INTRODUCTION

Both local and general elections in Istanbul have always had a radical impact on politics in Turkey, a fact which holds particularly true for the era following the 1980s. Istanbul’s position as the country’s center for industry, trade, finance, and culture makes it a representative cross-section of the country as a whole, particularly since immigrants from all over Turkey flock to the country’s largest city. As a result, election strategies for both local and general elections have tended to have a focus on Istanbul. Thus, a charting the history of elections in Istanbul provides us with a relatively solid representation of the political life across all of Turkey. Analyzing local elections in Istanbul (especially since previous mayors have been influential on a national level) shows us how actors go on to become part of the national administration.

This chapter aims at dealing with the history of elections in Istanbul between 1950, the beginning of democratic elections, and 2014. It focuses on local elections within the framework of the history of elections in Istanbul. General elections and their reflection of Istanbul will also be analyzed within this same framework. The article is further framed around local development and change in Istanbul itself focusing on election projects and promises of the political parties in Istanbul during local elections. I attempt to designate space for the views of the major political parties in Istanbul elections during the period in question rather than the election discourse used by all political parties for all periods concerned. This study briefly covers the period between 1950 and 1963 since in this period there were two-round elections wherein mayors were chosen from municipal councils by the voting public until the law was amended in 1963. Following the amendment 307 of 27 July 1963, mayors were elected directly by the city and therefore the local elections gained significance in urban areas.

Periodization and rubrics following the 1963 period within the study are selected on the basis of periods in which elections in Istanbul manifested differences in terms of both the political life of Turkey and the history of local elections in Istanbul. Within this context, the study covers the 1963-1980, 1980s, 1994-2002 and post-2002 periods.

1950-1963: ELECTING THE PRESIDENT FROM THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Following the transition to a multi-party system, the Şemsettin Günaltay government prepared a democratic election law in response to political pressure from the Demokrat Parti (DP) and paved the way for elections to be conducted in accordance with principles based on general, direct, equal voting with secret ballots and transparent tallying in Turkey. The DP won the general election in Istanbul as well as the rest of the country with an overwhelming majority on 14 May 1950. Looking at their pre-election activities, one notices that parties concentrated their public meetings on Istanbul in particular. The DP prepared the most open-air mass gatherings of all the political parties in Istanbul even twelve days before the elections. They prepared 67 gatherings whereas Millet Partisi (the National Party-MP) had 35 and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) prepared 16 meetings in Istanbul.

On the path to the 1950 elections, general discourse of political parties was limited to a relatively small number of topics for the Istanbul electorate. The CHP focused on the issue of reinforcing the regime during their election declaration and when addressing the Istanbul electorate, they focused on meeting needs for coal, water, electricity and accommodation. The DP concentrated its promises on the rural areas given that 80% of the population in Turkey lived in the countryside. However, more local matters such as meeting the water demand of Kartal residents or transferring a patient from the municipality of Pendik were touched upon within the confines of speeches held by parliamentary candidates in Istanbul. The election discourse of the MP incorporated matters of concern for Istanbul such as problems caused by the high cost of living and accommodation issues caused by unplanned urbanization in large cities. Following the general elections, elections for the muhtar and council of elders (ihtiyar heyeti) were conducted on 13 August 1950 followed by the election for the municipal council on 3 September 1950 and the general provincial council on 15 October 1950. Voter turnout in Istanbul was 77% in 11 districts for the municipal elections in Istanbul on 3 September 1950. The DP won with 24,112 votes while the CHP finished second with 6,668 votes and the MP got victory in the Fatih district securing its place as the third party. The DP obtained 67 seats out of 68 in the municipal council elections in Istanbul. The party participated in the general provincial elections within districts outside municipal borders such as Çatalca, Kartal, Silivri, Şile and Yalova and obtained 12 seats in these districts. The number of the general provincial council rose to 80 together with these 12 newly-elected members.

Two local elections were held in Turkey respectively on September 25^th for the general provincial council and November 13^th for municipal councils in 1955. The CHP and MP did not take part in either election but the DP, Türkiye Köylü Partisi (Turkey’s Villagers’ Party) and independent candidates participated. The number of electorates was 734, 648 for the general provincial elections held in 17 districts of Istanbul, and the number of prospective members for the general provincial council amounted to 72 in total. Voter turnout decreased within the central districts of Istanbul compared to previous elections owing to the absence of the two main parties, and the total turnout was 21.88% with Kadıköy district posting the lowest voter turnout with 4.4%. It is possible to attribute this low turnout to the CHP’s absence in the elections. Activities implemented within the framework of election propaganda were not carried out during these elections by political parties in the pre-election period. Executives from the Democrat Party particularly underlined this matter in speeches given following the elections, and interpreted the high number of votes, obtained without propaganda, as a sign for DP’s credibility in the eyes of the people. The general provincial council and municipal council elections in 1955 had a special importance for Istanbul since the provincial council and municipal council were to be separated as of 1 March 1956. As a unit covering the whole province, the special provincial administration and Istanbul Municipality would operate with separate legal personalities, and this special arrangement would enable transition to a new stage for the planning and public works of Istanbul in particular.

The integrated nature of the special provincial administration as a practice of the single party period continued in the following period as well. Despite various discussions related to directly electing the mayor of Istanbul in the pre-1950 period, Ord. Prof. Dr. Fahrettin Kerim Gökay was appointed as the governor and mayor of Istanbul in place of Lütfi Kırdar in 1949, and served as both the governor and mayor within the first seven years of the DP’s rule until 1957. As of 1 March 1955, it was decided that the governorship and municipality would operate as separate entities, and a new mayor would be appointed. However, this decision was postponed until 1 March 1956 with a new arrangement. Following the elections, the municipal council convened to elect the new mayor on 14 November 1955 and chose governor Fahrettin Kerim Gökay as deputy mayor. Nevertheless, this election appeared to maintain the former system without the council exercising its authority. Successive governors, Mümtaz Tarhan and Ethem Yetkiner assumed the mayorship as well and a new process emerged following the de facto separation of Istanbul special provincial administration and the municipality in 1958. Becoming both the governor and the mayor on 14 May 1958, Ethem Yetkiner discontinued office as the mayor. On 25 December 1958, the Istanbul City Council selected Kemal Aygül, serving as the governor of Ankara at the time of his selection, as the mayor of Istanbul. After the military coup of 27 May 1960, authorities of the governor and mayor were centralized in the hands of the same person and General Refik Tulga became the mayor and governor of Istanbul. Although leaving office to Staff Colonel Şefik Erensü for a short period of time, Refik Tulga served in office until 26 February 1962. Five different mayors or deputy mayors served in office after Refik Tulga until the municipal elections of 17 November 1963. Municipal councils, general provincial councils, local (muhtar) and council of elders were revoked on the basis of a law adopted on 3 November 1960.

1963-1980: THE AP AND CHP IN LOCAL ADMINISTRATIONS

Until the adoption of provision 307 from 27 July 1963, mayors were selected by the municipal council as a result of a two-round election. Voters selected council members and the council determined one person as the mayor from among its members or external candidates, the mayor would start office upon the official letter of the Minister of Interior and the confirmation of the president. Mayors started to be elected directly through a single-round electoral system by the people with the beginning of municipal elections in 1963. The May 27^th military coup had debilitating effects on the local elections of that year and politics in Turkey in general. These elections are significant in that they’re the first time in which the political sphere was shaped largely by fear. Political parties felt the impact of these traumatic and extraordinary processes in their political activities and the populace at large experienced the same pressure in their political choices. In spite of the fact that parliamentary elections of 1961 portrayed a civilizing political sphere, the period between 1961 and 1963 is known as “the period of forced coalitions”. Local elections were introduced as a referendum by political parties in 1963, and the propaganda process transformed into a national campaign instead of focusing on local problems since all parties except for the CHP and Republican Villagers National party (CKMP) were newly established and they considered local elections as an opportunity to grow their electorate. All the same, the most notable feature of the local elections of 1963 was the lower countrywide turnout represented of just 69.3% of the eligible voting public. The Marmara Region had a substantial general turnout in Turkey in this election, whereas Istanbul’s low turnout of 56.05% had a significant effect on the election as a whole. Six political parties (Adalet Partisi [Justice Party/ AP], CHP, CKMP, Millet Partisi [National Party/ MP], Türkiye İşçi Partisi [Turkish Labor Party/ TIP] and Yeni Türkiye Partisi [New Turkey Party/ YTP]) and independent candidates took part in the elections. Discussions in the press were intensified as the CHP effectively brought the issue of impartiality of the municipal elections on the agenda before the elections. The AP, CHP, YTP and CKMP presidents in Istanbul sought a common candidate, and although considering the present mayor of the city, Necdet Uğur, as a possible canditatecandidate, the joint attempts from the political parties ended in failure.

