• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Sinan Ülgen"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Turkey’s Transformation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "EP",
  "programs": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Europe",
    "Türkiye",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

Turkey’s Critical Election

Turkish elections have been boring since the AKP came to power in 2002. But this year’s vote is different: the outcome is unpredictable, and the stakes could hardly be higher.

Link Copied
By Sinan Ülgen
Published on Jun 2, 2015
Program mobile hero image

Program

Europe

The Europe Program in Washington explores the political and security developments within Europe, transatlantic relations, and Europe’s global role. Working in coordination with Carnegie Europe in Brussels, the program brings together U.S. and European policymakers and experts on strategic issues facing Europe.

Learn More

Source: Project Syndicate

In very few democracies could such a small shift in votes lead to outcomes as different as the ones that could result from Turkey’s general election on June 7. A swing of less than 1% of the national vote could decide whether the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is forced to form a coalition government – Turkey’s first after 13 years of single-party rule – leaving it unable to fulfill President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s longstanding desire to strengthen the presidency.

Turkish elections have been boring affairs since the AKP came to power in 2002. The party’s results have been all but preordained: landslide victories and majority governments. This year, however, the outlook is different: the results are far from certain, and the stakes could hardly be higher. Riding on the outcome is not only Erdoğan’s political future, but also the potential for a long-term settlement with the country’s Kurds and the long-term soundness of Turkish democracy itself.

The uncertainty this time around is attributable to the predominantly Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). Kurdish political parties shied away from contesting past elections, owing to their fear of failing to clear the 10% popular-vote threshold needed to enter the parliament. Instead, Kurdish politicians would run as independent candidates, who are not subject to the threshold. Once safely in office, they would reunite under the banner of a party.

This year, however, the Kurdish political movement has decided to field its candidates as members of a single party. This electoral strategy, though risky, could yield large rewards, with the outcome holding significant implications for the party’s immediate fortune – as well as for Turkey’s long-term prospects.

The HDP’s failure to clear the 10% threshold would open the way for an overhaul of the country’s political system. With the Kurds and their candidates excluded from the parliament, the AKP would have to do only slightly better than polls are predicting to maintain its political dominance. If the party is able to secure more than 45% of the national vote, the quirks in Turkey’s electoral law will give it more than 330 representatives in the country’s 550-seat legislature.

Such a result would give Erdoğan the power to put in place the presidential system of governance that he has long sought. The AKP’s parliamentary majority would allow the party to draft a new constitution unilaterally and put it to a referendum within a year. At the same time, the country’s southeastern regions could become vulnerable to civil unrest, as the Kurdish movement – faced with a total lack of national political representation during a time of institutional transition – agitates for greater local autonomy.

If, on the other hand the HDP can reach the 10% threshold, its fortunes – and Erdoğan’s – will swing in the other direction. The party’s candidates would command a sizable minority delegation in parliament, and the AKP would likely become the senior partner of a coalition government. Far from securing a dominant position, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu would be forced to choose between aligning his party with the HDP or the conservative Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). A grand coalition with the main opposition party, the center-left Republican People’s Party (CHP), though theoretically possible, is not congruous with Turkey’s political culture.

Such a result would empower the executive, headed by Davutoğlu, to the detriment of the presidency. With the possibility that Erdoğan could become an executive president no longer realistic, his power would quickly begin to wane. Even assuming that the AKP remained the country’s largest party, the balance of power in Turkish politics would start to turn against him.

In liberal democracies, national elections are intended to provide the winning side with a popular mandate to govern and to set policy priorities until the next election. Only rarely do they hold implications that will last longer than a single electoral cycle. But that is the case today in Turkey, where the outcome of the upcoming popular vote is likely to determine the rules of political life for years to come. The HDP is currently polling at around 10%. A little nudge in either direction could make all the difference in the world.

This article was originally published on Project Syndicate.

About the Author

Sinan Ülgen

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Sinan Ülgen is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on Turkish foreign policy, transatlantic relations, international trade, economic security, and digital policy.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Can the EU Achieve Its Tech Ambitions?

      Raluca Csernatoni, Sinan Ülgen

  • Q&A
    Can the EU Overcome Divisions on Defense?

      Catherine Hoeffler, Sinan Ülgen

Sinan Ülgen
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Sinan Ülgen
Political ReformEuropeTürkiyeIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Fog of AI War

    In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.

      Raluca Csernatoni

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?

    It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.

      Mikayel Zolyan

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?

    Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.

      Maksim Samorukov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.