After the first round was over, the results of the Turkish parliamentary and presidential elections reflected a change in the relative weights of the candidates and parties. These results can be analyzed through the following points:
1- Higher voter turnout:
The voter turnout in the elections held on May 14th reached approximately 87% within Turkey, with a total of 53,993,051 voters out of 64,190,000 registered voters casting their ballot. Out of these, 52,626,979 votes were valid. The percentages reflect a slight difference compared to the voter turnout in the 2018 elections, which stood at 88.6%, or 51,188,000 registered voters, indicating a slightly lower participation rate in the current elections in terms of the number of voters and voting percentages. The voting rate of Turkish citizens abroad was 53%, or approximately 1,769,000 expatriate voters, which is the highest participation rate since 2011, and shows an 8% increase compared to the voting rates in 2018.
2- The "People's Alliance" winning the parliamentary majority:
The ruling People's Alliance, which comprises the Justice and Development Party, the Nationalist Movement Party, the Great Unity Party, and the Welfare Party (Saadet Party) has won the majority of parliamentary seats with a share of 53.7% (322 seats out of a total of 600). On the other hand, the opposition "Nation Alliance" , consisting of the Republican People's Party, the Good Party, the Good Party, the Future Party, the Democracy and Progress Party, and the Democratic Party, secured a share of 35.5% (213 seats). The "Labor and Freedom Alliance", comprising the Peoples' Democratic Party, Party of Greens and the Left Future, and the Workers' Party of Turkey, came in third place with 10.8% (65 seats).
3- AK Party taking the lead:
Among the individual parties, and separately from alliances, the Justice and Development Party secured 44.5% of the total parliamentary seats (267 seats out of 600). The Republican People's Party (CHP) came in second place with 28.2% (169 seats), followed by the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) with 10.2% (61 seats), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) with 8.3% (50 seats), the Good Party (İYİ Party) with 7.3% (44 seats), the Welfare Party with 0.8% (5 seats), and finally, the Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP) with 0.7% (4 seats).
4- A runoff between Erdogan and Kilicdaroglu:
In the presidential elections, the candidate of the ruling "People's Alliance," President Erdogan, won 49.51% of the votes. He was followed by the candidate of the opposition "Nation Alliance," Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who won 44.88%. In third place, the candidate of the Ancestral Alliance, Meral Aksener, secured 5.17%, while the fourth and last position was occupied by the candidate Muharrem Ince, who withdrew from the electoral race after winning 0.44% of the votes.
Voting Trends
The results of the Turkish elections reflected changes in the electoral landscape at both the parliamentary and presidential levels, indicating shifts in voter behavior. These changes can be explained as follows:
1- A decline in the ruling alliance’s popularity:
Despite the slight lead of the ruling alliance in the parliamentary and presidential elections, it did not reflect a significant increase in the voting percentages compared to the previous elections of 2018. In the presidential elections, and for the first time since assuming office as President of the Republic in 2014, President Erdogan failed to secure victory in the first round. He received 49.51% of the votes, a decrease of 3.1% compared to his voting percentage in the 2018 elections (52.6%). This decline was also reflected in the number of cities that supported him. Erdogan received support in 51 cities in the 2023 elections, compared to 63 in the 2018 elections.
At the parliamentary level, the ruling alliance also suffered a decline in its representation in the parliamentary elections, winning 53.7% of the total number of seats (322 seats), which is a decrease of 3.6% compared to the results of the 2018 elections where they secured 57.3% (344 seats).
Furthermore, the percentages reflect a continued relative decline in the popularity of the AK Party, as revealed by the previous local elections held in 2019, especially in major cities such as Istanbul and Ankara, where the opposition won the mayorship. The ongoing decline in the popularity of the ruling party and its leader, Erdogan, can be attributed to several factors. One of the main factors may be the voters' desire for change, especially in light of the significant demographic shifts among the younger generations. Additionally, their reservations about Erdogan's economic management may have had a negative impact on his electoral support and alliance. Pre-election surveys indicate that this administration has slowly led the AK Party's voters to distance themselves from the party. This has been reflected in the declining voting rates for President Erdogan and his loss of electoral support in several cities.
