rationalskepticism.org

In pro-government and allegiant media many pundits have been exploring the reasons behind the 48.6 percent “No” vote. It appears that while the “No” front claims the referendum was rigged, at least 2.5 to three percentage points of the votes cast were stolen or replaced with “yes” votes in “unsealed envelopes,” the “Yes” front is having difficulty understanding how almost 49 percent of the nation objected to the country moving to satisfy the super presidential rule aspirations of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Blaming every abnormality on the sinister efforts of Fethullah Gülen’s organization, which is dubbed as FETÖ, and the July 15, 2016, failed coup that it is alleged to have led, has become not only fashion but also a very much respected excuse for everything that might not appear legally, morally or ethically appropriate. One common phrase in the pro-government media in describing the “No” vote was the firm conviction that it was cast by people who were either still loyal to the so-called FETÖ terrorist gang or had so much animosity toward Erdoğan, that it had nothing to do with national interests.

Unfortunately, the country is polarized and the pro-democracy “No” front and the allies of Erdoğan no longer speak the same language. This situation cannot be sustainable. The referendum result demonstrated that nothing can be undertaken in this country without taking into consideration the very strong opposition reflected on the ballot box despite the atmosphere of fear, endangered legislative and the executive of the country, as well as the judiciary with all its high and low courts and almost the entire media restricted.

The massive purge of the critics of Erdoğan has been continuing in an accelerating pace in the country since the failed coup with the state of emergency, which was extended again this week by parliament to a further three-month period. The state of emergency itself was a reality challenging the legitimacy of the referendum but it was neither the sense of belonging to a political party, nor the immense hatred felt by some for Erdoğan that were instrumental in getting such a high “No” vote that shocked the “Yes” front. Yes, some of the “No” vote was because of the discontent with the spreading poverty, or the anger generated by the “yes to presidential governance now, yes to a federal Turkey tomorrow” mentality of some of the advisors of Erdoğan. Some “No” votes were because of the continuous and merciless downgrading of the opponents not only by Erdoğan himself but an army of mouthpieces active in newspaper columns or through the troll accounts abundant on social media. Yet most “No” votes represented the concerns people had over their lifestyles and democratic values and a dedication to defend the secular and modern Turkey, which is anchored to the West.

Turkey’s Western allies, who for various reasons have been rather hypocritical in their relations with Ankara, will have to decide whether or not the new autocratic Erdoğan governance might be compatible with Western values and norms. What would mean if the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe places Turkey on monitoring? Will the EU officially suspend the accession process? If European institutions walk down such a road, how will Europe maintain its influence over Turkey, a country which not only in terms of its economy, but security and political reasons too has been so vital for the old continent?

To what extend will the referendum results be valid? Whether it was rigged or not is a question that cannot be answered in full confidence. If the Supreme Election Board (YSK) itself has become part of the irregularity by accepting millions of unsealed envelopes, claiming the national will could not be sacrificed because those envelopes were the result of the negligence of people in charge of the polling booths. Any sober mind would ask why in the law it clearly says votes should be cast in sealed envelopes otherwise it will be considered invalid, or why the electoral board is an institution that can override a clear stipulation of the electoral law. Yet, this is a country where the “order cuts iron” proverb has become entrenched.

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is set to launch a comprehensive analysis over the April 16 referendum results that resulted in a narrow if controversial victory, with the party to focus on losses in big cities like Istanbul and Ankara following directives from the president.

According to sources familiar with the content of an April 17 cabinet meeting, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asked his AKP colleagues to evaluate the result within 15 days, especially the reasons for the victory of the “no” votes in big cities, particularly Istanbul and Ankara, and the effects of municipalities and provincial party organizations on this results.

“All ministers should focus on the action from now on. But we have seen that service is not sufficient by itself; they should work focusing on humans. Produce projects which will appeal to the public,” Erdoğan said, according to sources.

According to the information received from sources, the cabinet meeting held just after the referendum lasted 90 minutes. In the meeting, none of the government’s activities except the referendum results were on the table. Following briefings from prime minister and ministers, Erdoğan expressed his opinion about the results and his conclusions on what should be done afterwards.

Erdoğan first stated that the cities where “no” votes won should be examined.

“In the week when the referendum decision passed parliament, the polls indicated 36 to 38 percent support for this amendment. And the support from the AKP base was no more than 70 percent. Fifty-one percent in such a short period of time is a success, a victory. As you could see, the polls have swayed from side to side,” Erdoğan said.

“What should be done next is to analyze this result well. In order to do this, the headquarters should conduct a study. The reasons behind the victory for the ‘no’ votes in big cities, especially in Istanbul and Ankara, should be analyzed well. Where did we make mistakes? What were the deficiencies that should be evaluated? We should see the effect of municipalities and party organizations in this result,” he added.

Erdoğan also paid attention to the results in the cities in the east and southeastern region.

“The support from east and southeast is important. It shows that people are content with the services that we have given recently. The determination of the state in its fight against terror has received support from the public. We cannot compromise it,” he said.

“We have to work to enhance public support in those cities. The more the pressure from the terrorist organization decreases, the more the situation changes. We have to deepen the trust in the government and state in the region,” he added.

Erdoğan also directed ministers to conduct projects which focus on social issues.

“There should be projects that will appeal to the whole public. New plans, projects and services are important, but service is never enough for success,” he said.

According to the sources, Erdoğan also rebuked ministers who represent cities that were won by the “no” side. However, the subject was not discussed at the meeting, as Erdoğan called the ministers himself over the phone to express his opinion.

About the death penalty, Erdoğan reiterated his comments during the campaign period.

“I know what the people say about it. I think just like the people,” he said, however, the council have not reached a conclusion about the matter nor discussed it.