, expression and capability of designating the agenda, while the latter one gains his power from being in charge of the management and being in the field.

Even if Erdoğan stays within the constitutional limits with using his authority legally, politically he is continuing to act like the leader of AK Party expression-wise (citing examples like the relations with the Central Bank and interest rates); and in executive guidance, what’s more, he is demanding it. It’s clear that this situation is producing a “political status” problem or gap for Tayyip Erdoğan from the point of the political system and AK Party. From AK Party’s point, it’s clear that the situation is waiting to be exceeded, and is open to various coordination issues, even if it isn’t a political disengagement or crisis, and to opinion differences. Thus, we guess that the single administration, desired by Tayyip Erdoğan within the context of the Presidential system, is also involving this case.

Other than the institutional change pursuit of the Presidential system arguments, it points at such de facto situations. And, without a doubt, this situation is directly related with the preparation of the constitution. In this sense, the number of parliamentarians that will be brought forth by AK Party will be decisive. If AK Party reached 330 parliamentarians, Turkey will be face to face with a referendum in a year, where they will be invited to accept the “Presidential system”.

The possibilities are clear in such a case.

There are two models: A model, whose balance and monitoring mechanisms are limited and which will be institutionalizing the majoritarian system and personalizing the rulership, or on the contrary, a balanced model, which predicts the sharing of rulership. There is no doubt that the first model includes a great risk of destruction regarding the system and democracy, and might even create disengagement possibilities.

However, this argument, in other words, the question over “What will be the structure of this constitution or which balances will it include?” is only meaningful if AK Party exceeds the 330 parliamentarian number.

As of now, AK Party’s voting rate is around 47-48 %.

I don’t believe those rates will change dramatically until the elections. However, we know that aside from AK Party’s voting rates, HDP’s success or failure in passing the threshold will be decisive in AK Party’s number of parliament members. HDP is bringing forth 30-35 parliamentarians from the regions. If they pass the threshold, this number will increase to 50-60. Such possibility will backlash AK Party with at least 15-20 parliamentarians, and possibly, AK Party’s 330 parliamentarian objective will come to naught. HDP’s success or failure in the threshold is as critical for the progress of the general politics as much as from the point of the Resolution Process and Kurdish issue.

HDP’s failure in the threshold will open the doors to AK Party’s Presidential model.

Then, what will happen if HDP exceeds the threshold?

The best case scenario is for AK Party and HDP to come to a democratic and balanced consent over the constitution and Presidential system. However, this best case scenario is also a distant possibility due to the autonomy lock. If the constitution is suspended once again, then, Turkey will be advancing towards a de facto state of the Presidential system, or at least, the arguments, tensions and issues over rulership equations that might be experienced within this frame. No matter what the result is (if the direction leans towards a route pointed by the democratic politics), the layout we are describing is not clear.

The greatest risks we would be facing are the imprisonment of the communal and economic fields, which carry good indicators, to politics and the inability to overcome political issues. Turkey is on the verge of a new institutionalization. AK party is face to face with raising the bar. The Kurdish issue is advancing at the crossroads of resolution and conflict. At this point, the thing that will resolve these issues is neither voting rates nor the matter of exceeding the threshold; it is the Presidential system and the parliamentary model.

The main matter is the sprouting of the culture of living together and reaching consent in the political field…