---

"Uras Must Be Workers' Man"

How do you view the 22 July elections and the post-election interpretations?

Ertugrul Kürkcü: It is wrong to interpret the current situation as a "new democratic trajectory". I do not see how the government of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which is not being balanced by any real power, can bring us democracy. It does not bring democracy, but single-party dominance. Particularly now there is nobody stopping their neoliberal projects; [President] Sezer used to make it more difficult. Claiming that military power has been curtailed is also based on ignorance. It is clear that [Chief of General Staff] Büyükanit and [Prime Minister] Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to an agreemet at Dolmabahce Palace. What is God's, what is the army's, what is Tayyip's was decided there. We will see the results of this agreement. Militarism has not been pushed back. Anyway, what kind of relief can there be now that capitalism has reproduced itself with mass approval?

It is said that the Republican People's Party (CHP) took a heavy blow in the elections. But is it not clear that it increased its percentage? Where could the party have got any more?

We can talk of a relative defeat of the CHP. Yes, anyone thinking rationally knew that the CHP would not be able to get more votes, but CHP supporters and "Republicans" spread election estimations that only they themselves believed in. According to research which can be found on Kemalist communication websites, the CHP was going to receive 28, and the AKP 25 percent. This was of course a classical case of wishful thinking. The Dogan media said that it went to the constitutions in order to "feel the pulse" of the people; in almost every place they predicted great losses for the AKP, and instead gains for the CHP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). If you ask me, these were the real manipulations, not the polls by Tarhan Erdem [who predicted the election results quite precisely]. Thus the impression was given that "the CHP is coming". Even if the party has gained one or two percent since 2002, this can still be regarded as a defeat.

If we look at the results of the Democratic Left Party (DSP, which fielded its candidates on the CHP list this time) and the New Turkey Party (YTP, now closed) of 2002, then there has not even been an increase of one or two points.

The defeat of the CHP has shown the army's "plan A", which would bring the party to power, as a sham. Those who share our perspective know that there is no "sharia-laicism" tension at the base, that life is not lived like that. Of course those on the left who saw the CHP as a possibility to save us from the neoliberalism of the AKP, have been disappointed. If we look at [CHP chairperson] Deniz Baykal's stance, we can guess that he thinks: "I did not think that things would work out with this election, but hopefully the army will do something and we will support the army." That is why he does not see himself as unsuccessful. "We took part in a psychological operation, and we did our duty." The continuation of this is to say that "the people failed us". The CHP actually appears defeated because it pumped up expectations of a victory. The results showed that the elections of 22 July were not extraordinary, because the AKP got only five to six points less in the local elections of 2004.

Reliable polls in September 2006 showed the AKP getting 43 percent.

This is the result of some people trying to find out "what is real". As for myself - and I am a little angry at myself now, as I could have predicted it better - I trusted that there must be something in what others said, so I acted more cautiously and reduced my predictions. I decided that the AKP would get one or two percent more than in 2002. It was clear that there would be a rise, otherwise why would the Armed Forces and organisations supporting their psychological movement become mobilised? It was clear that the predicted disaster, the nightmare scenarios were related to a predicted increase.

What we really have to solve is this: Why is the AKP gaining votes despite its neoliberal, capitalist economic policies and a cultural and political life which does not satisfy anyone? We can say that resisting the army has added a few percent, but there is not a military-civilian tension at a determining level. But there has been a veto of the 27 April "e-memorandum" to a certain extent.

Before the elections, a middle-aged dynamic, well-spoken man from Erzurum said on television, "What do we have to do with the AKP, why should we vote for them? They are not of us, we are not of them, but what has been done is unacceptable." He added: "They changed the rules in the middle of the game, this is injustice, and in order to make up for this injustice we are going to vote for the AKP."

We have to see this man as more than one person. In the big cities liberals also voted for the AKP because the AKP government did not affect their daily life negatively. Thus some people voted for the AKP in order to avoid chaos. AKP voters ranged from those who believe that any involvement of the army in politics so far has ended in disaster, to religious people and those on the right. What brought candidates Üskül and Günay to the AKP was what brought other voters to the party. The AKP increased its votes for many reasons.

The sums are there. In 2002, the True Path Party (DYP), the Motherland Party (ANAP) and the Young Party (GP) got a total of 22.5 percent. Six percent of that have returned to the MHP, 5.5. percent was left for the Democratic Party (DP, the successor party to the DYP). The rest went to the MHP. There is no reason for us to believe that these voters are antimilitarist.