Although the subject matter of propaganda tended to be broad given that it was the first local elections for mayor, the promises made by each party to the Istanbul electorate are still quite notable. The AP’s propaganda statement for local elections all over Turkey was “to endow our local administrations with Western administrative qualities…It is our goal to see Turkey attain a real local administration and perpetual democracy”. This statement was reiterated by the Istanbul municipal candidate and advocate, Nuri Eroğan, as follows: “It is a social duty to endow poorer districts, which form indispensable parts of Istanbul, with contemporary tools and facilities. Publicity is our principle for reconstruction plans, zoning status and additional regulations…” Another election promise of Eroğan was that “It is not a prerequisite to carry out activities with money in order to succeed in municipal work…My biggest principle shall be intellectual pursuance”. The CHP’s propaganda focused more on Istanbul and its Istanbul candidate, Haşim İşcan, who came to the forefront with his charismatic speeches: “As someone who does not understand anything about cars cannot sit behind the steering wheel, it would not be right to make someone who does not understand anything about reconstruction the mayor”. Among other matters standing out in İşcan’s election propaganda were the struggle with the high cost of living, ensuring low prices in food and other necessaries, solving water and sewage system problems, ending driver problems, remedying the problems of shopkeepers and decreasing bureaucracy. The CKMP did not nominate anyone for the elections in Istanbul and supported an independent candidate, Kadri İlkay. The MP’s Istanbul candidate was General Sadık Aldoğan. Aldoğan’s statement that “we are not stepping into the elections to win but not to be accused of running away from this duty” might be interpreted as the precursor for acknowledging their failure from the beginning. TIP’s Istanbul mayor candidate, secretary general of the party, Orhan Arsal, believed that traffic was one of the most significant problems of Istanbul and promised to solve this problem if elected while pointing out the fact that the only way to rescue citizens from living in slums was to construct apartment blocks. Burhan Apaydın, YTP’s mayor candidate for Istanbul, and renowned advocate of the Yassıada hearings, prepared for the elections with the following words: “It is a prerequisite to rescue municipal work from such Middle Age mentality as forcibly generating income through fines and to render municipalities entrepreneurial regarding management.”

The 1963 local election results gave the AP the mayorship, municipal council and general provincial council elections while the CHP came in second and YTP in third. Istanbul was similar to country-wide results. 45.96% of valid votes all over Turkey was obtained by the AP as opposed to the CHP which won only 35.71% of the votes. In Istanbul, the AP received 37.91% of the valid votes while the CHP got 35.71%. Countrywide voter turnout was 69.31% while turnout in Istanbul was 56.05%. Şişli had the lowest voter turnout with 47.14% compared to Yalova which had the highest turnout with 83.16%. In addition, the highest amount of votes TIP received in this election came from the district of Fatih. Countrywide valid votes were at 87.54% whereas Istanbul had 86.80% valid votes.

Despite the fact that the AP candidate, Advocate Nuri Eroğan, won the municipal elections in Istanbul following this election, the CHP objected to the election results. The objection was justified on the basis that Eroğan became a candidate without resigning from office and thus did not meet the requirements for being elected. The Provincial Election Council found the objection justified and decided that Eroğan did not meet the requirements for candidacy. As a result, Nuri Eroğan’s bid for mayor was cancelled and the CHP candidate Haşim İşcan became the new mayor following the decree issued by the Supreme Election Board.

The new picture emerging following the 1963 local elections brought the issue of government to the fore and the coalition government disintegrated. General parliamentary elections were held in 1965 following the local elections of 1963. The Justice Party (AP) received 240 seats out of 450 and 31 of these deputies were elected from Istanbul. The CHP became the second party in parliament with 130 deputies throughout Turkey and 9 deputies from Istanbul. The MP and TIP won 2 seats each from Istanbul, the CKMP and independents had one deputy apiece. Voter turnout throughout Turkey was 71.26% for this election compared to 64.50% in Istanbul. Most of the AP votes (over 50%) were received from Şile, Gaziosmanpaşa, Çatalca and Zeytinburnu. Comparatively, CHP votes were below 40% despite a high turnout in Kadıköy, Eminönü, Beşiktaş and Adalar. From local elections of 1963 to local elections of 1968, elections were held in Turkey on a general or partial level every year. The legal framework of the 1968 local elections was the same as the 1963 election framework except for a few amendments. Given the four-year rule, local elections were expected to be held on 17 September 1967 however, they were postponed until 2 June 1968. This decision was justified by the fact that people were tired of continuous elections and the voter turnout gradually decreased and election costs would put a burden on the budget. Eight political parties and independent candidates participated in the local elections of 1968. The Güven Partisi (Trust Party- GÜP) and Birlik Partisi (Union Party- BP) also took part in these elections as opposed to the 1963 elections. On the path to the elections, the AP won the 1965 elections and came to power as the single party. 1968 came as a year in which youth movements dubbed “the 68 generation” had a major and determinant impact on the social and political spheres of life both in Turkey and worldwide. As the leftist social movements strengthened, new union organizations, labor and student movements directed the streets and thus the political structure in urban cities. Within this context, the CHP, for instance, would find itself among the discussions regarding the left of the middle and start questioning its political philosophy. The 1968 local elections were held in an atmosphere in which social and political mobilization was intensified.

Istanbul mayoral candidates for the 1968 elections were as follows: the AP candidate, Dr Fahri Atabey, also former physician in chief at Zeynep Kâmil Hospital; the CHP candidate Orhan Eyüpoğlu, former traffic police in chief and deputy; Sadrettin Tosbi from the CKMP, Fehmi Atanç from the GÜP, Sabih Atlı from MP, Şinasi Kaya from the TIP. Selected among 4 candidates determined by a pre-election by the AP and supported by the AP headquarters, Fahri Atabey was elected.

Depending on their ideological positions, all parties concentrated, on a leadership level, on macro political matters such as communism or the danger of public reaction, youth movements, left-right dichotomy, worker problems, social welfare rather than specific problems of the city. There was some lip service paid to problems of water, garbage, traffic, sewage and squatting by candidates for mayor as a part of their election promises. The municipal elections in 1968 had a great importance for the AP due to the fact that Haşim İşcan became the new mayor with the decision of the Supreme Election Board (YSK) although the AP candidate won the elections in 1963. The AP claimed that the CHP had “usurped” the municipality in Istanbul. Within this context, the AP thought that its usurped right would be returned by the people through the national will to emerge as a result of the 1968 elections in Istanbul. The AP candidate, Dr Fahri Atabey asserted that he would solve the bureaucratic problem of “come tomorrow” by establishing private bureaus for public works; the water problem by installing pipes starting from Alibeyköy; the sewage problem by using the Bosphorus; the cleaning problem by establishing incineration plants; the traffic problem by construction car parks, under- and over-passes, and to facilitate transportation by constructing a third bridge over the Golden Horn. Atabey was also intent on doing what he could to prevent Istanbul from becoming an industrial city.

On the other hand, the CHP candidate Eyüpoğlu promised to solve the problems of an “ever-growing” city by means of “serious scientific measures”. Eyüpoğlu stated that he would provide every household with water and cheap fruit, vegetables, fish, wood and coal for Istanbul; establish a new traffic order and solve the traffic problem of Istanbul through establishing over- and under-passes, car parks and synchronized traffic lights. He also claimed that he would solve the mud problem in the city by flooring the existing 426 km with parquet or asphalt stones. In addition, he also promised that he would reconstruct the slum areas, open kindergartens for the children of working mothers, and fill the streets with artwork. Also notable is CHP candidate Orhan Eyüpoğlu’s project about Taksim Square, a place that has always been a matter of political debate since the 1960s, particulary after the 1990s. He claimed that that “Taksim Square will be reorganized. The pedestrian traffic will be operating through an elliptical underground crossing and 75 stores will be constructed. In this new facility to be connected to the square through six entrances, descent and ascent of pedestrians will be enabled by escalators”. CKMP candidate Sadrettin Tosbi argued that Istanbulites should be charged citizenship tax whereas MP candidate Sabih Atlı stated that the Bosphorus bridge was a luxury and a metro was needed instead as well as pointing out that the Gold Horn would be cleaned and Istanbul would be transformed into a touristic zone.

The election results showed that the AP won the elections in Istanbul as they had in rest of the country and Fahri Atabey was elected mayor. Countrywide voter turnout was 59.47% compared to a 41.72% turnout in Istanbul. Eminönü became the district with the lowest voter turnout (30.60%) as opposed to Büyükçekmece which had the highest turnout with 75.60%. 45.32% of valid votes countrywide was received by the AP whereas the CHP took 13.21% of the votes and the rest was shared between the independent candidates and other parties. In Istanbul, 44.02% of the votes were taken by the AP whilst the CHP received 31.07% and TIP 5.84%. TIP becoming the third biggest party is a notable result from this election. On the other hand, the CHP received most of the votes in districts such as Bakırköy (39.07%), Küçükçekmece (44.92%), Eminönü (42.33%), Çatalca (56.55%), Küçükyalı (39.29%), Maltepe (45.09%).

