TİP Chairman Erkan Baş shares his election prediction: They will give a good raise before 2027

Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP) Chairman Erkan Baş answered questions about the current agenda during a live broadcast on Sözcü TV and shared his views on the election.

Highlights from Erkan Baş's statements are as follows:

"Let me start like this: I believe we were one of the first parties to express that this commission should be established. We stated that the failure to establish such a commission in previous resolution processes narrowed the issue, led to processes where it was unknown what was being discussed, and ultimately, when the process ended, none of us knew who ended it or why. That is why we said a commission should be established in Parliament.

When the first process began, after the February 20 call, our main goal was this: Let the public know what is happening. Let this matter be discussed not behind closed doors or in back rooms, but in front of the nation's eyes. Let everyone express what they defend openly, and let the citizens make their decision.

However, I must say this: The commission did not become a tool for transparency. I am speaking in terms of all its work; there was no transparent operation. In one of the first meetings, a closed session was immediately requested. We said no to this, and we even had trouble getting that recorded in the minutes. There were months of meetings and hearings, but the process never really moved forward. We realized that the issue was progressing through meetings held by the Parliament Speaker with political parties that have groups, under the name of “coordinators.”

One of the important breaking points for us was that the İmralı visit was discussed in a closed session in the commission. This is not acceptable. Let's say that while the MIT or the Ministry of Interior is being heard, it might be said that sharing some intelligence information could be risky; I don't see this as legitimate, but I say it is understandable. However, you are going to discuss in a closed session whether or not to meet with one of the most important actors of the process, who will meet, and what will be discussed? You are going to hide it?

Then, major scandals occurred. The delegation chosen on behalf of the commission went to İmralı. Hüseyin Yayman first said, “I did not go.” In other words, the government representative lied while looking the public in the eye. Let us remember these today. We could not talk about these enough during that process. A meeting was held, but let alone the citizens, even the Parliament; not even the commission was given the minutes. A summary text was read, and it was closed.

Why did we say, “Let the Grand National Assembly of Turkey be the focus”? So that it represents 80 million. A commission representing 600 deputies was established. A 3-person delegation held a meeting on behalf of that commission. We said transparency from the very beginning. Shouldn't this meeting have been shared with the citizens? But let alone the citizens, even the commission members were not given the full minutes.

Then developments began to occur in Syria. Through our commission member friend, we submitted a petition to the commission chair: “These processes affect each other, the commission should meet,” we said. We didn't even get a response. Days later, the entire İmralı meeting was put on the Parliament's website. There was no transparent, democratic process that the public could see.

'YOU CANNOT WRITE A DISSENTING OPINION'

The commission report is to be discussed. We are given an appointment for the first time on Monday, the rapporteur makes a presentation, and it is said, “You cannot write a dissenting opinion.” However, in any commission report in Parliament, those who vote no add a dissenting opinion, and this opinion is added to the report. In the hundred-year history of the Parliament, this exists in all commission reports. In this report, adding a dissenting opinion was not allowed. The views previously submitted by the parties were added via a QR code, but no dissenting opinion was added to the official report. This is antidemocratic.

Why did we join this commission? Because peace is important. This country has a real problem, let's talk, let's solve it, we said. But peace is achieved through democracy and freedoms. All over the world, there is a debate between the security-oriented line and the libertarian-democratic line. We argue that problems can be solved by expanding freedoms and democracy. The commission's approach, however, is still security-oriented.

As for the reform headings of the report: I have read the report many times. No one is reading it. People ask, “How could you say no to this report?” Voting yes means approving this report. But even those who vote yes say, “It is a report that could not be reached a consensus on.”

The approach in the first sections of the report is wrong. The issue is again being put in the “terror” bracket. There is no mention of the “Kurdish issue.” Yet we say Kurdish issue. Terror is a result; first, the Kurdish issue must be solved.

Under the heading of democratization, it says, “Constitutional Court (AYM) and ECHR decisions must be implemented.” This is already a provision of the current constitution. Can it be said that implementing the current constitution is democratization?

One of the most debated AYM decisions is the Can Atalay decision. The AYM made a decision multiple times. It was sent to Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş. It was said, “The action you took is unconstitutional.” If you say in the report that AYM decisions must be implemented, then do what is required by this decision. Who is preventing it?

In one part of the report, it says, “arrest should be exceptional.” In the same days, Akın Gürlek is appointed as Minister of Justice. There is such a picture while talking about the rule of law.

'OUR NO VOTE IS NOT JUST TO THE TEXT'

I said this at the beginning: Peace is a need as much as bread and water. But one should not use the desire for peace for small political calculations. The Justice and Development Party's approach seems to be to use the process not for social peace, but for power calculations.

Our no vote is not just to the text; it is an objection to the way the commission is operated and its failure to work in accordance with its purpose.

Other opposition parties took part in the drafting stage of the process. A coordination board was formed. Various negotiations may have been held. But when we sign the text we see, we should be able to say 10, 20, or 50 years later, “This is our text.” As the Workers' Party of Turkey, we could not say that.

There are expressions such as disarmament, temporary law, and the issue of trustees. But for example, while it says “ensuring disarmament,” it mentions that a mechanism will be established within the executive branch. Even on such a vital issue, there is no concrete, democratic framework open to parliamentary oversight. Our objection is exactly to this.

"The foundation of this constitution is the September 12 military coup. It is the product of a coup made to crush leftists, socialists, workers, and laborers in this country. I say this openly. When this constitution was first submitted to a referendum, the only ones who openly said “no” were the socialists. Most likely, Tayyip Erdoğan also voted “yes.” I made a call once, let me make it again: It is clear that he voted at the ballot box in Kasımpaşa. There are already very few “no” votes. If one came out, I will count Tayyip Erdoğan. But he said “yes” to this constitution. Tayyip Erdoğan is also one of those who support this constitution.

