President Erdogan, by saying “not until the market, but until the death” mentioned again his desire about the alliance with MHP that it will be permanent, at least it should be permanent in his last speech. On the other hand, this approach may specify an obligation like it could mean supreme mutual between two parties. I must point our that; the alliances which are formed or will be formed between two parties are generally limited in certain time periods an in certain programmes. Sure, the alliance that could be formed between two or more parties can be permanent as well. And being permanent expresses the unification of two parties under one roof. That sort of alliance shows that there are no important differences between two parties as it could mean that one of these parties has no return in society anymore or this return is increasingly running out.
Especially, the alliance of MHP and AKP to be expressed that not till the market but until the death could mean that there is no difference in point of the political mentality and ideology of two parties. And then, willingy or unwillingly the fact that an alliance that is aimed to lead until death comes into question, brings the question of “does MHP become like AKP or AKP become like MHP”. I must point out that, there is no side to judge about the parties having approximations in political mentalities or increasing the differentiatings. However, in an upcoming election campaign by referring to 1994 local elections, reminding the spirit of 1994 namely the National Opinion mentality the fact that this spirit will be brought back to life in municipalities in the coming period also shows that there will not be a common understanding of politics between two parties or is it solely the use of a symbol to refer to the spirit of 1994.
At this point, willingly or unwillingly if there is an understanding roof that can provide leading the alliance of two parties till death, it can occur being in elections under one roof instead of being in elections as two parties. The fact that provinces are shared between two parties in municipality elections, one doesn’t present a candidate in a province which the other has one, shows a unification more than an alliance. Beyond this, it could occur that it may be thought that they can fail if they go to election one by one. Especially in some provinces, it means that “we can’t win there anyway, so presenting a candidate is meanless” that every party goes in election to win at least it should be like that.
It can be said that a new system is gone by government and these alliances came into question. So, the alliances are met on a legal ground. That kind of approach us true. It’s even better. The fact that the parties are met on a legal ground will prevent them to scrutinize each other. The parties that qualify themselves as “Peoples Alliance” qualify the other parties except from them as “malady” and “disgrace” alliances insistently. When it is like that, some parties that exist constitution and laws are showed as criminals and are declared as traitors beyond this. So, MHP and AKP do not think that the other parties except from them are true. It isn’t incorrect to say it is not a healthy evaluation. It doesn’t need for parties to completely agree each other for an election alliance. Furthermore, when it is reminded that the reason indicated for parties to be met on a legal ground as providing stability in politics, don’t the excessive qualifications that bring the subject into question especially are intended for the other parties which make an alliance except from them by the spokespersons of AKP?
At first the AKP that defends the alliances, brings this change back to the life with its votes, the fact that the parties are cutting it unilateral like an adze of patten can bring the instability again into the policy life instead of stability. And the county can hurt from that.