A year after the local elections, parliamentary elections were held on 12 October 1969. These elections yielded results parallel to those of the local elections in Istanbul. Despite the fact that the AP’s votes comparatively decreased (46.5%), it was victorious in the elections and entered the parliament with 269 seats. 47.78% of valid votes was received by AP; CHP took 33.87% and the rest of the votes were taken by other parties. Vote percentage was above 60% for AP in such surrounding districts as Şile, Çatalca as opposed to Beşiktaş and Kadıköy where the party received below 40% of the the votes. CHP maintained its status in districts such as Kadıköy and Beşiktaş with votes over 40%.

1973 Elections

Source: Kal’a, Ahmet et al. (prepared by), Istanbul Külliyatı: Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul İstatistikleri 5, Seçim (1950-1995), Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 1998; DİE; General Parliamentary Election and By-election Results.

During the buildup to the 1973 elections, the political atmosphere in Turkey was extremely tense and characterized by political fragility and dividedness due to the military coup of 12 March 1971, and the deepening economic crises as of late 1960s as well as dissolution between identity groups in the social sphere. On the other hand, forming a government brought about intense negotiations among parties within a period of constant political instability. In 1973, three elections were held: first the parliamentary elections on October 14^th, later senate elections and finally local elections on December 9^th. The local elections of 9 December 1973 turned into a “referendum” verifying general elections of October 14^th. Eight parties (The AP, CHP, Cumhuriyetçi Güven Partisi [Republican Trust Party/ CGP], Millî Selamet Partisi [National Salvation Party/ MSP], Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi [Nationalist Movement Party/ MHP], Millet Partisi [National Party/ MP, 1962-1977], Türkiye Birlik Partisi [Turkish Union Party/ TBP], and the Demokratik Parti [DP]) participated in the local elections of 1973. Two of the parties, entering the elections in 1968, could not participate in these elections because they had ceased operation and some other parties took on new names by means of either merging or new participation. The MSP and the DP took part in their first elections. Although two months had passed since general elections, these local elections took on a general election spirit and the political parties conducted their election propaganda as in a general election and concentrated around the issue of establishing a government. Within this context, no parties except the MSP even prepared a separate declaration for local elections. However, problems such as urbanization movements and new industrialization became cornerstones of the agenda for local elections. Election propaganda in Istanbul focused on such problems as squatting, water, traffic, transportation, infrastructure, reconstruction plans, high cost of living, subway system and garbage as in other urban cities.

Sources: Kal’a, Ahmet et al. (prepared by), Istanbul Külliyatı: Cumhuriyet Dönemi İstanbul İstatistikleri 5, Seçim (1950-1995), Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 1998; DİE; General Parliamentary Election and By-election Results.
P.S.: Istanbul did not participate in by-elections in 1975 and 1979.

The CHP determined its candidate by means of central roll-call whereas the AP’s candidate was chosen through a pre-election. Ahmet İsvan became the CHP’s candidate for Istanbul, and existing mayor Fahri Atabey was nominated for Istanbul by the AP. The DP chose Advocate Nuri Eroğan, the former AP candidate who was elected the mayor of Istanbul in 1968 local elections but was then not allowed to step up and claim his post. The pre-election process conducted to determine the Istanbul candidate of the AP started off with problems such as the resignation of Faruk Ilgaz, construction engineer of profession, AP Istanbul provincial chairman and, upon losing the pre-election and his criticism for Atabey as well as DP candidate Eroğan’s statement that Atabey wished to bribe him for changing his allegiances. These discussions continued within the party until the election day and these charges were frequently brought up by CHP in its propaganda.

There was an intense use of promises similar to those used in the 1968 elections in the to-do-list of mayor of Istanbul Fahri Atabey.

The AP’s election manifesto discussed issues such as urban planning, infrastructure, accommodation, employment, environmental health, and matters related to urban economy such as food, clothing and fuel sources, all of which made up a set of issues relatively new for an Istanbul candidate. The issue of squatters formed the center of Atabey’s election promises and he promised that squatters would be endowed with title deeds in the event that he was elected. Among Atabey’s promises were laying the foundation of the subway within the first six months of office, sending experts to Europe in order to solve the city’s water and garbage problem, constructing elderly houses, stadiums, kindergartens, over- and under-passes, new roads and car parks.

The local election manifesto of the CHP was based on its former manifesto “towards bright days” prepared for the general elections held in October. The party’s candidate for Istanbul, Ahmet İsvan was a friend of Bülent Ecevit from Robert College and was nominated upon special request. He also made promises parallel to those of the AP candidate highlighting the fact that he would generate solutions for the garbage, water and squatting problems, and further promised that reconstruction plans would be devised with input from the populace, that he would make a decision regarding the subway in consultation with experts, that historical buildings would be preserved. It is also worthwhile that İsvan used the “new CHP” discourse structured around the slogan ‘’this order has to change’’ while discussing his projects for Istanbul, and stated that the projects would be implemented by “considering and listening to the public opinion” within the framework of “a populist and proactive public administration”. This new discourse was the result of discomfort with the old CHP image and served as a precursor to the reflection of the change in CHP on local administrations. İsvan differed from his rivals significantly in that he emphasized “transparency” in his work.

The focal point for the DP was constituted by the promise that squatters-houses that had been constructed before 1 September 1973 would be pardoned. On the other hand, the MSP highlighted the fact that future mayors should be honest, ethical and embrace the problems of the people, that they should abstain from luxury, extravagance and bribery and therefore should have spiritual and material cleanliness. In this sense, practical promises such as fight against poverty were built upon a general frame by making use of more obvious ideals. Rıfat Tandoğan, the MSP’s municipal candidate for Istanbul, brought the issues of morality, spirituality and justice to the fore.

Until the period in question, the most important feature of the 1973 local elections with the lowest voter turnout in Republican history was the CHP’s success as the winning party. Within this context, the elections yielded results in parallel with the results of general elections on October 14^th. The results were influenced by an unbalanced distribution in the votes for the right and the CHP’s new political discourse revolving around the ‘’middle of the left’’ expression., Ahmet İsvan won the municipal elections as the mayor in Istanbul in line with a general switch to CHP from the AP in entire Turkey. Whereas the voter turnout for this election was 56.01% throughout Turkey, Istanbul had only a turnout of 37.71%. 56.12% of votes were taken by CHP as opposed to the AP having 33.93% of the votes. The AP had more votes compared to the CHP in districts such as Güngören, Avcılar, Yenibosna, Esenler, Küçükköy, Kemerburgaz, Yakacık and Silivri however, CHP was the leading party in the percentage of votes in most of other districts. In the general elections conducted on October 14^th, the CHP took 48.93% of valid votes in Istanbul in comparison with the AP having 28.50%, MSP 8.38%, DP 7.13% and the remaining parties below 2%. The CHP had more votes in districts such as Beşiktaş and Kadıköy as opposed to Şile, Çatalca and Silivri. The AP was unable to receive votes above 50% in any district of Istanbul. It had a high number of votes in Çatalca and Şile whereas it had a low number of votes in Eminönü, Fatih, Eyüp and Kadıköy.

Local Elections in 1977

Parliamentary and local elections were held respectively on 5 June and 11 December 1977. According to the general election results, no single party received enough votes to establish a single party government. This election year witnessed one of the most tumultuous events, the most intense series of violence and terror incidents emanating from a left-right conflict and the greatest loss of life. Istanbul was the city in which these conflicts were the most intense. For instance, 37 people lost their lives 35 days before local elections on the Labor Day May1^st. In addition, AP chairman, Süleyman Demirel notified Bülent Ecevit regarding the fact that he would be assassinated in his Taksim meeting on June 3^rd and should cancel this meeting. However, Ecevit informed the people that they should not arrive at the meeting whereas he would be present in the meeting scene against all odds. Nevertheless, a large number of people appeared for the meeting. 10 parties took part in the 1977 local elections. As in former periods in Istanbul, the elections were between the CHP and the AP. Although ‘’democratic municipalism’’ was on the agenda, the understanding of ‘’new municipalism’’ was just a continuation of the 1973 election discourse.

The CHP held a pre-election in Istanbul and the existing mayor lost the pre-election. Provincial Chairman and advocate Aytekin Kotil was nominated for mayor. Kotil’s election slogan was formulated as ‘’reachable, not a speech- but a service-generating mayor’’. The biggest problem of Istanbul was garbage for Kotil. Within this context, he pointed out that large businesses would be charged a garbage fee. All the same, according to Kotil, traffic would be congested within a couple of years in the event that no solution was generated for the traffic problem in Istanbul. Within this context, a light subway system needed to be established and public transport should be prioritized. Among other promises of the CHP for Istanbul were enabling the people to benefit from the sea and shores, demolishing unregistered buildings on the shore, regulating the prices of goods and produce in the market, accelerating infrastructure projects and preventing the outlet of waste water into the sea.