I think that some of the votes the CHP could have got went to the MHP. Baykal's rhetoric was such that if you agreed with him, you were not going to vote for the CHP. You had to vote for a "truly" nationalist, racist party. As for the MHP, we saw that it lost some of its traditional base to the AKP, but that it got votes in big cities. This is interesting and shows that it has entered the area where the CHP used to be dominant. Or the MHP has won over the base of the DYP and the ANAP.

Actually, the MHP seems the real loser. In 1999 they had around 18 percent, which decreased to 8.5 percent in 2002. This time they got 14.5 percent, which is still lower than the 1999 result.

True. The MHP was greatly disappointed after the elections. They had expected not only to enter parliament, but a greater success. They lost because of their contests with the AKP, and they lost in the rural areas.

I thought that those who were going to vote for Mehmet Agar were going to vote for the MHP. But it turned out that they preferred the AKP.

Although he had a more liberal discourse, I am glad that Agar's project has failed. Is it stretching it too far to say that people showed their disapproval of Susurluk [the scandal where relations between police, mafia and tribes became obvious. Agar was Minister of the Interior at the time and had to resign]? Also, voters did not see anything in him to vote for, and it was the same for Uzan [of the Young Party]. [...] Those were the good sides of the elections. What was also good that real numbers were shown. If we look at the media palaver after the "Republican rallies", the media counted more people than voted for the CHP. Apparently there were three million people in Ankara, four million in Istanbul and four million in Istanbul - well where are these 11 million now? It is time for reality now. But this reality is still problematic because the AKP, in order to compete, has increased its nationalism. The CHP and the MHP have stayed on that track anyway. The majority of parliament is ready to be seduced by nationalist-militarist discourses.

But now we have the [pro-Kurdish] Democratic Society Party [DTP) in parliament.

I think the entry of the DTP into parliament is the most important result of these elections. Although it might hurt a bit to see their pictures taken with the MHP [as they shook hands at the opening of parliament], at least one can say that they have the courage to do anything for a solution. But the DTP cannot control everything. Just like, at one point, Sinn Fein could not in Britain. Then it was important what the IRA did. When we look at what the Gündem newspaper says, and we can say that it mostly represents a Kurdish movement which is not part of  the DTP, then we can see that the DTP is being pressurised into working towards a legitimisation of the PKK. This is not good. Just as it was not good to believe that a solution in Ireland would come from legitimising the IRA. We know that the solution lies in burying the guns.

In an interview (Express, May 2007) you gave after the decision was made to have early elections, you said that the "independent candidates of the left" were an important opportunity to form a "third front" against the AKP and nationalists. Then you suggested that the three socialist parties (Freedom and Solidarity Party - ÖDP, Labour Party - EMEP and Socialist Democracy Party - SDP) show their chairpersons as candidates. How do you evaluate the candidacies and the election results in terms of a "third front"?

The election results show us some opportunities, but there are also a lot of problems which need to be cleared up. I believe that the first problem is that the movement of the left, particularly the parties, did not make use of this opportunity in the best way. My suggestion was partly taken up, Ufuk Uras [of the ÖDP] and Levent Tüzel [of the EMEP] became candidates; Filiz Kocali of the SDP did not, but instead, the candidacy was given to honorary chairperson Akin Birdal. But this process was not coordinated well enough. We have to add Baskin Oran's candidacy to this. First of all, the candidates did not emerge from a collective will. They were a result of consultations with the DTP. That was the most important problem. [...] We see a partially successful election campaign. We can be proud of sending Ufuk Uras to parliament, but I can also say that this is a partial result, which has not been combined with a strategic attack. [...]
We know that Ufuk Uras chairing the ÖDP as well as his candidacy for parliament were presented as faits accomplis, which created great dissatisfaction in the party. The ÖDP had decided to enter the elections as a party and had criticised the "third front" project for supporting individuals rather than organisations. Three days later, Uras announced his independent candidacy. We all know that this led to heated discussions in the party. In our June issue we asked Uras about his candidacy, and he claimed that it was unanimously decided. We knew that was not true.
Actually, "unanimous" is both true and false. It is true because the party assembly was forced to do what Uras said, there was unanimity. But it was a formal unanimity. [...] When discussions stagnated, Uras said, "I am going". Then the others said, "damn it, alright then". [...]

If the chairperson of the ÖDP was part of the "independent candidate" project, should the party not have supported the other independent candidates? We know that on the contrary, the ÖDP hampered candidacies in other places. Is this not a crushing embarrassment?

There is a problem. In fact there are many problems, which have to be sorted out. Uras's candidacy needs to solved and explained. We have to talk about the problems that Baskin Oran [who was not elected] faced. I don't think that the candidacy of Dogan Erdogan [who stood as a DTP-supported independent candidate in the same constituency as Oran] was the only problem. Oran's candidacy was also promoted without any consensus. [...] Baskin Oran announced his constituency in Istanbul himself.

