Not without looking at the mirror
A thorough analysis of the election results with numbers should be done, but the figures are still unofficial. It is meaningless to comment on without the official results because figures vary from one paper to the other, from one news agency to the other. Also, they lack adequate details.
Nevertheless, there are certain analyses that can be done without these details because each election, as a matter of fact, says a lot about the political geography of the country and its future.
Parties and individuals close to politics should not refrain from viewing the election results with a realistic perspective. Yes, people tend to fool themselves and it is possible to bend and twist figures, but the more you distance yourself from the sentimental approach, the closer you get to the correct conclusion.
There is a phenomenon that has become quite clear with the outcome of this election, but which has also been observed for the past four or five elections: There is only one party in our country, which is the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) that is in political competition nationwide, which is the first party in a majority of the places, second in some places and the third party in a few places.
And this party has several local opponents. The most distinct local competition is the one between the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and AK Party in Southeast Anatolia and partially in East Anatolia.
However, the competition is between the AK Party and Republican People’s Party (CHP) in Thrace, Istanbul, the coastal band of the Aegean Region and in some cities such as Ankara and Eskişehir. In these regions, there is a partial Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) strength as well, but to a limited degree.
Despite that, the competition is between the AK Party and the MHP in inner Aegean and certain central Anatolian cities.
Even though it has been the third party to receive most of the votes, the MHP, when compared to the second party the CHP, is observed to have had a more even distribution nationwide, whereas CHP votes seem to have been clustered at certain cities; moreover at certain districts of those cities.
When viewed from the perspective of the AK Party, then there are only a few cities and districts where this party has obtained less than 20 percent of the votes. On the other hand, there are many cities and districts where the CHP, MHP and BDP have not even received 10 percent of the votes.
The CHP might not even exist in a significant portion of the country, in the geographical sense, it is not able to obtain even 10 percent; however, this party has a very serious presence in important population centers. It is because of this that it has become the second party.
It is indeed very important to have received more than 11 million votes and being the second political party, but it is a matter of concern that the distribution of these votes has a geographical imbalance.