2- The relative rise of the opposition:
The results of the current elections reflected a significant increase in the popularity of the opposition, both in the parliamentary and presidential levels, compared to the previous elections in 2018. The presidential candidate, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, witnessed a notable increase in his electoral support, with a rate of 14.2% (44.88%), compared to the support received by the rival candidate to Erdogan in the 2018 elections, which was 30.64%, represented by Muharrem Ince. Additionally, the opposition alliance, "the Nation's Alliance," saw a 4% increase in its share of seats (35.5%), equivalent to 213 seats, compared to its electoral support in 2018, which was 31.5% of the total number of parliamentary seats (189 seats).
3- Central cities inclining towards the opposition:
The electoral map of Turkish cities showed an evident inclination towards the opposition in the central cities. In the presidential elections, Kemal Kilicdaroglu outperformed in the city of Ankara, receiving 47.31% of the votes compared to President Erdogan's 46%. Similarly, in the city of Istanbul, Kilicdaroglu also had the upper hand with a voting percentage of 48.55% compared to Erdogan's 46.69%. In the city of Adana, Kilicdaroglu won with 50.89% of the votes compared to Erdogan's 43.92%. Furthermore, Kilicdaroglu emerged victorious in the city of Antalya winning 53.13% compared to Erdogan's 39.85%. The results of the 2019 local elections paved the way for this voting trend that shows an inclination towards the opposition, especially in Ankara and Istanbul, where opposition mayors are in power.
It should be noted that despite the inclination of voters in those major cities towards the opposition in the presidential elections, this was not the case in the parliamentary elections. The ruling coalition, the "People's Alliance," prevailed in Ankara, Istanbul, and Adana, but not in the city of Antalya where the "Nation Alliance" won by a small margin of 2.6% over the "People's Alliance." This could be attributed to a decline in Erdogan's popularity among traditional supporters of his alliance in these areas. Consequently, voters turned to vote for his competitor, Kilicdaroglu, but this did not reflect on the vote against the ruling alliance in the parliamentary elections. This trend may also be driven by voters' desire to create a balance between the executive power that the opposition would have assumed in the event of Kilicdaroglu's victory and the parliament, where they wanted the majority to be in favor of the ruling alliance.
Determining Factors
A combination of factors, related to party composition and voter behavior or associated with internal contextual variables, have contributed to shaping the outcomes of the electoral process, both at the presidential and parliamentary levels. The most prominent factors are:
1- Fragmentation of votes in the presidential race:
This variable became evident in the results of the presidential elections, where the fragmentation of votes, which came in favor of the presidential candidate of the Ancestral alliance, Sinan Ogan, by a margin of 5.17% - the percentage needed for President Erdogan to win the presidential race in the first round - played a role in proceeding to a second round. Neither Erdogan nor Kilicdaroglu were able to obtain the required percentage (50+1%) to win the elections in the first round. This situation set the stage for Ogan to play the role of a "kingmaker" in the second round of the elections, as his support for either candidate could influence the outcome and tilt the balance in favor of one over the other.
2- Diminishing role of the Kurds as "kingmakers":
The Kurdish presence had a weak impact on the presidential elections. Despite expectations that Kurdish voters would play a role as "kingmakers" by tilting the balance in favor of the opposition against the ruling alliance and deciding the presidential race in the first round, especially after the Democratic People's Party declared its support for Kilicdaroglu, they only contributed to boosting the opposition alliance's vote share, particularly in the predominantly Kurdish cities in southeastern Turkey, leading to a second round of elections. It is worth noting that this unofficial alliance between the pro-Kurdish Democratic People's Party, which is reportedly linked to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, and the opposition alliance "Nation" will have an impact on increasing the possibility of the candidate of the "Ancestral Alliance", Sinan Ogan, supporting President Erdogan in the second round.
3- Rise of nationalist influence:
The nationalist movement is considered one of the main components in the Turkish electorate, representing over 20% of the voter base. This gives nationalist voters an influential role in tilting the balance against alliances or candidates. According to the party composition of the alliances participating in the elections, this provided greater opportunities for President Erdogan to gain the support of nationalist voters for several reasons. One of the key reasons is the unofficial alliance between the pro-Kurdish Democratic People's Party and the Nation alliance, which led to internal conflicts within the opposition, particularly between the Good Party (IYI Party) and other parties in the alliance. This, in turn, contributed to strengthening Erdogan's nationalist rhetoric by exploiting the emerging conflicts and linking the opposition alliance with Kurdish-affiliated parties supported by the Kurdistan Workers' Party. This rhetoric helped attract the votes of nationalists in favor of the Turkish president.
