Turkey’s election and the adoption of a unifying discourse for the HDP

After an election campaign tiring for both politicians and voters, the results were Justice and Development Party (AKP) 40.8 per cent; Republican People’s Party (CHP) 24.6 per cent; Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) 16.2 per cent; and People’s Democratic Party (HDP) 13.1 per cent. There is no doubt that the most critical result was the HDP passing the 10 per cent electoral threshold (one of the highest in the world) for the first time and gaining 80 senators in parliament out of a total of 550. The HDP’s success was so critical that it changed the parliamentary arithmetic and ended the argument over a presidential governing system, which was a critical issue for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in particular.

According to well-known HDP Senator Sırrı Süreyya Önder and other party officials, the contribution of the commended votes which moved from other parties – AKP, CHP and even MHP – was very significant. In other words, the total votes gained by the HDP was around 6 million and one can claim that one-third of them were from non-Kurds. This must be repeated over and over again. By nominating people from different ethnicities, classes, lifestyles, religions and sects, such as Turkish, Arab, Alewite, Syriac, Yezidian, Atheist, gay-lesbian, etc., the HDP showed that it wants to be accepted as a Turkish party and not simply a “pro-Kurd party” as it has been; by winning 13 per cent of the votes from every region in the country, one can claim that its intention has been approved by a decent-sized section of Turkey society. After this election, it can be asserted that the HDP is on the upper stage which might take it to the centre as an accredited party of Turkey.

At this point, the question is likely to be about at what level the HDP will materialise its unifying discourse which promotes togetherness, gathering a diverse and multicultural society under common ideas, quite apart from bringing peace to the country by ending the conflict between the PKK and the Turkish army. Hereinafter, it is of critical importance that not only the leaders of the party, but also the voters – particularly Kurds – adopt a unified sense of the country’s common values and problems which can be called “Turkiyisation”.

In this sense, the first matter that should be stated is regarding the Turkiyisation/nationalisation of the discourse. What this means is to change the language used from its ethnic basis and build a new national discourse with appropriate terminology. For instance, in his interview just after the election results were announced, Idris Baluken of the HDP referred to “Kurdish cities” when he spoke about cities in the East and South East of Turkey. Such terminology should be avoided. If nothing else, “Kurdish cities” is a misleading description. Even if Kurdish communities are the majority in those cities there are also other ethnic groups such as Turks, Arabs, Zazas, Syriacs and Yezidians living there. Since this type of discourse ignores the other ethnic groups in the region, it contradicts the principles of the People’s Democratic Party. Such ethnic-based discourse can only strengthen solidarity for the party within Kurdish society and lock the party into a vicious cycle of narrow appeal. It must, therefore, be a basic principle to build a discourse that encompasses the whole of Turkish society which is approved and shared by all people who serve and vote for the HDP.

Apart from the discourse, the second issue that should be emphasised is the development of common symbols. In fact, the HDP is following a rational and successful policy on this issue. For example, the party’s logo is well designed and reflects its basic principles: togetherness (the symbolic tree) and equality between women beyond men (a purple body). Furthermore, in the HDP’s meetings during the election campaign, seeing people carrying Turkish flags and not just the party’s flags was an important development. This has to be taken to a new level. The yellow-red-green flag which is associated with Kurdish identity has the potential to create “others” out of the HDP’s non-Kurdish voters; indeed, you could add to this those Kurds who stand apart from Kurdish nationalism. Thus, using symbolism common to all people will foster multi-ethnic support for the HDP and might even bring it to power one day.

The People’s Democratic Party, as its name implies, aims to be the party of all people in Turkey. The election results demonstrate that minorities can find a space for themselves within the party. Keeping it this way and carrying it further depends on the HDP’s move away from Kurdish identity politics and the adoption of a discourse unifying people from different classes and identities, gathering them under common symbols and convincing its core supporters that this is the new way for the future.

Ihsan Cetin is a scholar at Namık Kemal University in Turkey. email: [email protected]

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.