Nominating Aziz Gümüş, a former SEKA manager and one of the AP’s founders, as the municipal candidate, the AP aimed to inhibit the CHP’s progress in Istanbul. The AP built its election strategy in this period upon conducting a campaign over candidates by bringing to the agenda factions within CHP. Claiming particularly that Ahmet Isvan, the existing mayor elected from CHP, managed the municipality in a partisan-like manner, Gümüş pointed out that he would put an end to this situation in the event that he was elected as mayor. He also emphasized that bad management would endure in that CHP’s new candidate, Aytekin Kotil, was a member of the same cadre.

Adopting the slogan ‘’Municipalism for service’’, Gümüş as ‘’service-minded, just and a man of dignity’’ promised to serve for all indiscriminately. Given concrete election promises of the AP for Istanbul, it is seen that they appear almost the same as election promises in 1973. The problems of transportation, traffic, garbage and water were to be solved within this context. The foundations of the subway would be laid; the second Bosphorus bridge would be constructed, investments would be made in poorer areas; parks, gardens and the shores would be rearranged; the capacity of Dolmabahçe stadium would be increased to 100.000 people. A monument of Mehmed II the Conqueror would be erected in an appropriate venue. The AP stated that it would apply to the World Bank for financing its projects.

Other parties did not conduct a conspicuous campaign for Istanbul. The MSP nominated Şevket Kazan as the mayor for Istanbul. Kazan based its campaign on the slogan ‘’a strong and fair administration’’. Within this context, he brought up such issues as the construction of a subway, opening a public food house and providing cheap accommodation.

The election results appear to confirm the results of parliamentary elections held on 5 October 1977. The votes were distributed between the two big parties (AP 18%, CHP 22%) in addition to the MSP and the MHP taking a great number of votes. However, this election had the lowest voter turnout in the history of elections in Turkey and the turnout remained at 37% in Istanbul. Bakırköy became the district with the lowest turnout at 26.94%. The CHP became the leading party with 56.05% and Aytekin Kotil won the municipal elections. The AP took 32.10% of the votes while 4.96% of the votes was taken by the MSP. The AP had high number of votes in surrounding districts such as Yenibosna, Kemerburgaz, Ümraniye, Çatalca, Yalova and Çınarcık. The CHP’s votes were high in central districts. Considering the parliamentary elections held six months before local elections on 5 June 1977, the CHP received 58.25% of valid votes compared to the AP with 28.41%, the MSP with 6.60% and the MHP with 2.70%.

POST-1980 ELECTIONS: METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY PERIOD

Following the military coup on 12 September 1980, the political sphere was militarized on both national and local level and mayors were appointed by the Ministry of Interior during this period. Before the local elections in 1984, The Anavatan Partisi (the Motherland Party-ANAP) took 45.50% of the votes whereas the Halkçı Parti (the Populist Party- HP) received 33.99%, and the Milliyetçi Demokrasi Partisi (Nationalist Democracy Party-MDP) took 19.84% of the votes. Within this context, the rise of ANAP as of the 1980 military coup would start in both general and local elections. Therefore, the local government of ANAP in Istanbul in parallel with the rest of the country would commence with local elections on 25 March 1984. İsmail Hakkı Akansel, Ecmel Kutay, Abdullah Tırtıl were respectively appointed as mayors at the 1984 local elections in Istanbul during this period. None of the parties participating in the 1977 local elections took part in the local elections on 25 March 1984. In addition to the ANAP, the HP and the MDP participating in the general election in 1983, three new parties (Social Democracy Party [SODEP], True Path Party [DYP] and Welfare Party [RP]) took part in the 1984 elections. In conjunction with this election, metropolitan municipality elections started to be implemented as well.

As pre-elections were not to be held ad-hoc as per the local election law, parties centrally determined their Istanbul candidates for the election. Four and a half months following the elections of 6 November 1983 won by the ANAP, local elections gained more importance than general elections since the political sphere was partially more liberated and some parties not participating in general elections would take part in local elections. The ANAP nominated its provincial chairman, Bedrettin Dalan, for mayor whereas the DYP nominated Hüsamettin Cindoruk, the most important personality of the Democrat Party (DP); Korel Göymen was nominated by the SODEP. On the other hand, Niyazi Yurtseven became the Populist Party’s (HP) candidate.

In local elections, the political parties formed a general propaganda frame for local elections over agencies by benefiting from political marketing methods for the first time. The ANAP played the biggest trump card through issuing a remission of reconstruction and distributing ‘’land designation certificates’’ for the squatters. Newspaper advertisements illustrated with Özal’s photographs were focused on the ANAP’s ‘’finishing’’ aspect. In newspaper advertisements, Dalan underlined the message that ‘’Istanbul’s greatest need is neither highways nor water nor a subway. The greatest need of the city is foremost bringing a rational, constructive, deal-sealer (fixer) mentality. This mentality is owned by the ANAP’’. Furthermore, Dalan built his election strategy on the slogan that ‘’Unite the government with Istanbul’’, thus conducting a propaganda implying the fact that Istanbul would receive better service due to his party’s power.

Source: Kal’a, Ahmet et al. (prepared by), Istanbul Külliyatı: Cumhuriyet Dönemi Istanbul İstatistikleri 5, Seçim (1950-1995), Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 1998; DİE; Results of the General Parliamentary Election

SODEP’s Istanbul candidate Korel Göymen, centered around the promise of a democratic administration, pointed out that Istanbulites would participate in administration processes and that he would implement a proactive administration by establishing ‘’consultation councils’’. Göymen’s election talks were mostly focused on the ANAP’s promise that ‘’endowment certificates for title deeds’’ would be distributed for unlicensed residences in the city. According to Göymen, the ANAP’s promise was only within the framework of elections and the documents in question did not bear any official aspect since residents were unable to confirm their title deeds despite the distribution of similar documents prior to elections in 1968. In spite of Göymen’s criticism of the ANAP’s title deed policy, Göymen pointed out the acceleration of ‘’technical work required for endowment of title deeds with the unlicensed residence owners’’ in his newspaper advertisements titled ‘’a new mayor for Istanbul, a new life for Istanbul.’’ On the other hand, he promised that he would construct a livable Istanbul by means of a ‘’green belt’ sorrounding the city and collective housing projects.

As the DYP was to participate in an election for the first time, it approximated its local election propaganda to a general election concept. The DYP’s Istanbul candidate, Hüsamettin Cindoruk, promised that a shopping mall would be constructed underneath Taksim Park, and that the income to incur from here would contribute to the budget of the municipality. Cindoruk’s local administration promises also encompassed the construction of a second Bosphorus bridge and a subway. Prioritizing the economically unprivileged electorate of Istanbul, HP Istanbul candidate, Niyazi Yurtseven stated that train lines would be installed for squatters. On the other hand, The RP was not so assertive in Istanbul elections. In this sense, its election propaganda was generally focused on the policies of interest rates, luxury goods and their harm as well as building solutions for eliminating these problems on the strong conservation of spiritual values, and utilized slogans such as ‘’We want a Turkey where justice but not power prevails.’’ The MDP’s Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality candidate, Erdoğan Celasun, mentioned the construction of a tube channel through the Bosphorus.

The election of 1984 was won by the ANAP and the three metropolitan municipalities (Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir) were won by the ANAP. The voter turnout for this election was 85.57% throughout the country whereas it stayed at 84.50% in Istanbul. Within this context, the ANAP received 49.01% of the votes compared to SODEP with 26.69%, HP with 9.64%, DYP with 5.30%, MDP with 4.94% and RP with 4.17%.

Following elections in 1984, an interim election was held on 28 September 1986 in 10 provinces. Istanbul was among these provinces. The ANAP took 38.09% of valid votes compared to SHP with 20.37%, DSP with 13.79%, DYP with 13.16%, RP with 8.57%. On 29 November 1987, parliamentary elections were held. Although ANAP lost votes, it came out as the winning party in the elections. 39.70% of valid votes were taken by the ANAP whereas SHP, DYP, DSP and RP took 29.84%, 11.85%, 10.07% and 6.86% respectively.

Held on 29 November 1989 following general elections, social and political spheres were shaped by labor strikes and protests sparked by the headscarf ban in universities. Changes to the election law was one of the most notable subjects for political parties prior to elections. Using its part-in-power status, the ANAP participated in elections with its ‘’deal-sealer’’ slogan. The messages used by the ANAP all over Turkey also come to the forefront for elections in Istanbul. Within this context, it executed a strategy prioritizing the provision of better service in the event that mayors were members of the party in power. The newspaper ads incorporating the slogan ‘’Would you like to have a mayor with bound hand and foot?’’ served as the explicit expression of this situation. However, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal elections proved challenging for the ANAP as its municipal candidates were not included in the ballot papers owing to the election law enacted prior to the elections. The ANAP’s Istanbul candidate, Bedrettin Dalan, considered the exclusion of his name on the ballot paper as a problem since he thought that his popularity was better than the party itself. Therefore, he did not use the name of the party, its emblem and Özal’s name in the newspaper ads and his own promotional campaigns. Within this context, Dalan tried to set a supra-party position for himself in his speeches. Thanks to his term as mayor, he was able to carry out a more visible election campaign in Istanbul. For instance, he distributed the title deeds of residences built by the municipality shortly prior to elections.

