Abstract
The Turkish political party system underwent significant changes during the first decade of the 21st century. While secularism and nationalism remained the defining issues of electoral politics, both the number and the ideological positions of parties in the political system changed considerably. In the 2002 elections, none of the parties from the previous parliament were able to pass the electoral threshold. The new parliament was formed by the members of the Justice and Development Party (AKP)—a new conservative party founded by the former members of Islamist parties—and the Republican People’s Party (CHP)—a party with a strong emphasis on a secularist agenda. In the 2007 elections, AKP consolidated their power by receiving 46.6 % of the votes while CHP increased their share of the vote by only 1.5 percentage points to 20.9 %. In addition, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and independent candidates supported by the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) were able to win seats in the 2007 elections. In order to explain these changes, this paper applies the spatial model to the 2007 elections and compares the results to previous analyses of the 1999 and 2002 elections (Schofield et al. 2011). First, we run a pure spatial model to estimate the relative role of the ideological position and the valence of political parties in determining their electoral success. Second, we supplement the spatial model with the demographic characteristics of voters. Finally, we use simulations to determine whether a Nash equilibrium exists for the position of political parties or candidates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
According to the electoral law of 1983, a political party needs to win at least 10 % of the national vote in order to win seats in the parliament.
- 3.
World Values Survey 1981–2008 official aggregate v.20090901 (2009). World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org). Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid.
- 4.
Due to low levels of response to survey questions used to measure the position of voters, DTP voters are underrepresented in the sample compared to the election results, which may have a deflating influence on the valence term for DTP.
- 5.
We excluded the voters of Felicity Party, Young Party and Democratic Left Party from our analysis. The vote shares for Felicity Party and Young Party were below 5 % in the 2007 elections (see Table 1). As explained in Table 1, after a failed attempt to merge with ANAP, DYP changed its name to DP in the 2007 elections. ANAP withdrew from the elections but their leader recommended that their voters vote for DYP. We decided to include these two parties separately in our analysis because at the time survey was conducted and until the elections, they were two distinct parties with different voter profiles.
- 6.
The questions used in the factor analysis and the model are listed in Appendix 1.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
See Appendix 2 for the list of questions used to measure demographic characteristics.
- 10.
In the previous section, we use MHP as the baseline because the small number of DYP supporters in our sample result in large standard errors in the joint model.
- 11.
In an analysis of 2007 elections, Kalaycioglu (2010) points that economic satisfaction is the primary determinant of both party identification and party preference for AKP voters.
- 12.
World Values Survey 1981–2008 official aggregate v.20090901 (2009). World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org). Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid.
References
Carkoglu A (2007) The nature of left-right ideological self-placement in the Turkish context. Turk Stud 8(2):253–271
Carkoglu A, Hinich MJ (2006) A spatial analysis of Turkish party preferences. Elect Stud 25(2):369–392
Kalaycioglu E (2008) Attitudinal orientation to party organizations in Turkey in the 2000s. Turk Stud 9(2):297–316
Kalaycioglu E (2010) Justice and development party at the Helm: resurgence of Islam or restitution of the right-of-center predominant party? Turk Stud 11(1):29–44
Onis Z (2009) Conservative globalism at the crossroads: the justice and development party and the thorny path to democratic consolidation in Turkey. Mediterr Polit 14(1):21–40
Ozbudun E (2000) Contemporary Turkish politics: challenges to democratic consolidation. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Schofield N (2007) The mean voter theorem: necessary and sufficient conditions for convergent equilibrium. Rev Econ Stud 74(3):965–980
Schofield N (2008) The spatial model of politics. Routledge, New York
Schofield N, Gallego M (2011) Leadership or chaos: the heart and soul of politics. Springer, Berlin
Schofield N, Gallego M, Ozdemir U, Zakharov A (2011) Competition for popular support: a valence model of elections in Turkey. Soc Choice Welf 36(3):451–482
Stokes DE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. Am Polit Sci Rev 57(2):368–377
World Values Survey 1981–2008 official aggregate v.20090901 (2009) World Values Survey Association. www.worldvaluessurvey.org. Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Survey Questions
The analysis of 2007 elections in this paper is based on World Values Survey (WVS).Footnote 12 The survey was conducted between January and March 2007, that is three—six months before the 2007 elections. The questions used in our analysis are the following:
1.1 Vote Choice
If there were a national election tomorrow, for which party on this list would you vote?
1.2 Secularism
-
(1)
How strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
-
(a)
Politicians who do not believe in God are unfit for public office.
-
(b)
It would be better for Turkey if more people with strong religious beliefs held public office.
-
(a)
-
(2)
For each of the following, indicate how important it is in your life. Would you say it is Very important, Rather important, Not very important, Not at all important? Religion
1.3 Nationalism
-
(1)
How proud are you to be Turkish? Very Proud, Quite Proud, Not Very Proud, Not At All Proud
-
(2)
People have different views about themselves and how they relate to the world. Using this card, would you tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about how you see yourself? I see myself as part of the Turkish nation. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
1.4 Demographic Characteristics
-
(1)
Age: Can you tell me your year of birth, please? This means you are … years old.
-
(2)
Education: What is the highest educational level that you have attained? 1—No Formal Education, 9—University Level Education—With Degree
-
(3)
Language: What language do you normally speak at home?
-
(4)
Socio-economic Status: People sometimes describe themselves as belonging to the working class, the middle class, or the upper or lower class. Would you describe yourself as belonging to the: 1 Upper class, 2 Upper middle class, 3 Lower middle class, 4 Working class, 5 Lower class?
Appendix 2: Factor Loadings
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schofield, N., Demirkaya, B. (2013). Spatial Model of Elections in Turkey: Tracing Changes in the Party System in the 2000s. In: Schofield, N., Caballero, G., Kselman, D. (eds) Advances in Political Economy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35239-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35239-3_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35238-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35239-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)