Two alliances have been established called the “People’s Alliance” and the “Nation Alliance.” They are slightly different in nature, however, they have very different political priorities.
What I mean by their nature is that the People’s Alliance pertains to the parliament and presidential elections, and it is also a tighter alliance.
I say tigher because the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) “2023, 2053, and 2071 visions” are emphasized as the joint vision of the alliance protocol; the ruling AKP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) have a thick alliance.
Let’s compare the primary concepts of the two protocols, whose full texts you can find on the Internet:
In the People’s Alliance, the following concepts are emphasized: A powerful parliament; a presidential governance system; Turkey’s local and national stance in the face of attacks it has been exposed to, hostile initiatives towards Turkey from inside and outside; and the permanent elimination of these attacks.
On the other hand, the concepts emphasized in the Nation Alliance protocol are as follows: Compromise, peace, serenity, stability, and normalization; the complete manifestation of the national will, a powerful parliament based on the separation of powers; the superiority of the law in line with the principle of the separation of powers, independence and judicial impartiality; and all rights and freedoms, especially the freedom of expression and media.
There are serious differences. Certainly the priorities of an alliance do not imply that other concepts are denied, but the differences are really serious.
The People’s Alliance
The People’s Alliance focuses on the concept of “attacks on Turkey.” When this is the case, the concepts of law, democracy, and independence of the judiciary have not been given a place in the alliance protocol. Both the ruling AKP and the MHP are in favor of the continuation of the ongoing state of emergency.
The protocol says “a powerful parliament,” but there is no indication of how the parliament would be authorized to be more powerful. This could be considered a detail in a short text such as a protocol, but there is no clarity on this point in their speeches.
Increasing the number of deputies to 600 does not make the parliament more powerful. The number of members in the United States Senate is only 100, but they are widely authorized. The more authorization the parliament has for “supervision” and the more opportunity it has to exercise its authorization, the more powerful it is.
The Nation Alliance
The emphasis on the “separation of powers, independent judiciary, and freedoms” in the Nation Alliance’s protocol are concepts I have been defending for years.
There is not even a need to indicate the importance of strong laws and democracy in the fight against terrorism and to be respected in international relations. In developing countries such as Turkey, these values should be emphasized at every chance in order for democracy and corporate culture to be established. It is not enough to emphasize them, the details should be put forward.
What position will the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) be in to ensure the judiciary is dependent or independent? What kind of regulations are the parties seeking under election and party laws in order for the parliament to really have the authority for supervision in the Constitution?
The parties should present concrete public texts in regards to these issues. Actually, aside from abstract concepts, all parties should put forward concrete legal and constitutional projects, and as voters, we should demand this.