The SHP’s candidate was, on the other hand, Nurettin Sözen. The SHP particularly preferred a special policy for metropolises during this period and used the conspicuous slogan of ‘’Let’s start building the social state from our municipalities’’. Furthermore, he centered his election promises around the transportation issue in Istanbul. To this end, Nurettin Sözen’s most significant promise was free transportation during rush hours. On the other hand, free milk for babies, free bread and water for low-income families, construction of free health clinics in all neighborhoods were among striking promises. In addition, Sözen accused ANAP’s candidate, Dalan, of corruption.

The DYP’s candidate was Vural Arıkan who was previously a deputy from ANAP and served as the Minister of Finance. Demanding that Özal resign from office and persisting on this demand following the tension with ANAP, Arıkan was dismissed from office by the president. Therefore, there was intense criticism of Özal in Arıkan’s election campaigns and pointed out that Özal ‘’devalued’’ money and instigated inflation. The RP’s candidate was Bahri Zengin. Although Zengin allocated ample space for the discourse and politics of Erbakan, the party’s leader, in his own political campaign, partially-free provision of water, electricity and some other necessaries constituted other notable promises. Zengin asserted that 70-80 liters of water per family, electricity for one room would be provided free of charge in the event of his winning the elections. Using the slogan ‘’Put the light bulb in its place for a bright future’’, the RP was involved in an intensive election campaign during this period in Istanbul particularly, and asked people to participate in the reinforcement project of the RP by donating ‘1,000’ liras in order to change their lives.

The 1989 local elections yielded important results for the ANAP with a significant decrease in the number of votes. The SHP won the election. While the ANAP was still the party in power, it lost its dominance in local administrations. SHP won 38.37% of valid votes throughout Turkey compared to its percentage of votes in Istanbul at 35.95%. The ANAP got 23.62% of votes throughout the country and got a high result in Istanbul with 26.12%. DYP, DSP, RP got 13.86%, 12.22%, 10.48% in Istanbul respectively. The SHP won in all central districts of Istanbul except for Adalar (ANAP). 26% of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal Council members were women. When we look at the birth place of council members, 86% were not born in Istanbul.

LOCAL ELECTIONS OF 1994 IN ISTANBUL AND
A TURNING POINT IN TURKISH POLITICS

On the way to elections of 27 March 1994, significant changes took place following the 1989 elections in particular. After Özal became the president in 1989, the ANAP’s votes started melting into the center-right and the DYP was gradually strengthened within the center-right. Moreover, divisions among the left and the emergence of Kurdish politicians under parties with different names despite political limitations and closures had an important role as well. Within this context, 13 political parties participated in the elections. The Welfare Party (RP), a leading organization in Islamic politics, started emerging as a significant political actor, which would determine the destiny, and therefore the new mayor of Istanbul. The rise of security politics in the political sphere and escalating violence as of 1990 in particular increased tension within the social sphere, and elections in Istanbul were conducted in a tense environment. For instance, on 12 February 1994 before the elections, the tension caused by the death of 5 military students owing to a bomb explosion near the station of Tuzla (later responsibility accepted by the PKK) directly influenced both politics in Turkey and elections in Istanbul. Within this context, the DYP’s Istanbul candidate, Dalan, pointed to this situation through his election slogan that ‘’Vote for DYP, deal a blow to terrorism’’.

In addition, the assumption that the primary election competition would take place between the ANAP and the DYP frequently hampered the socialization of other parties’ political discourses. Political parties focused their election campaigns on Istanbul, which sparked discussions regarding local elections by means of projects for Istanbul. During this period, the media’s claim that the Istanbul mayor would become the second most important political actor after the Prime Minister in Turkey pointed out to an increasing significance of Istanbul in local elections. Therefore, the 1994 local elections was to constitute a crucial space in terms of both political life in Turkey and Istanbul’s own future. Factionalised as an alleged threat to the regime and the election of the RP’s candidate with the conveying of Islamic discourse to the political arena, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as the mayor opened a new era in Istanbul and left ajar the gates of administering Turkey for political actors serving office in Istanbul.

Among the subjects focused on by all parties in the elections of 1994 in Istanbul were water, traffic, environmental and air pollution, and insufficient garbage collection. Within this context, one of the most notable projects of Zülfü Livaneli, the 1994 SHP candidate in Istanbul, was the construction of an ‘’underwater bridge’’ aimed at solving the traffic problem. This project of the SHP was planned as an alternative to the third bridge and underwater tube projects which were also discussed during this period. The reason for preferring an underwater bridge to a tube was owing to lower construction costs. Forming rainfalls by artificial methods, the use of rail systems, under-and over-passes, commencement of construction works for the swift functioning of the third bridge, establishing new systems in order to eliminate garbage through hygienic handling and burying, creating solutions through the use of a filtering system for air pollution were included in Livaneli’s other projects. In his newspaper ads, Livaneli spoke of himself as ‘’an art ambassador’’ and used a collage of articles in the Turkish and foreign press for his promotional election campaign. Declaring that he became a candidate ‘’in order to bring the richness of the world to Istanbul’’, Livaneli used the slogan ‘’Of course, Zülfü’’ in his election posters titled ‘’Let them say New York Out, Istanbul In’’. Nonetheless, the biggest accusation against Livaneli during election campaigns was related to the fact that he worked and carried out his election campaign with people involved in the İSKİ scandal.

The RP’s Istanbul candidate was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who served as the provincial leader of the party during the period in question. Nominated as both a local and general election candidate, Erdoğan failed to be elected and was exposed to intensive marginalization policies both in the media and before his rivals following the declaration of his candidacy. However, the RP implemented a different and face-to-face communication strategy by means of special election commissions as opposed to other parties executing their communication activities through agencies. Erdoğan had the opinion that an underwater tube should be constructed in the Bosphorus instead of a third bridge. Extending the metro lines, preferring seaways as an alternative way of transport would facilitate transport. The water problem could be solved by improving existing basins through the use of engineering projects and the Melen water project should be put into effect in the long run. According to Erdoğan, there was the problem of an insufficient number of residences rather than a squatter problem in Istanbul. Therefore, the municipality should construct residences at reasonable prices for those in need. The garbage problem could be solved by compressing the garbage. In addition, a modern storing system should be introduced and garbage facilities should be established following the end of the three-year period. Air pollution would be able to be solved by intervening through the use of weather forecast stations. The Welfare Party paid special attention to Istanbul, and Necmettin Erbakan, the chairman, carried out an election campaign by travelling all around Istanbul together with Erdoğan.

Common discourse of all other political parties was aimed at the failure of the RP, and thus Erdoğan. Therefore, both leftist and rightist parties demanded the non-division of votes and asked for the people to vote for them. In contrast with other candidates, Erdoğan followed a different election strategy by not having a media campaign. The frame of other candidates’ campaign against Erdoğan was mostly determined by ideology. For instance, Erdoğan prepared a meeting in Sultanahmet following the Friday prayers while Zülfü Livaneli gave a concert in the same spot and did his election campaign. On the other hand, the DYP invited all parties except for the marginalized RP and DEP to the meeting titled ‘’Reverence for Atatürk’’ organized on February 28^th in Taksim.

Winning the municipal elections as a member of the ANAP in 1984 and nominated in the elections of 1989 from the same party, Bedrettin Dalan chose to be nominated from the DYP this time. Dalan asserted that no squatter settlements would be demolished and promised a title deed for all in Istanbul. Dalan’s projects were mostly centered around subway networks. In this sense, a tube pass following under the Bosphorus until Yenikapı should be constructed and integrated with the subway networks. On the other hand, for Dalan, it was a prerequisite that a third bridge and ring roads be built to solve the traffic problem. According to him, the water problem would be solved by reducing the rates, improvements and social housing project would solve the squatter settlement problem whereas air pollution should be eliminated by means of widespread provision of natural gas in the city. The attempt to wear out Dalan, the DYP’s Istanbul candidate and former mayor elected from the ANAP, through the campaign named ‘’No to both Dalan and Plunder (talan in Turkish)!’’ constituted one of the important disadvantages in the election competition.

