Bayram Balci is a researcher at CERI/Sciences Po Paris and former director of the French Institute of Anatolian Studies in Istanbul.
LE FIGARO - President Recep Tayyip Erdogan won this Sunday, May 28, the victory in the second round of the presidential election in Turkey. The victory was not as broad as hoped by the presidential camp. What for?
BAYRAM BALCI - The victory was not as broad as expected by the presidential camp. I think there are several reasons for this: firstly, the fact that Turks have switched to direct universal suffrage. In the past, 35 or 40% of the vote was required. From now on, to be elected, you have to win 50% of the vote; which is quite difficult to achieve in a political landscape as dispersed and disparate as Turkey's. It looks a bit like the French presidential system. The country is also crossed by different fractures on political, religious and ethnic issues, as well as on governance practices. However, we must put things into perspective. In the legislative elections, Erdogan had a fairly comfortable majority. In the first round of the presidential election, he made 49.5% which is not nothing. And in the second round, more than 52%.
Erdogan has survived the wear and tear of power after 20 years as head of state, the earthquake last February, and an economic crisis that has lasted for two years, with hyperinflation and impoverishment of the population. Is it only due to the weakness of the opposition?
Erdogan was expected to lose the election due to a major economic crisis. Especially since the standard of living of the Turks has fallen. The earthquake tarnished the image of the government, and the state. We know the extent of the damage and the slow pace of relief. There is also a feeling that the state has not lived up to what was expected of it. And in fact, we are all the more surprised that power wins.
Erdogan succeeded in countering the opposition's strategy of saying, "We are all against Erdogan."
Bayram Balci
First of all, I think that the weakness of the state's responsiveness has been overestimated. If the state was not as strong, as reactive in the early days, it was able to show responsibility quickly to provide aid and support to the population. Some buildings have already been rebuilt. Then, the victory of power was facilitated by the opposition which relied too much on these economic difficulties and inflation. We had a rather ridiculous image of Kemal Kiliçdaroglu peeling an onion to show the considerable evolution of food prices.
" READ ALSO Gilles Kepel: "Earthquake in Turkey and Syria, what geopolitical consequences?"
Turks are attached to symbolic things like the greatness of the state, Turkey's place on the international stage, as well as the place of industry with the implementation of considerable import and export projects.
Within the government, security issues have been neglected. Erdogan has shown that he is the man of state continuity, stability, border security in a region unstable since the Arab Spring. He succeeded in countering the opposition's strategy of saying, "We are all against Erdogan." But that's where she was clumsy. By creating an opposition bloc despite varied but sometimes divergent political identities on crucial issues, the people found it credible to bring down Erdogan but not to lead the country. I recall that in this opposition, there is a social democratic party, a nationalist party, external support for the pro-Kurdish party and two parties whose leaders were Erdogan's ministers.
The re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan was greeted with a chorus of congratulations. First to welcome his victory, Russian President Vladimir Putin saw it as "the logical result" of "dedicated work" at the head of the country and "clear proof" of the Turkish president's efforts "to strengthen the sovereignty of the state and conduct an independent foreign policy". Will Turkey now continue its role as mediator in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict?
Turkey and Russia have grown considerably closer in recent years. Putin prefers to have direct relations with Erdogan. They are similar in their temperament, in their strategy, in their way of exercising power. Putin has developed a personal relationship with the Turkish leader. If the opposition (pro-Western by the way) had won, the Kremlin leader would have had difficulty getting closer to six parties rather than just one. For the Russians, keeping Erdogan in power is therefore a good thing.
" READ ALSO Putin and Erdogan warm their diplomacy of hydrocarbons
The mediating role between Russia and Ukraine will continue. In a way, Turkey is condemned somewhere to adopt this strategy because it needs Ukraine. The two countries enjoy significant economic and military cooperation. Ukraine's integrity also concerns Turkey. The latter has always respected the territorial integrity of countries. This is a message she wants to send to the Turkic-speaking countries of Central Asia, who fear that Russia will do the same to them.
The war in Ukraine allows Turkey to repair its ties with the West. If the oppositions had won, it would probably have happened in the same way.
Bayram Balci
Turkey needs Russia economically to export its agriculture and import gas, power nuclear power plants and also to support tourism, an essential sector. It is also a question of military vulnerability. Turkey cannot afford to be angry with Russia, because Russia is encircling it militarily. In the Black Sea, Russia has had a strong presence since Russia's annexation of Crimea. The balance of power has changed to the detriment of Turkey. In the Caucasus, there is a very important Russian presence with military bases in Armenia. Turkey will continue its mediation work in the Russian-Ukrainian war, which may be an opportunity for the Europeans. The agreements signed under the auspices of the United Nations and Turkey also allow Ukrainian grain importing countries to satisfy their populations. The war in Ukraine allows Turkey to repair its ties with the West. If the oppositions had won, it would probably have happened in the same way.
Is a scenario in which Recep Tayyip Erdogan risks being more radical vis-à-vis Europe conceivable?
This is part of the European fears. I don't think so, because long before the elections, Erdogan had begun a process of rapprochement, normalization of relations with the West. The regional context had led him to adopt a vindictive and even bellicose foreign policy. It is not in its interest, given the interdependence between Turkey and the European Union, to take advantage of this situation to become 'unmanageable'. But he will continue to defend his country's interests, which may give Europeans the impression that he is.
In recent years, the crises in the Middle East have created situations of divergence of interests. But the EU and Turkey have every interest in working together. Where things will be more delicate is on the human rights situation in Turkey. The EU will no doubt put pressure on Turkey to be more respectful of human rights and to avoid an authoritarian drift of the country. But I don't see Erdogan making concessions because he feels it's not his duty.
What about relations with neighbouring Syria?
Syria is a crucial issue for Turkey. Russia has transformed it into a kind of protectorate, so in case of disagreement the Bashar regime poses few problems for Turkey at the border. Idlib, if Bashar and Putin agree, they can break the lock and pave the way for a new wave of one or two million Syrian refugees, which would be a catastrophe for Turkey.
