There has been intense debate over alliances lately. Despite the fact that the elections take a long time under normal conditions, we see that these discussions continue increasingly. The electoral system in our country both makes alliances necessary and allows for alliances more than in previous periods. Namely, although the threshold for being represented in the Parliament is 10% in the new system, the threshold for being elected President is 50%. While the 50% threshold necessitates pre-election alliances, the new alliance system offers an opportunity for parties that have a threshold problem to enter the parliament. Because the parties can be a member of the alliance even though they can enter the elections under their own names and emblems. Thus, the parties get the chance to enter the elections with their own personalities.
Two situations arise in this alliance model. Parties that have a threshold problem, by being included in an alliance, eliminates the problem of being represented in the Parliament. Parties that are ambitious for their candidate to be elected president have to pass the 50% threshold. At this point, being in the alliance makes it possible for these parties to overcome the problem. The alliances that need to be determined before the election also create a compulsory culture of consensus. The determination of the person who will have the executive power indexed to a single person by consensus before the election is a solution to the malfunction of the system, to some extent.
It is unthinkable that parties with ideals for the sake of all humanity do not care about having a say in the administration of the country. Therefore, regardless of the percentage of votes, parties with ideals have to enter the elections assertively and also have to have strategies that can determine the direction of politics with a realistic approach. Therefore, the aim of our article today is to discuss how parties whose possible vote rate and ideals do not match in this system should follow.
We tried to explain the necessity of these parties to enter the elections with an alliance, both as the imposition of the election system and as an opportunity to have a say in politics. This time, we have the problem of under which alliance we will enter. In today's situation, there is a possibility of a race with two alliances. A third alliance may be added to this in the future, and different partnerships may be in question. It would be useful to analyze these different situations for parties with a possible low vote share.
Being subject to the alliance will have different consequences for these parties, depending on the status of the alliance framework. The fact that parties with the same sociological base are under the same alliance will end the political weight and life of the dominant party and the other party. We tested this by seeing that the BBP was dissolved within the People's Alliance. These parties can preserve their identities when they are included in the alliance formed by parties with different sociological bases. Because the stance of the party has a different content than the dominant parties. We saw this in the Saadet Party's protection of the party personality by taking part in the Nation Alliance.
If we leave the possibility of triple alliance to next week and assume that an election with two alliances is held; When you are in the People's Alliance, you do not have the chance to express your opinion on the name of the presidential candidate. However, when you take part in the Nation Alliance, you will have a chance to speak more or less about who the candidate can be. This is a situation that will increase the power of the party to shape politics. As a result, if the parties whose vote rate cannot reach their ideals want to make their presence felt in politics, it is a correct method to turn to the side where their words can affect the result.