Nominated as a deputy from the DYP, İlhan Kesici changed his party and became the ANAP’s Istanbul municipal candidate. The ANAP’s election campaign run over the “2nd Urban Planning Move’’ was directed at hampering the DYP’s rise. Within this context, Kesici was unable to run a campaign placing him on the forefront. Kesici’s election promises were mostly centered around the lack of water, environmental and air pollution as well as the transportation difficulties in the city. Provision of water from the Melen and Istranca rivers in the long-run and improvement of old basins; rail system for transportation and laying weight on sea transport; construction of car parks on municipal properties; regular and daily collection of garbage in struggle against pollution; sort-out of garbage in intermediary stations and incineration of a necessary part of garbage were among some of these projects. Kesici started his election campaign by gathering an “Istanbul Meeting’’ and questions regarding the methods of administration for Istanbul were discussed in this meeting. Within this context, Kesici had a divergent project focusing on the formation of a single provincial council within the borders of Istanbul and creation of a new administration model in the capacity of district councils in districts, and thus transferring all authorities except for classical state tasks to the Council of Istanbul.

The MHP’s municipal candidate, Ahmet Vefik Alp, offered tube passes as an alternative solution for traffic in Istanbul. However, this project was structured around a tube pass connecting the historical peninsula underneath Haliç to a ground rail system in Taksim as opposed to the idea of installing the underwater tube in the Bosphorus. In addition, Alp promised a two-floor underground car park with a capacity of 50,000 vehicles to solve the traffic problem. The CHP’s municipal candidate, Ertuğrul Günay, highlighted a more social democratic municipal administration in his statements.

The winner of the 1994 elections throughout Turkey was the RP. The RP won municipal elections in two big cities, Istanbul and Ankara. The RP took 22.40% of the votes throughout Turkey compared to the ANAP with 21.79%, SHP with 19.68%, the DYP with 15.88%, DSP with 11.23%. 25.19% of the votes were won by RP whilst ANAP, SHP, DYP and DSP received 22.14%, 20.30%, 15.46%, 12.38% respectively in Istanbul. The RP was the leading party in Istanbul district elections and won the elections in 14 of the central districts. Nine of the remaining districts were won by SHP; DSP as well as CHP won in two districts. In opinion polls held prior to the elections in Istanbul, Erdoğan was considered not to stand a chance however, his victory in the elections constituted a turning point for political life in Turkey.

The political rise of the RP was facilitated by its victory in cities in the local elections of 1994. Within this context, votes for the RP were at 21.38% all over Turkey and rose to 23.93% in Istanbul. ANAP, DSP, DYP, CHP, MHP and HADEP took 21.98%, 18.33%, 15.39%, 11.64%, 3.70% and 3.64% respectively in the general elections of 1995.

Source: Kal’a, Ahmet et al. (prepared by), Istanbul Külliyatı: Cumhuriyet Dönemi Istanbul İstatistikleri 5, Seçim (1950-1995), Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 1998; DİE; General Parliamentary Election Results.

1999 ELECTIONS: URBAN ADMINISTRATION DISCOURSE

For the second time in Turkish political history, local and general elections were both held on the same day on 18 April 1999 after the elections of 1963. Although holding local and general elections on the same day brought together the execution of the election process within the framework of international problems, these problems were frequently placed within local election campaigns as well. The most important aspect of local elections for Istanbul was the forced resignation of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from office as mayor following the penalty issued owing to a poem. This situation resulted from the intervention of the military in the political sphere through a ‘’post-modern coup’’ on 28 February 1997. Within this context, the political sphere was re-shaped following the closure of the RP and only 19 parties participated in these elections. However, local elections appeared to prove more challenging for parties in major cities particularly. Within this context, Istanbul serves as the city in which competition was at its highest during both local and general elections. In the local elections of Istanbul, the RP nominated Ali Müfit Gürtuna who became the chairman after Erdoğan following the decision of the municipal council. The ANAP, CHP, MHP, DYP and DSP nominated Ali Talip Özdemir, businessman Adnan Polat, Ahmet Vefik Alp, Yalçın Özer, Zekeriya Temizel for Istanbul respectively. Party promises were framed around the water problem, environmental and air pollution, traffic while also focusing on a new issue, “urban administration’’, in the local elections of 1999 in Istanbul.

Established in place of the RP, the Virtue Party (Fazilet Partisi-FP) had an advantage in entering the elections since it carried out an incessant election campaign by organizing activities such as ‘’Women’s Commission’’, conferences, seminars, weddings, visitation, house talks beginning from the previous election. Therefore, the “National View Municipalism’’ rising as of 1994 in Istanbul continued its gradual rise during these elections as well. Despite the fact that Ali Müfit Gürtuna was not a member of the ‘’National View’’ tradition, he maintained the impetus of the party through his candidacy as a member of the FP. The slogan “faithful and frank’’ used in his election posters served as an indicator for his candidacy from this party despite his background. Prior to his imprisonment, Erdoğan stated that he stood a guarantor for Gürtuna and asked the people to support “Fazilet candidates’’. Gürtuna made promises for Istanbul through projects such as “the Eurasian Corridor’’, “the City of Fairs and Congresses’’, “Environmental Transformation’’, “Urban Design and Urban Information System’’.

On the other hand, Ali Talip Özdemir promised that he would administer Istanbul with Istanbulites by forming a “city council’’. Özdemir’s promise that administration would make use of the satellite technology and the internet would be utilized for a transparent administration emerged as a new discourse for urban administrations. Besides special services for women, children and the elderly, Özdemir also promised health insurance for all and decreasing bread prices by 50%, free bus transport between certain hours. The CHP candidate, Adnan Polat, asserted that he would solve the city planning problem by signing a zoning contract with Istanbulites. He also promised to find a solution to the housing problem by means of providing 15-month mortgage system and thus transform all squatter settlements accordingly. Polat’s project named ‘’Istanbul Association Program’’, constituted the essence of his election strategy to involve all of Istanbul into administrative processes. The DSP’s candidate Zekeriya Temizel’s most significant project was the underwater tube project which was frequently referred to in the elections of 1994. The MHP’s candidate, Vefik Alp, opined that he was different from other candidates since his election projects were based on science and art. For example, he had an interesting and striking project which did not endow a planning permit for buildings blocking the sun of neighboring structures.

Source: Kal’a, Ahmet et al.(prepared by), Istanbul Külliyatı: Cumhuriyet Dönemi Istanbul İstatistikleri 5, Seçim (1950-1995), Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 1998; DİE; General Parliamentary Election Results.

Results of the 1999 general elections manifested that votes for the DSP and MHP increased within the framework of the period’s conjuncture. Abdullah Öcalan’s capture in Kenya and his extradition to Turkey was the most important factor for the increase of their votes. 22% of the votes were won by the DSP whilst MHP, FP, ANAP and DYP took 18%, 15%, 13% and 12% of the votes respectively. The CHP could not be represented in parliament as it stayed under the election threshold with 9%. The FP won the election race as the first party in both metropolitan and other municipal elections. The FP’s candidate, Gürtuna, was elected mayor with 22% of the votes in Istanbul. The ANAP ranked second with 18%, DSP and CHP took 18% and 16% of the votes respectively.

POST-2002 ELECTIONS: THE AK Parti ERA IN LOCAL AND GENERAL ELECTIONS

2002 proved a turning point for political life in Turkey. This resulted from the fact that the old methods of politics were eliminated by the people on 3 November 2002. Politics could not generate any value through vicious daily disputes, and thus failed to materialize an administration mentality for enabling stability. Therefore, political instability and the following economic crises pushed people to search for a new political actor. The Justice and Development Party (AK Parti), established in 2001 by a reformist group which was formerly involved in the closed FP, won the elections with an overwhelming majority. Staying under the election threshold in the former election, the CHP became the second party entering in the parliament. The AK Parti, led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, got 34% of the votes compared to CHP getting 19% of the votes. Istanbul constituted the most important election space which would determine Turkey’s destiny with a number of 70 deputies to be elected from three electoral districts in 2002. The AK Parti got 43 deputies with 37% of the votes in Istanbul whereas CHP could have 27 deputies with 24%. Genç Parti (the Young Party), DEHAP, MHP, ANAP and DYP got 8.22%, 5.51%, 5.4%, 4.57%, 3.62%. The political heritage generated during the mayorship of Erdoğan in Istanbul definitely had a large role in the AK Parti’s election success. The praxis built upon Erdoğan’s political discourse could be easily based on his projects implemented during his mayorship in Istanbul.

The AK Parti and SHP did not declare their metropolitan municipality candidates until the very last application date in the local elections of 2004. The AK Parti nominated Kadir Topbaş for the metropolitan municipality elections following the nomination of Sefa Sirmen, former mayor of İzmit and a deputy during that period, by CHP. The DSP’s candidate for Istanbul was the former Minister of Economy, Masum Türker while Ahmet Vefik Alp, who was formerly a candidate from MHP, nominated himself from DYP. In contrast, Meral Akşener, a former DYP deputy and minister, was nominated by MHP in Istanbul. Mukadder Başeğmez became Saadet Partisi (SP)‘s candidate in Istanbul whereas ANAP preferred Pınar Türenç as a candidate for the metropolitan mayorship of Istanbul. It is undoubted that all political parties tried to enable visibility over Istanbul upon the examination of nominations. However, local elections in Istanbul were not so competitive owing to the belief that the AK Parti would win. The election campaign of the AK Parti was executed with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rather than Kadir Topbaş himself. Election posters incorporated both Erdoğan’s photographs and the slogans “We set out with love for Istanbul’’, “Everything for Istanbul’’. The media and his rivals criticized Topbaş harshly for being a temporary candidate.

