Behind the scenes: After the lobster and Maldives vacation, the debate over 'advisors at the Palace' within the AKP

In the AKP, which lost the March 31 local elections, the lobster social media post and the Maldives vacation scandal have erupted.

While citizens struggle with the economic crisis, the luxurious and ostentatious lifestyles of AKP figures have caused controversy within the party as well.

Gazete Pencere columnist Nuray Babacan has brought another debate within the party to the agenda.

Stating that the advisors at the Presidential Palace have become a subject of gossip within the party, Babacan wrote: "Party executives are talking about eliminating the negative images presented to society. For example, the question of 'what exactly' the approximately 40 advisors at the Presidential Palace do has begun to be asked more frequently."

Babacan shared the following behind-the-scenes information on the subject:

"The question of 'what exactly' the approximately 40 advisors at the Presidential Palace do has begun to be asked more frequently. It is being said that Erdoğan should have 5 active advisors and that the others should be bid farewell. Due to board memberships distributed like patronage in the public sector, managers and bureaucrats receiving salaries from multiple sources are also the best gossip material within the party. It is the AKP members themselves who list examples of bureaucrats receiving 540 thousand lira in salaries from 5 different sources. They are also the ones saying that a limit of only two salaries, including retirement pensions, should be imposed. Furthermore, deputy ministerial positions, most of which are held by former AKP deputies, are now drawing backlash. It is being discussed that this position, which is used as a vehicle for status and salary, should be limited to a maximum of two deputies.

Analyses are being made that the number of former ministers and former deputies assigned as managers or board members in public banks and ministry-affiliated subsidiaries is approaching 100, and that this staffing, which has no relation to the institution or job description, is drawing serious reaction from society.

In party meetings, there are also those questioning the sociological reasons for the defeat. The observation that 'the gap between sociology and AKP politics is widening' is interesting. According to them, society views it as, 'I am changing, but you are standing still. There was change in the CHP. There is a mobilization in the party and the base. There are new words, new actors. You have become old...'"