4- Weak impact of small parties:
Despite the opposition alliance's efforts to include small parties that broke away from the ruling alliance in order to attract and divide the nationalist votes, these parties won 37 seats in the parliament through the Republican People's Party's lists, despite the low levels of voter support. The Republican People's Party won 169 seats, including 14 seats for the Democracy and Progress Party led by Ali Babacan, along with 10 seats for the Future Party led by Ahmet Davutoglu, 10 seats for the Felicity Party led by Temel Karamollaoglu, and 3 seats for the Democrat Party led by Gultekin Uysal. As a result, the Republican People Party's share within the Turkish parliament shrunk to 130 seats (excluding two seats held by the Change Movement and the Good Party on the Republican People's Party's lists). This came in contrast to the 2018 elections where the Republican People's Party alone won 146 seats. This was confirmed by a member of the supreme administrative board of the Felicity Party, stating that although his party's vote share in parliament did not exceed 1%, they would have 10 representatives in the upcoming parliament for the first time since the establishment of the party.
5- Limited impact of the earthquake disaster:
Contrary to expectations that led to a decline in the voting percentages for the ruling alliance in the areas hit by the February 6t earthquake, President Erdogan maintained high voting percentages in a majority of the affected cities. For example, Erdogan outperformed in cities such as Kahramanmaras, Mersin, Adiyaman, Gaziantep, Sanliurfa, and Osmaniye. However, Erdogan lost by a narrow margin in the city of Hatay, where Kilicdaroglu won with 48.07% of the votes compared to Erdogan's 48.03%. In Adana, Kilicdaroglu also gained ground with 50.8% compared to Erdogan's 43.9%.
6- The youth’s desire for change:
The prominent presence of Turkish youth in the elections, as indicated by the significant number of newly-registered voters (approximately 4,904,672 young people), had an impact on boosting the voting percentages for the opposition thanks to their desire for change. This has been evidenced by numerous opinion polls.
Erdogan’s Lead
In light of the data from the Turkish electoral race and the results that led to the ruling alliance winning a majority of parliamentary seats, it is expected that the paths for the second round of presidential elections between Erdogan and Kilicdarogl will be determined according to the following two scenarios:
1- President Erdogan's likely victory:
This scenario is the most likely to occur, as the chances and prospects of the current Turkish president defeating his opponent Kilicdaroglu are strengthened. This is due to several factors, including:
A- Growing popularity and stability of the ruling "People's Alliance" after winning the parliamentary majority, which will lead many voters to decide their hesitant stance in favor of Erdogan, especially after he received a majority of votes surpassing Kilicdaroglu in the first round.
B- Meral Aksener’s potential endorsement of Erdogan, as the Turkish president seeks to strengthen his nationalist rhetoric in the election campaign leading up to the run-off held on May 28. This is aimed at attracting the support of Aksener, who received 5.17% of the votes in the first round, qualifying her as a potential "kingmaker." Indicators of convergence between the two sides are increasing, considering the alignment of views on the Kurdish issue and the possibility of reaching a consensus on the issue of the repatriation of Syrian refugees, especially in light of Turkey's evolving stance towards the Syrian regime and its move towards reconciliation and normalization of relations. This, in turn, will facilitate understanding regarding expediting the procedures for the return of Syrian refugees. Consequently, resolving these two issues will contribute to Ogan declaring his support for Erdogan, which will enhance his voting percentage and help him achieve the decisive margin he needs to win in the second round.
2- Kilicdaroglu's limited chances of winning:
The opposition candidate's chances of winning the elections are limited due to the decline in the performance of the "Nation Alliance" in the parliamentary elections, where it secured the second position in terms of seats after the "People's Alliance." Additionally, Kilicdaroglu is unable to decisively win the presidential election or surpass President Erdogan in terms of voting percentages in the first round. Consequently, these results may weaken the voters' reliance on the opposition. Moreover, the prospects of convergence between Kilicdaroglu and Aksener in the second round diminish, given the unannounced alliance between the Nation Alliance and the People's Democratic Party. Aksener has stated on several occasions that she rejects cooperation with parties accused of supporting the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Turkey.
It appears that Erdogan will lean towards supporting the presidential candidate whom he deems capable of achieving his goal of repatriating Syrian refugees and combating what he describes as "Kurdish terrorism." This is currently being realized through Erdogan, who holds the majority in the Turkish Parliament, thereby enhancing his chances of winning the presidential elections in the second round if he secures the voting percentage of the "Ancestral Alliance." On the other hand, Kilicdaroglu will still need a larger voting support to reach the required decisive percentage for victory.