The CHP’s candidate, Sefa Sirmen, stated in his election campaign that Erdoğan was his rival by disregarding Topbaş. However, the AK Parti started a public debate regarding the deeds of Sefa Sirmen during his mayorship in Kocaeli Metropolitan Municipality and occupied the agenda with the issue of corruption accusations against Sirmen during this period. Formerly a municipal candidate from MHP several times and then transferring to the Young Party (GP), Ahmet Vefik Alp was nominated from DYP this time. His projects contained the construction of a car park underneath the Golden Horn, transforming the First Army Commandership building into a seven star hotel. The AK Parti demonstrated the same achievement in Istanbul as in the rest of the country. It took 45% of the valid votes and Kadir Topbaş was elected the Istanbul metropolitan mayor. In comparison, the CHP got 29% of the votes as the second party whereas SP, DYP, MHP got 5.40%, 4.88% and 4.09% respectively. Voter turnout in Istanbul stayed at 68%. In the general elections of 2007, the AK Parti maintained its dominance gradually. Within this context, the AK Party got 45.16% which is close to the overall vote percentage throughout the country and had 39 deputies out of 80. The CHP got 22 deputies with 26,9% compared to MHP having 7 deputies with 10.44%, the independents having 2 deputies with 5.87%.

The AK Parti decided to re-nominate Kadir Topbaş in the local elections on 29 March 2009. The CHP nominated Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu who was a deputy during this period and would be chosen as the CHP chairman later. Ahmet Turgut was nominated from the MHP; the SP nominated Mehmet Bekaroğlu whereas the DSP’s candidate was Ahmet Vefik Alp, a former and frequent Istanbul candidate from assorted parties. In addition, Akın Birdal was chosen as the DTP’s candidate. Topbaş brought his projects based on ‘’aesthetics and identity’’ to the fore. Departing from the fact that transport was the most important problem of Istanbul, he laid emphasis on this field. Promising to privatize İETT (public transport works in Istanbul), Topbaş announced that they were executing projects with large investments for improving sea transport and extend the subway lines. The CHP’s candidate, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, declared that an 80-km subway line, reducing public transport fares to 1 lira, monthly salary of 600 liras for poor families, an insured person per household, payment of natural gas bills at half-price, formation of an informatics valley would be realized within the framework of his “34 projects in 34’’ project. Kılıçdaroğlu’s candidacy rendered these elections competitive as opposed to the elections of 2004. The rivalry took place between the AK Parti and CHP generally. Results of the 2009 local elections demonstrate that the AK Parti candidate, Kadir Topbaş, was re-elected mayor with 44.35%. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, on the other hand, went over the average in Turkey and ranked second with 36.80%. MHP’s candidate got 5.15%; SP and DTP got 4.92% and 4.64% respectively.

Urban policies, discussed over Istanbul, determined the competition arena between the parties in the general elections of 2011. Istanbul was at the center of the AK Parti’s policy to create “landmark cities’’ as centers of attraction on a global scale. One of the most striking and expectation-raising projects and declared by Erdoğan in a large press meeting, the “crazy project’’ bore an importance for the history of Istanbul. Named “Channel Istanbul’’, the “crazy project’’ was planned to connect the Black Sea and Marmara Sea on the West side of Istanbul through a new channel. Another crucial project of the AK Parti for Istanbul was the construction of two new cities on both the Anatolian and European side. Furthermore, the construction of a third international airport, completion of the third Bosphorus bridge, construction of an underwater tube passage for wheel vehicles in addition to the rail system (Marmaray) connecting both continents underwater, execution of the Galataport and Haydarpaşa port projects, extending the subway networks, investments in such fields as tourism, health besides the formation of green spaces were only some of AK Parti’s projects. Urban planning project developed by the CHP was shaped around rendering Istanbul the third global city alongside London and Paris. Both CHP and other opposition parties conducted an election campaign criticizing AK Parti’s urban projects from different aspects. Both the AK Parti and CHP increased their votes compared to the election of 2007 in Istanbul. The AK Parti reached its highest vote level with 49% in this election while CHP increased its number of votes by 4% compared to the prior election. The MHP dropped below its percentage of votes from the last general elections and ranked third with 9% in Istanbul.

Istanbul constituted the focal point for election propaganda of political parties in the local elections on 30 March 2014. Parties prepared for the local elections as if for a referendum. Therefore, the loss of Istanbul had ‘’symbolic’’ meanings both for the party in power and the opposition. Losing the elections in Istanbul would have led to the gradual decrease of social support for the AK Parti in both local and general elections as of 2002. For the opposition, ousting the AK Parti from power was in direct proportion to the ‘’fall’’ of Istanbul. The elections of 2014 in Istanbul were led by the AK Parti, CHP and Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). Candidates of other parties were almost non-existent during the elections. The AK Parti re-nominated Kadir Topbaş, Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor as of 2004. Topbaş constructed his discourse on “experience’’ and “trust’’ as the only mayor elected many times in a row in the history of local elections in Istanbul. Despite being projects devised by the central government, opening of Marmaray on 29 October 2013, continuation of projects such as the third bridge and the third airport provided an advantage for Topbaş. The transportation problem served as the most important element for the AK Parti’s 2014 election strategy. In this sense, the transportation strategy was focused on the construction of the subway using the slogan “By subway everywhere, subway all over’’. Among AK Parti’s projects for Istanbul were ongoing available plans, promises for the completion of mega projects, free internet in large squares, multi-story car parks in neighborhoods, new large urban parks.

Mustafa Sarıgül, Mayor of Şişli, was nominated for the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal elections by the CHP. Owing to Gürsel Tekin standing for mayor and the dismissal of Sarıgül from the CHP previously, the election campaign of the CHP commenced in the shade of discussions. Sarıgül conducted his election campaign with the slogan that “An Istanbul without an Other’’. The rumors that the HDP would ally with the CHP for elections in Istanbul occupied the media space for a long time however, this alliance did not take place.

Kadir Topbaş was re-elected mayor in the local elections of 2014. According the local election results, the AK Parti ranked first with 45.54% and got 47.92% of the votes in Istanbul. CHP got 31.04% all over the country while having 40.08% of the votes in Istanbul. MHP’s countrywide votes stayed at 17.76% compared to the percentage of votes in Istanbul at 3.97%, and ranked fourth. Sırrı Süreyya Önder’s HDP became the third party with 4.83%.

CONCLUSION

Owing to Istanbul being the largest industrial, commercial, financial and cultural center, accommodating the largest population in the country as a migration-receiving city and bearing a social and political diversity representative of Turkey as a whole, the political map of the city serves as a country-wide indicator. Within this context, the point to be considered in regards to the electoral history of Istanbul is the fact that elections in Istanbul generate results in parallel to the general elections from a historical point of view. As in the elections of 1994, the political party winning the local elections in Istanbul, for the most part, won the general elections of the next term in Turkey. Secondly, the political parties primarily released their local and urban projects into circulation through elections in Istanbul. Thirdly, many political actors elected on the local level in Istanbul could obtain results in the following terms easily thanks to their country-wide political popularity. Therefore, many figures effective in determining the destiny of Turkey gained political experience first in Istanbul.

Although elections in Istanbul possess a vital importance for Turkey’s political life, there exist almost no studies analyzing these elections from a historical point of view. Within this context, analyses of elections in Istanbul are only touched upon in several studies on the local elections in Turkey in general. Numerous analyses related to election results beginning from 1850 to 1995 have been published in detail within the framework of the Republican era statistics by Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Within this context, most of the data included in the study was based on this study. Furthermore, data provided by the Statistical Institution of Turkey (TÜİK) and Supreme Election Board (YSK) have been substantially used within this context. Besides making use of previous studies, it was possible to reach data related to the promises of political parties and municipal candidates, their projects on the local level in Istanbul through the use of newspaper archives. As a consequence, projects devised by the political parties for Istanbul have been described by focusing on the local elections between 1950-2014 in Istanbul within the boundaries of this study. Hence, this has laid the historical framework for urban politics developed on Istanbul from political and ideological aspects.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmad, Feroz, Bir Kimlik Peşinde Türkiye, Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010.

Ahmad, Feroz, Demokrasi Sürecinde Türkiye, 1945-1980, Istanbul: Hil Yayınları, 1992.

