The second round of Turkey’s presidential election on Sunday resulted in a victory for the incumbent president but disclosed the same democratic deficiencies as in the first round according to the international election observation commission.
As previously reported, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was re-elected as president after securing victory in a close-fought presidential runoff on Sunday night with just over 52 % of the vote against 48 % for his rival, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who headed a coalition of six disparate parties. Kilicdaroglu promised change but, in the end, adapted his election campaign to Erdogan’s nationalist message.
For the first time, the elections were decided in the second round. Despite the galloping inflation and the economic crisis in the country, the voters put their faith in a leader whom they know. Erdogan has been in power as prime minister and president for 20 years and will continue to rule as president for another 5-years period until 2028. He was congratulated to this victory by both Western and non-Western leaders, including the EU.
The office he was elected to gives him wide powers unknown in any presidential democracy in the West, following a referendum on constitutional reform in April 2017 which cemented his authoritarian rule. The referendum resulted in a narrow victory for him and his party (51.4% to 48.6 %). The referendum took place during a state of emergency with a civil war in South-East Turkey.
Foreign media reported then that the election campaign was one-sided and that those opposing the changes to the constitution were prevented from campaigning on equal conditions with the government. European election observers stated that the referendum was “an uneven contest” and did not live up to Council of Europe standards.
The time the two elections rounds were observed by a joint observation mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). In total 401 observers from 40 countries were deployed during the elections.
In the first round on 14 May, the observers indicated shortcomings and irregularities in the Turkish presidential and parliamentary elections. In short, the legal framework does not fully provide a basis for holding democratic elections, they wrote in it a preliminary report.
This repeated itself in the second round on 28 May despite some technical improvements. The changes in legislation did not address important aspects of holding the second round, which has a negative impact on legal certainty and the stability of the overall legal framework. The observers identified the same media bias and restrictions to freedom of expression as in the first round.
Trials and arrests of journalists and bloggers continued ahead of the run-off, further restricting freedom of expression. Many broadcasters did not meet a legal obligation to provide impartial coverage of the campaign and equal opportunities for the two presidential candidates, with the public broadcaster significantly favouring the incumbent and a similar bias noted in numerous private media outlets.
“Concerns raised during the first round over the lack of a level playing field and the unfairness of the campaign remained unaddressed, with the incumbent president continuing to benefit from an unjustified advantage,” said Farah Karimi, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission.
“Regretfully, the use of harsher rhetoric by both contesting sides that was discriminatory and inflammatory further polarized the political environment. Voters came out in great numbers yesterday, and it is crucial that the winner makes genuine efforts to ensure the unity of the people of Turkey.”
Observers also noted cases of group or family voting, while the secrecy of the vote was potentially compromised due to the layout of some polling stations. In its previous interim report, they reported group or family voting in 6 per cent of the polling stations visited.
ODIHR’s election observation handbook defines Group Voting (Family Voting) as follows: Where more than one voter is present in a polling booth or behind a voting screen at the same time. The term “family voting” is sometimes used even though it is not always the case that a group of voters are members of one family.
A spokesperson for OSCE/ODIHR told The Brussels Times that it does not have any data to show which candidate the group voting favoured. “However, I can certainly say that family voting goes against international standards for democratic elections, and it tends to affect the ability of women to cast an independent vote.”
On the positive side, the second round of Turkey’s presidential election was well run and gave voters the opportunity to choose between real political alternatives.
“It’s true and positive that voters had a real choice between political alternatives on election day,” said Ambassador Jan Petersen, Head of the ODIHR election observation mission. “But voters were left underinformed by the lack of transparency on the part of the election administration, and the lack of balanced media coverage was concerning.
Do you have enough evidence after two rounds with the same shortcomings to conclude whether the elections were both free and fair?
“Elections are a complex process,” he replied to The Brussels Times at a press conference in Ankara on Monday afternoon. “I would avoid any sweeping assessment of the elections since it wouldn’t give justice to them.” That said, he thinks that the election observation mission have enough evidence to assess the elections.
Frank Schwabe, head of the PACE delegation, agreed with him and referred to his statement on the first round - Turkey does not fulfil the basic principles for holding a democratic election. But putting a label on the elections is difficult, he said. The second round had again a high voter turnout (83 % compared to 87 % in the first round) and offered a real choice to the voters.
For the preliminary election observers’ report on the second round, click here. The final report will be published in 2 - 3 months with recommendations to the Turkish authorities.
M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times
