Political Earthquake Rattles Turkish Political Status Quo

The recent crushing defeat of Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan’s chosen candidate for mayor of Istanbul – the country’s largest city and centre of economic activity – demonstrated much more than the skill of a young, dynamic opponent with a clear message. The defeat revealed wide cracks in the dogmatic, resentful, autocratic veneer that Erdoğan had drawn over the country – cracks that will be almost impossible for him to repair.

            Another key message of this election – and why it heralds deep changes in Turkey – is that the slow, sometimes painfully slow, evolution of democracy is much longer lasting than the previous quick fixes of military coups that only made things worse in the long run by papering over rather than solving sharp divisions. Yet another message is that the term ‘Islamic democracy’ is not a complete oxymoron. When given the chance people in countries with an overwhelmingly Moslem population can indeed vote for positive change.

Ekrem Imamoglu and his wife Dilek. The new symbol of Turkey?

            From the time he first became mayor of Istanbul in 1994, then prime minister, then president with unchecked powers Erdoğan has feasted on the ‘we-vs.-them’  theme where the ‘we’ were the struggling masses of Anatolia and the ‘them’ were the so-called ‘White Turks’ of the traditional political, military, and economic elite. The message only got stronger when the bulk of rural Anatolia emigrated into Turkey’s booming cities. Erdoğan’s message of how the social, religious and economic concerns of the masses were ignored by the White Turks resonated loudly. The sad thing is that he was not completely wrong.

            Rainer Hermann, Middle East editor for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, lived for almost 20 years in Turkey and the Gulf and is one of the most astute analysts of the region. He has travelled widely throughout Turkey and spent many days in the burgeoning suburbs of Istanbul observing how they have changed over the last 15 – 20 years. The festering slums have been replaced by apartment blocks, water systems, roads, public transit, and schools. ‘What Erdoğan failed to notice were the social, political and economic changes in the third and fourth generation of Anatolian immigrants into Turkey’s cities. Now almost 80% of the Turkish population now lives in the country’s 30 largest cities. By this time, they are thoroughly urbanized and their expectations are similar to many young people throughout Europe. In short, the ‘we’ he used to rely on has become the ‘them’.’

            With this background it is easier to see how Erdoğan’s proxy candidate in Istanbul,  the old faithful Binali Yildirm, had very little chance against the much younger and energetic Ekrem Imamoğlu who had previously been the mayor of one of the city’s several sub-districts. Yildirm sang the same old song, but this time the chorus was not with him.

            Another very good analyst of Turkish affairs, Kadri Gursel, noted that the Istanbul election amounts to a ‘political earthquake. The June 23 result is nothing less than a tectonic shift in Turkish politics, the impact of which was felt in all of Istanbul’s districts.’ He went on to say that Erdoğan ‘could well lose Turkey down the road because any political change in Istanbul reflects on the whole country sooner or later. A megapolis of 16 million people, Istanbul is a role model emulated by the rest of the country. It is a trendsetter in almost everything, from lifestyles and consumption habits to sports, culture and arts. And any trend that Istanbul does not adopt remains local, failing to spread across the country. This goes for political trends as well. One cannot win over Turkey without winning over Istanbul.’

            This defeat could also have a serious impact on Turkey’s foreign relations. It is one thing to punch above your weight and use the bellicose language of a neighbourhood bully when supported by the full-throated roar of 80 million people. It is quite another to act that way when the economy is in free-fall and that ‘full-throated roar’ has diminished to a whimper. A weakened domestic position will very quickly result in a weakened international position. Very few leaders will be willing to pay attention to or do any favours for someone they may start to see as a lame duck.

            This development couldn’t have come at a worse time for Erdoğan who is facing problems and increased isolation on multiple fronts – Syria, the Kurds, Iraq, the US, the European Union, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, Cyprus, Greece, Russia – just to name a few. Take the Russian S-400 missiles for example. He is damned if he takes them and damned if he doesn’t. The American Congress has threatened serious economic sanctions – such as excluding Turkey from the advanced fighter jet F-35 program – if Turkey carries through with its purchase of the Russian missiles. Erdoğan is desperately lobbying President Trump to overrule the proposed sanctions, but Trump would have a great of difficulty in doing that because the sanctions were approved unanimously in the famously partisan Congress. Turkey has very few friends in Washington these days. If he doesn’t take the Russian missiles who knows how Russian President Putin will react. Not calmly one suspects.

                                                

Which one Mr. President? You can't have both.

                                                                                    

                                       

S-400

            

            

The next step in this rapidly unfolding drama is the much-talked-about creation of a new political party led by former stalwarts of previous AKP governments. Erdoğan could be in a very difficult position if they succeed in forming such a party and peeling away significant numbers of AKP members of parliament. Then he could find himself as isolated domestically as he is on the international front. If that happens his days as an autocratic one-man ruler could be over.

TfL Gives A Master Class In How Not To Win Public Approval

Meetings of London councils are usually fairly placid affairs dealing with burning topics ranging from rubbish removal to parking violations. A recent one in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, however, had all the excitement and even blood lust of a prize fight – one that should have been stopped out of mercy in the early rounds.

