Only two days remain before Turkey's new fate. While the expectations point at a single party government, coalition questions are still looking for answers. Today we will be approaching the matter from the economy frame. However, I need to state something first; our economy's potential and issues are known to us all. Within this context, in the statements, we are encountering similar growth policies. We can see that the essential disintegrations between the rulership and opposition are happening in a context of more populist promises.

Since there are no great contradictions over the matter of growth dynamics; what will create that actual difference is how solid the platform, where the implementation will take place, be. This is the pre-condition to construct the structure as it's planned… Thus, I'm of the opinion that the “central" matter will be the “base" of the projects. This is equal to a trust and stability base whose angle will be reshaped. Then, the actual task is to look at how much the coalition scenarios will provide this platform. Especially from three angles;

-Trust towards the country administration

-As a subset, trust towards the economy administration

-As a subset to that; macroeconomic stability

There are transitions; however, let us separate them this way and talk over a couple of scenarios.

1-The highly-likely scenario we are expecting is the continuation of the single party rulership… Here, the matter of the Presidential system is a subset.

2-The low possibility is the coalition. Its combination is uncertain; however, if it's going to be established under the lead of AK Party, let's assume that the most possible partner will be MHP.

3-But if AK Party makes the decision to not to be exhausted with the coalition, the other possibility is the coupling of other parties. Here, since the dynamics will be clashing, there are question marks. If none of them happens, then there will be a brand new uncertain process on the horizon.

The famous factor on the matter of confidence in the country is as you know; a sustainable and adaptable government. As you go down from the beginning to the end in the options I've presented, this possibility decreases gradually. Our observations on the political parties and our history is telling us this. If we take the expressions of the markets into consideration, the existence of a single party rulership in this factor is coming into the fore as the most trustable option for economy.

Of course, if AK Party acquires a sufficient majority; the matter of Presidential system will be revealed. At this point, there are confusions. The starting point is more or less understood, but, envisioning the mechanism is also causing hesitation. However, it's due to having no model at the moment… Because, in President Erdoğan's words, we are planning to develop a Turkish-type Presidential system which our nation will approve. This is the most significant display related with the fact that we will be taking slow and sure steps. Then, our priority requirement is the injection of trust with clarifying expressions.

By the way, if the majority is provided for the Presidential process, then we have another scenario also; HDP's failure to exceed the threshold. This reminds us of HDP's threatening politics. It would be meaningful for HDP to fail in entering the parliament while this is what they understood from democracy struggle, however, their choice of whether continuing with “disobedience" or not, will be showing their honesty level in resolution. As for the Kurdish voters, who are longing for resolution; they have the responsibility to resolve this from this day forth.

Because, the Resolution Process will continue being another critical part of the confidence in the country, within the context of scenarios. Even though HDP's future attitude inside and outside is a question mark, a single party government is the strongest option for advancing the process it constructs and strengthening the peace. Because, while our option number 2 is exposed to contradiction on this matter, the option number 3 is also problematic. Thus, as we move down from option 1, the Resolution Process gets under risk. However, the process is an indisputable factor for the peace and trust in the country, regional development and economy.

Now, let's focus on economy administration. What's shown to us by the past is that compared to the coalitions, single party periods has a remarkably superior economy performance. If we only look at the instable 70s and 90s, we can see that in those periods Turkey and Turkey's economy lost a quarter-century. While the general display shows us that rapport is an essential element in economy administration, there is also another reality like “democracy culture" that should be underlined. From the past to today, who can claim that a coalition cabinet in Turkey will work “willingly" with a rapport and efficiency superior in comparison to the single party cabinet?

There is also something else; as you know, for a while now there are discussions over whether not having 3rd period party members in administration will cause a risk for AK Party. The answers of the related people are of the opinion that the things will be continued with experienced institutional identity and there is no need to worry… Despite this, for example, while even an AK Party economy administration without Babacan is being questioned, the worries related with an unknown and heterogeneous team formed of coalition parties will be much higher. If the sensitivity is as high as it's mentioned, then the result here should be in the countenance of a single party. Of course, the message a single party government should take here is; providing an increasing credibility.

One of the most important gains of the Turkish economy until now is the increase in the macroeconomic stability over the expectations. In this sense, even though the reform plans, from technology to investments, of the parties are in a way similar, the eccentric opposition promises in the separation point has the risk of disturbing this established stability. The identification of many promises as eccentric is also from the point of macro balances. Otherwise, everyone can live as populists. However, if the balances are to be shaken, how sustainable can that be? It's beneficial to read this reality correctly.

While the administration in the option 1, who assimilated with stability, is advancing with more solid promises, the option 2 might resist on macro stability and neutralize MHP's promises. As for option 3, it's perfect for rummaging balances.

At this point, I need to remind you that the “populist loops" were responsible for the 2001 and many previous crises in Turkish economy. However, the populist loops are tendencies unique to a weak democracy, where accountability is loose. We are trying to steer towards the new and strong; not the old and weak. Let's not forget this.

If these scenarios doesn't work out, I don't know if a new election will increase determination or uncertainties. However, it's clear that it will make Turkey and the Turkish economy lose time and many other things. Thus, it's critical to make the “right" choice “now". As a nation who has lost decades, we have no time to idle.

The possible effects of the scenarios are roughly like this. We will be the players who will experience those effects. However, there is another aspect to the elections; the chance for the players to read the scenarios and decide. Or at least to attempt to do it…

With my desires for choosing the best scenario for all of us and increase unity, brotherhood and rightness, I'm wishing for a propitious election for Turkey.

twitter.com/drhaticekarahan