We can say that the indispensable part of the political institution for today is elections. Elections are the main factor that determines the profile of the manager-managed in a country. Although the power to direct the perceptions is in the hands of the sovereigns, in the end, the main determinant is the people. Elections have a positive aspect in this sense. The main goal of political parties is to achieve success in these elections. Although the ideologically dominant parties aim to impose their ideology rather than winning the elections, ultimately this acceptance will ensure success in the elections.
While the importance of the elections is known, the point that should be emphasized is what are the data that the people take into account while making their elections? We can answer this question simply by saying that the basic data that determines political preferences is the social class of people. However, after accepting class difference as a determining factor in politics, a second question arises. What is the main source of class difference?
In countries like ours, where income distribution is unequal and the lower income class constitutes a large proportion, the source of class difference is expected to be economic. Rich, poor, middle-income, etc. But when we look at our country in particular, we see that the main source of class difference is cultural belonging rather than economy. Secular, conservative, religious, secular, rural, urban. From this point of view, we can say that cultural differences rather than economic differences determine political preferences in our country.
The political discourse developed by politicians who are aware of this issue also rests on this fact. Although the economic discourses about the crisis increase under the conditions of the economic crisis, it is certain that it is cultural difference that basically determines the political preferences. In fact, although we attribute the main reason for this situation to the determination of class differences with cultural belongings, another important reason is a total distrust of the political institution.
Because the public does not believe that politician A or B can sincerely overcome the crisis. That's why they prefer politicians who are close to their own cultural basin. Even if they do not have any economic expectations, the presence of politicians, whom they feel close to them sociologically, in the state apparatus will both give them confidence and offer success.
The preferences formed in this way cannot be a pressure factor for political institutions to produce solution and program-oriented politics. Instead, politicians seek to create political competition by polarizing cultural differences. All that is required for this is that a confrontational language dominates political propaganda. The use of confrontational language as a strategy by politicians ultimately shields the country's real problems. Thus, the political spectrum of the country is determined not by the imbalance in the sharing of blessings and burdens, but by cultural differences.
Political competition, where economic promises are at the center, will always contribute more or less to the lower income class. The politics, which has been on the minimum wage and pensions recently, has increased the salary increases above the planned, although not at a satisfactory level. However, it is necessary to guess that the politicians who have a say in the administration will carry out politics by taking cultural differences into their agenda in such crisis environments. It will be an important step for success if the other side of this competition develops a language and discourse that will not allow this.