            Transport for London (TfL) entered the so-called ‘consultation’ about proposed road changes in an up-market attractive part of London with all the self-righteous arrogant zeal of  early Christian crusaders out to slay any and all unbelievers. Unfortunately for TfL these particular unbelievers were well organized, well informed and well armed. The historically minded might have recalled the Battle of Hattin on July 4, 1187 in the Holy Land. How could anyone, the zealots from TfL assumed, oppose such 'beneficial' plans to increase bicycle access? Quite easily, it turned out.

TfL failed to impress this crowd

            The essence of the plan published more than a month ago was to remove one of the lanes of traffic, cut down 27 mature trees that have graced this area for more than 100 years, and reduce the number of bus tops serving the area. All this was in the name of improving access for bicyclists, which as ‘everyone knows’ is a self-evident good thing. Well, maybe not so self-evident. Don’t worry about the trees, TfL said, we will re-plant most of them. Great, but in the 100 years in takes to grow these trees, the area will look as if it has been given a buzz cut.

Some of the trees that TfL wants to cut down to add a bike lane

            TfL did not do itself or the cause of bicycling in London any favours by the aggressive and self-righteous way it approached this audience of about 600. Instead of actually listening to objections TfL simply tried to hammer home the ‘wisdom’ of its scheme as if anyone who opposed it was a hopeless Range Rover-driving Neanderthal. Will Norman, the TfL commissioner for bicycles, even went so far as to accuse Londoners of not exercising enough and that increased bicycle lanes were the answer to that problem. I have heard of ‘mission creep’, but this is the Nanny State run amok. Are we to feel the stern, disapproving look of TfL every time we sit down and put our feet up?

            This was supposed to be a consultation, but at no time did the TfL invite comments to counter its claims that bicycles are the answer to London’s undeniable road congestion and air pollution. TfL cited the number of accidents along this stretch of road as a rational for the separate bike lane. Unfortunately, TfL at no time offered any information about those accidents. Did they all involve bicycles? We were left to assume – without any context or supporting information – that the separate bike lane would prevent such accidents. Maybe yes, maybe no. Without further information it's impossible to say.

            When confronted with the criticism that such a separate bike lane on a main east-west artery would inevitably lead to increased congestion as two car lanes were squeezed into one TfL breezily cited ‘studies’ that showed there would be no increased congestion with the attendant increased pollution from idling cars, trucks and buses. TfL had no answer at all to the obvious problem at Lancaster Gate where they installed a separate lane for less than 200 feet with disastrous effect on congestion on the busy Bayswater Road. Will TfL recognize this error and remove the separate lane? Don’t count on it.

            But perhaps the most questionable part of TfL’s claims was that these bike lanes – benefiting a scant 3.8% of London’s road users – are the answer to the city’s air pollution and congestion problems. Increased use of bicycles would indeed reduce pollution if – and only if – TfL could prove that most of the bicyclists had switched to bikes from cars or motorcycles rather than from public transport. Otherwise the impact on air pollution is quite limited. Did TfL provide such a study? No.

            Given the relative numbers of passengers involved one obvious way to encourage people out of their cars is to improve is London’s public transport. While there are an estimated 650,000 bicycle journeys every day in London, there is a daily bus ridership of more than six million , and there are more than five million tube passenger journeys every day. One might think that improving and increasing those services and keeping buses flowing smoothly would be higher on the agenda than creating bicycle lanes.

            Increasing the fleet of electric cabs and private cars would be an obvious target. There are 21,000 black cabs serving London today, and at the moment only 500 of these are electric. Before many more electric cabs can be added to the fleet the number of charging points has to be sharply increased from the current 150. Electric black cabs are a great idea, but currently they have range of only 80 miles on one electric charge. The average London cab can easily do twice that amount in a normal day. The range can be extended to 400 miles with an on-board petrol-powered generator – but that sort of defeats the purpose.

            The TfL also did not help its cause by remaining mute on the subject of 'bicycles behaving badly' by violating traffic regulations or weaving in and out of pedestrians on pavements with impunity. 

            The TfL presentation did nothing to allay the fears of the Kensington audience, most of whom were vehemently opposed to the scheme seen as a serious threat to the quality of their neighbourhoods. TfL’s proposals were met either with stony silence or cat calls. The highlight was when the RBKC council leader and another council member said the council would reject TfL’s scheme. The audience erupted in cheers.

            Did the TfL take this defeat with good grace and a commitment to review its proposals? Hardly. Will Norman, the bicycling commissar, blamed the council for a ‘political stunt’. It was like a failed politician blaming ‘stupid’ voters for his defeat. Was the council’s decision greeted as a manifestation of local democracy at work? Hardly. ‘Selfish’ and ‘narrow minded’ were two of the milder epithets in social media. One commentator even brought up the dreaded Brexit argument by claiming ‘Leavers = Cars while Remainers = Bicycles’. Not quite sure how that logic works, but there you have the state of political discourse in Britain these days.