Behind the scenes: What was discussed in AKP corridors during the Van crisis?

In the March 31 Local Elections, the right to be elected of DEM Party mayoral candidate Abdullah Zeydan, who came in first in Van, was revoked, and the certificate of election was given to the AKP candidate Abdulahat Arvas, who came in second in the election.

Upon the objection of the DEM Party, the Supreme Election Council (YSK) overturned the decision of the Van Provincial Election Board and ruled that the Van Metropolitan Municipality certificate of election given to the AKP candidate should be given to the DEM Party candidate Abdullah Zeydan.

Gazete Pencere columnist Nuray Babacan reported on what was discussed in the AKP corridors while the Van crisis was unfolding.

The relevant section from Babacan's article is as follows: 

"On the day the party's Central Executive Board (MYK) met, the announcement that the Van Provincial Election Board would give the certificate of election to the AKP candidate on the grounds that he did not have the eligibility to be elected created a shock effect. Among the party officials who met at a restaurant after the MYK meeting and held evaluations until suhoor, there were those who claimed that 'this was an operation staged against the AKP'.

There was no one in the group who defended that giving the certificate of election to the AKP candidate was the right decision, but the legal grounds were examined. The Ministry of Justice and relevant bureaucrats were called, and attempts were made to reach the background of this matter. There were those who pondered who the judge was that gave the certificate of restoration of prohibited rights to the DEM candidate. It was stated that this decision would have political consequences.

It also emerged that no investigation had been opened regarding the judge who gave the document stating that the DEM candidate had regained his prohibited rights even though the period had not expired. This approach caused eyes to turn to the Ministry of Justice. While the possibility of someone acting overzealously was also evaluated, there were those who criticized the attitude of the Ministry of Justice. At this point, an intervention was made at the level of the Presidency, and efforts were made to resolve the issue by observing the will of the people."

'HEADQUARTERS, PRESIDENCY TEAM DIVERGENCE' 

Meanwhile, during the hours when the debates were heating up, the difference in attitude between the party headquarters and the Presidency team emerged once again. The difference between the legal perspective of the party's former officials and the perspective of the presidential advisory staff was seen once again. Power struggles within the party became even more visible.