It is not fair to hold Baskin Oran responsible for that. He would probably have preferred to be a candidate in Ankara.

True. Everyone, including the DTP, guessed that Baskin Oran would become a candidate in Ankara. [...] Baskin Oran is both responsible and not. On the one hand he says, "I am an individual, I do not work for any organisation, have never done so, I do what I say and I say what I do." But on the other hand, he leaves the decision as to where he is to become candidate to an organised group. [...]

Should the DTP's example of self-criticism serve as an example?

The DTP has displayed a very fine, exemplary attitude. They have cleared the field. They hvae acknowledged what everyone saw and added, "We should not have done this."

Is it not our right to expect the same from the ÖDP and those who organised Baskin Oran's campaign?

I agree completely. This process has created new tensions. Defeats, lack of planning, internal tensions, unkept promises and other things. As agreed, the ÖDP let its chairperson enter the elections as an independent candidate and entered, willingly or not, into a concrete alliance. On the other hand, Oguzhan Müftüoglu, who, as we know opposed Uras's candidacy, said in an article he wrote for the Birgün newspaper, "I will vote for independent Kurdish candidates whereever they are." However, local party organisations had put forward their own candidates in Mersin, Antalya and Adana, places where there would have been enough votes to elect Kurdish candidates [instead of supporting the Kurdish candidates]. They probably thought, "they will be elected anyway". We have to ask where the tens of thousands of votes that the DTP lost in the cities went. In Mersin for instance, [DTP candidate] Orhan Miroglu should have been elected and there should not have been any votes left for the ÖDP, because the DTP had a strong base there. We see that this base has dissolved. It should have been the DTP's duty to predict this and to convince the ÖDP to support them.
[...]

What do you say to the trade union DISK (Confederation of Revolutionary Workers' Trade Unions) supporting the CHP?

What can I say? It is shameful. In reality, their call for support has no meaning in terms of class, because workers do not consider what DISK says when they vote. These elections have in fact shown that Lenin's views on the tension between economic consciousness and political consciousness are true. As Onur Öymen said, "I cannot believe it , people are being oppressed by neoliberal policies, by privatisation, by the low prices for hazelnuts, and they still vote for the AKP." Was Lenin saying this? Economic consciousness does not automatically evolve into political consciousness. Hazelnut farmers were very angry with Erdogan because of his economic policies. But when it came to voting, they undergo a political levelling which affects all citizens and their relations with each other. [...]

And there are those from the left who voted for the AKP

I think that Baskin Oran received votes from people who would otherwise have voted for the AKP. Before becoming a candidate, Oran himself said that having to choose between the CHP and the AKP, he would probably choose the AKP. Those who voted for the CHP thought, "The greatest dangers are neoliberalism and political Islam. We have to vote for the most powerful force against them, so our vote is with the CHP." On the other side, the leftists voting for the AKP said, "The great dangers are Americanisation, militarism and autarchy. Baskin Oran, Ufuk Uras and the other leftist candidates are fantasies, the DTP is not part of the equation. I will be rational and will vote for the AKP. Thus I will prevent militarism and nationalism."
[...]

What will the future bring for the ÖDP and Ufuk Uras?

If the movement which carried Uras into parliament does not become stronger, and if Uras does not talk about such a strengthened movement, then he will soon stand all by himself. And it will become a sad joke that "we managed to bring socialism into parliament after forty years". Two steps need to be taken, even if they are difficult. Let us visualise what we are facing: the ÖDP is in chaos and cannot reorganise itself. There is no consensus around Uras because he is always making mistakes. The others are demoralised but cannot create other possibilities. [...] My vision is this: There is no wider base than the one that carried Uras into parliament. We are still small. A strong socialist support needs to be created. We need a base, a foundation, a framework. If such a framework is created first of all, other groups, other movements will reconsider their strategies. Attempts at pulling everyone together after they have been divided in the past, is an impossible project. [...] At the moment, when people say socialist, they look at Uras. Then Uras is obliged to speak in the right way and to be made to speak in that way. He is too important for us to be left by himself. So, even if we get angry, if we sulk, we will do the necessary. He definitely has to speak right. Let us not underestimate this, workers are looking towards Uras for their rights. They think of him as "our man". They do not go to the CHP or the MHP, they go to the "man of the workers".

It is our and his job to equip him with the politics to make him the man of all workers. We do not have to agree on everything, but he is the socialist in parliament at the moment. Thus, we must not hear sentences from him that are not socialist.
[...] (EK/AG)