BAŞ'S STATEMENT ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Then, he used this constitution by patching it up many times to further strengthen his own power. In fact, the person who polished the September 12 Constitution is Tayyip Erdoğan. He polishes this finished, exhausted, rotten constitution every time. Therefore, if you get to the essence, I have no hesitation that Turkey needs a new constitution. We have been saying for 40 years, since September 13, 1980, that this country needs a new constitution. But with whom is a new constitution made? It is made with those who abide by the constitution.

If you trample on and violate the current constitution at every opportunity, which constitution will we discuss with you? You are already not implementing the laws in force, the constitution in force. Now legal regulations are being discussed; I say there are steps that can be taken right now that do not require legal regulation. A legal regulation is not required for Tayfun Kahraman's release. It is not required for the restoration of Can Atalay's parliamentary membership. It is not required for Selahattin Demirtaş. It is only necessary to comply with the existing law. If they complied with the current constitution, half of the problems mentioned in these reports today would already end. There are long detentions, problems experienced in the execution of sentences, and people who are not released despite the reports of inspection and supervision boards. They are kept in prison for years.

Therefore, I think that steps that need to be taken should be taken right now without the need for a new legal regulation. On top of that, let's talk about legal regulations, of course. Parliament is constantly making a lot of unnecessary laws. If it shows the will to make laws on such an important issue, we will sit down and talk, and we will certainly negotiate it.

Were there no problems regarding democracy in Turkey? There were. When the AKP came to power, there was high-profile democracy rhetoric. European standards were being talked about. February 28, military tutelage, YÖK... These were all realities of Turkish politics. But what did they do? They used these headings in line with their own political needs. For example, they said we would abolish YÖK, but they used it as a more oppressive tool over universities. They said the Law on Political Parties needs democratization; they introduced the alliance regulation when they could not come to power without an alliance. Then they broke the same law to break the other side's alliances.

Today, our objection is this: There is no will to solve the real problem in the country. If you say to people, “Lay down your arms, come and integrate into society, engage in politics”; when people lay down their arms and engage in politics, for example, if a police raid is made on their home in the evening because they tweeted criticizing Erdoğan, what kind of understanding of politics is this? Can there be politics in such an environment?

The space for engaging in politics in Turkey is being narrowed. Almost everyone who criticizes is declared a terrorist. People are thrown into prison or attacked on the street because they greeted the HDP or the DEM Party. But then they come out and say, “We will bring democracy.” Maybe it won't be like that at all. Democracy will be the work of the people who struggle. Governments will also have to comply with this.

On the other hand, the headings on which no consensus could be reached in the commission were announced, and dissenting opinions were added. More issues on which no consensus could be reached were discussed. Despite this, a “yes” was said. On one side, people will continue to be tried unlawfully and kept in prison; on the other side, a new process will be started with democracy rhetoric. This is exactly the contradiction we object to.

The government has no situation for an election, it has no power. They see what I see. They see the reaction of the citizens on the street, they see the economic situation, they see the poverty, they see the rebellion of the people. Therefore, I do not expect a different step from the government at this stage. Let me also say until when I do not expect it:

I think the government's plan is an “early election” where Erdoğan can be a candidate. Under normal circumstances, you know, it is not possible for Tayyip Erdoğan to be a candidate once more. However, if the Parliament makes an election decision, he can be a candidate again. For this reason, I can say that they planned the election date according to the most suitable and closest date that will pave the way for his candidacy.

'THEY MAY BE PLANNING AN ELECTION IN 2027'

So the question is: In what kind of environment does the government want to go to the election? Just being able to be a candidate does not mean winning. The conditions of the election environment must also be favorable.

My opinion is this: They will give a good raise before 2027, then another raise will come in July 2027. After that, they may be planning to hold the election in November 2027. 

This has also entered the reports: A new election law and a change in the Law on Political Parties. Because one of the main characteristics of this government is this: They almost never went to any election with the same law. Before every election, a calculation is made: “Even if we get the same vote, even if our vote decreases, how can we win the most seats in parliament?”

It is currently being talked about that various preparations regarding the election law have begun. As you know, changes made to the election law only come into effect one year later. My November 2027 prediction comes from here: A change in the election law must be made by November 2026 at the latest so that it can be applied a year later.

My prediction is that an election and political parties law change will be made around May or June, and then the election will be held a year later. I think this is the government's plan.

So what could be in the new election law? It is talked about in the lobbies that they are working on how they can break the alliances. For example, if the election threshold is lowered — let's say from 7 percent to 5 percent or 3 percent — the claim of small parties to enter the election alone may strengthen. If these parties remain below the threshold, it may be calculated that the big party could benefit from this.

In the current 7 percent threshold, alliances seem more meaningful. However, when the threshold is lowered, the tendency of parties to enter separately may increase. This is a tactic.

A similar situation occurred in the last election. The calculation of alliance votes according to parties in the distribution of deputies led to tensions within the alliance; deputy bargaining came to the agenda. This weakened the alliance structure.

Now it is talked about that alternatives such as the narrow district system are also being studied. It is understood that they are working on whichever model is most advantageous for them. In summary, the government is working to develop the model most suitable for itself.

Despite this, it can be defeated. Because an election is not just about mathematics; economic conditions, social reaction, and the mood of the voter are also decisive. But of course, it is not possible to speak definitively on this matter.