Ahmad, Feroz, Modern Türkiye’nin Oluşumu, tr.anslated by Yavuz Alagon, Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 2002.

Ahmad, Feroz, “Cumhuriyet Türkiye’sinde Siyaset ve Siyasal Partiler”, Türkiye Tarihi 1839-2010, ed.ited by Reşat Kasaba, tr.anslated by Zuhal Bilgin, Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.

Akbulut, Örsan, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1963 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1963.php

Akbulut, Örsan, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1968 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1968.php

Akbulut, Örsan, “Ulusal Siyaset–Yerel Siyaset İlişkisi Bağlamında 1963 Yerel Seçimleri”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 2001, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 36-60.

Aksel, Musa, Meydanlardan Medyaya Bir Seçimin Anatomisi: Seçim 95, Ankara: Saypa Yayın-Dağıtım, 1996.

Alkan, Mehmet Ö., “Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Seçimlerin Kısa Tarihi”, Rapor, SETA Vakfı, Mayıs 1998.

Alpkaya, Faruk, “Seçim Sonuçları Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler ve Öngörüler”, Birikim, 1999, no. 122, pp. 42-46.

Bayramoğlu, Ali, “Seçim Sonuçlarının Dip Akıntıları”, Birikim, 2004, no. 180, pp. 35-38.

Bayramoğlu, Sonay, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1994 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1994.php

Bayramoğlu, Sonay, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1999 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1999.php

Binark, F. Mutlu, Süleyman İrvan, “1994 Yerel Seçimleri ve Kamuoyu Yoklamaları: Temsiller ve Koro”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 1994, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 101-116.

Bora, Tanıl, “Istanbul’un Seçimi”, Birikim, 1993, no. 56, pp. 3-11.

Bora, Tanıl, “Yerel Seçimler: Tek Kale Maça Çıkarken”, Birikim, 2004, no. 179, pp. 42-45.

Cumhuriyetten Günümüze Milletvekili Seçimleri 1923-2002, Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 2004.

Çaha, Ömer and Michelangelo Guida, Türkiye’de Seçim Kampanyaları, Ankara: Orion Kitabevi, 2011.

Çakır, Ruşen, “Refah’ı Eleştirmenin Yolları”, Birikim, 1994, no. 59, pp. 12-20.

Çavdar, Tevfik, “Demokrat Parti”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1983, VIII, 2060-2075.

Çevik, Semra, Siyasal İletişimde Bir Araç: Seçim Afişleri, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1999.

Çitçi, Oya, Yerel Seçimler Coğrafyası: 1963-1999, Ankara: TODAİE Yayını, 2005.

Çitçi, Oya et al.,Yerel Seçimler Panoraması: 1963-1999, Ankara: TODAİE Yayını, 2001.

Çoşkun, Zeki, “Istanbul Neyi Seçti?”, Birikim, 1994, no. 60, pp. 11-29.

Çoşkun, Zeki, “Seç Bakalım”, Birikim, 1999, no. 120, pp. 72-74.

Demirel, Ahmet, “50.Yıldönümünde 1950 Seçimleri”, TT, 2000, vol. 33, no. 197, pp. 15-17.

Demirel, Tanel, Adalet Partisi: İdeoloji ve Politika, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004.

Demirel, Tanel, Türkiye’nin Uzun On Yılı: Demokrat Parti İktidarı ve 27 Mayıs Darbesi, Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2011.

Erder, Sema, “Yerel Politikanın Yükselişi: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Deneyimi 1984-2004”, İlhan Tekeli İçin Armağan Yazılar, eds. Selim İlkin, Orhan Silier and Murat Güvenç, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2004, pp. 539-558.

Eroğul, Cem, Çok Partili Düzenin Kuruluşu, 1945-71, Geçiş Sürecinde Türkiye, edited by. Irvin C. Schick and E. Ahmet Tonak, Istanbul: Belge Yayınları, 2006, pp. 112-158.

Guida, Michelangelo, “Istanbulda Seçmen Tercihlerini Anlamada Bir Anahtar Olarak Toplumsal Farklılıklar”, tr.anslated by Tülin Tuna, Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2010, no. 44 , pp. 45-65.

Heper, Metin, Türkiye’nin Siyasal Hayatı: Tarihsel, Kuramsal ve Karşılaştırmalı Açıdan, tr.anslated by Kadriye Göksel, Istanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2011.

Kahraman, Hasan Bülent, Sağ Türkiye ve Partileri, Ankara: İmge Yayınları, 1995.

Kahraman, Hasan Bülent, Türk Siyasetinin Yapısal Analizi II, 1920-1960, Istanbul: Agora Yayınları, 2010.

Kal‘a, Ahmet et al. (prepared by), İstanbul Külliyatı: Cumhuriyet Dönemi Istanbul İstatistikleri 5, Seçim (1950-1995), Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı İstanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları, 1998.

Karpat, Kemal, Türk Demokrasi Tarihi, Sosyal, Ekonomik, Kültürel Temeller, Istanbul: Afa Yayınları, 1996.

Karpat, Kemal, Türkiye’de Siyasal Sistemin Evrimi: 1876-1980, tr.anslated by Esin Soğancılar, Ankara: İmge Yayınları, 2007.

Kirmanoğlu, Hasan and Murat Güvenç, Türkiye Seçim Atlası 1950-2009: Türkiye Siyasetinde Süreklilik ve Değişim, Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2009.

Köksal, Sema and Nihal Kara, “1980 Sonrasında Yerel Siyasetin Örgütlenmesi ve Belediyeler”, Toplum ve Bilim, 1990, no. 48-49, pp. 117-128.

Miş, Nebi, “Türkiye’de Güvenlikleştirme Siyaseti (1923-2000)” (Phd Thesis), Sakarya University, 2012.

Özkan, Necati, Türkiye ve Dünyadan Örneklerle Seçim Kazandıran Kampanyalar, Istanbul: Capital Medya, 2004.

Şener, Mustafa, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1984 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1984.php

Şener, Mustafa, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1989 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1989.php

Tekeli, Şirin, “Cumhuriyet Döneminde Seçimler”, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1983, VII, 1798-1824.

Tosun, Tanju, Siyasette Yeniden Mevzilenmeler: Liberal Sosyal Sentez, Muhafazakâr Demokrat Sentez Ekseninde 3 Kasım 2002 Seçimleri, Istanbul: Büke Kitapları, 2003.

Tuncer, Erol, Seçim 2007-22 Temmuz 2007 Milletvekili Genel Seçimleri Sayısal ve Siyasal Değerlendirme, Ankara: TESAV Yayını, 2007.

Tuncer, Erol, 24 Aralık 1995 Milletvekili Seçimlerinin Sayısal ve Siyasal Değerlendirmesi, Ankara: TESAV Yayını, 1996.

Tuncer, Erol and Coşkun Kasapbaş, Seçim 1999 - 18 Nisan 1999 İl Genel Meclisi ve Belediye Seçimleri Sayısal ve Siyasal Değerlendirme, Ankara: TESAV Yayını, 2000.

Tuncer, Erol and Coşkun Kasapbaş, Seçim 2004 - 28 Mart 2004 İl Genel Meclisi ve Belediye Seçimleri: Sayısal ve Siyasal Değerlendirme, Ankara: TESAV Yayını, 2004.

Tuncer, Erol, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Seçimler (1877 – 2002), Ankara: TESAV Yayını, 2003.

Tuncer, Erol, Seçim 2009 - 29 Mart 2009 İl Genel Meclisi ve Belediye Seçimleri Sayısal ve Siyasal Değerlendirme, Ankara: TESAV Yayını, 2009.

Turan, Ali Eşref, Türkiye’de Seçmen Davranışı: Önceki Kırılmalar ve 2002 Seçimi, Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004.

Turan, Ali Eşref, Türkiye’de Yerel Seçimler, Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2008.

Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, www.tuik.gov.tr.

Uztuğ, Ferruh, Siyasal İletişim Yönetimi: Siyasette Marka Yaratmak, Istanbul: MediaCat Kitapları, 2004.

Yalçıntan, Murat Cemal and A. Erdem Erbaş, “Mekan ve Siyaset: Istanbul’un Kentsel Büyüme Kademelenmesi ve 1980 Sonrası Yerel Seçim Sonuçları”, Birikim, 2004, no. 179, pp. 28-41.

Yavuz, Hakan, Modernleşen Müslümanlar, Nurcular, Nakşîler, Milli Görüş ve Ak Parti, Istanbul: , Kitap Yayınevi, 2005.

Yayman, Hüseyin, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1973 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1973.php.

Yayman, Hüseyin, “Seçim Sonuçları Değerlendirmesi 1977 Yılı Raporu”, 26.11.2013, http://eski.yerelnet.org.tr/secimler/secim_analizleri1977.php

Yüksek Seçim Kurulu, http://www.ysk.gov.tr.

Zürcher, Eric Jan, Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, tr.anslated by Yasemin Saner Gönen, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002.