This past Sunday, I traveled 4 hours round trip to NYC to cast my vote at the Turkish consulate. Reports show that turnout rates for voters living abroad have increased 8% to reach 43.7%. Citizens in Turkey will be voting on November 1, 2015, repeating the parliamentary elections held on June 7, 2015. Turnout within Turkey is expected to surpass the 84% rate in June. People on all sides of the political spectrum understand that this is a critical election and the resulting composition of the parliament will have drastic implications for the future of the country. A Justice and Development Party (AKP) majority will change the political system, complete the overhaul of democratic institutions, and deepen the polarization in the society. This election is a final lifeline for democracy in Turkey and a final stand for the opposition.

“Give me four hundred deputies” President Erdoğan said earlier this year, “and all will be solved peacefully.” He was campaigning on behalf of AKP ahead of the June election. AKP got 41% of the votes and 258 seats, far below the 400 seats Erdoğan aspired to and also below 276 seats necessary for a vote of confidence. It soon became obvious that a coalition or a minority government would not be possible. The constitution calls for snap elections in case a government cannot get a vote of confidence within 45 days.

As of writing, latest polls project vote shares of the major 4 parties not to deviate drastically from their vote shares in June. The upcoming election will likely result in a parliamentary seat distribution similar to the current one. Any result short of 276 seats will be another failure for the AKP. AKP, under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, had held majority of the seats and the government since 2002. During their 13 years of uninterrupted government, AKP set Turkey on a more authoritarian path.

Transition to a Presidential System

Erdoğan’s AKP has gradually been moving Turkey from a parliamentarian to a presidential system. Historically, presidents had been elected by the parliament. Since the constitutional amendment of 2007, presidents are elected through public vote. The office of the president had largely been ceremonial, except the expanded veto powers introduced after the 1980 military coup. Even before the 2014 presidential elections that placed Erdoğan in the presidency, he emphasized that a president who is elected by the national will should have more powers and an American style presidential system is more appropriate for Turkey. Erdoğan’s performance as a president has been far from symbolic and similar to a president in a presidential system.

A transition from a parliamentary to a presidential system is not trivial. If democratic institutions and principles such as separation of powers, freedom of expression, free press, freedom of association and protest are absent, a presidential system decays into authoritarianism. A checks and balances system is a must to control abuse of presidential powers. The juxtaposition of a subdued judiciary, an AKP parliamentary majority and an ambitious Erdoğan is not good for democracy, the last few years showed. Critics of Erdoğan rightly fear that presidentialism, in his case, is synonymous with Sultanism.

Descent into Authoritarianism

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, Turkey was touted as a model for democracy in a Muslim society. Democracy in Turkey started to descend into competitive authoritarianism around the same time. Yes, elections and referenda were regularly held, but AKP held on to government and the opposition had limited voice and no power.

Government control over the judiciary revealed itself in farcical court cases and incarcerations of opposition figures: high ranking officers, journalists,pro- Kurdish Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP) officials at all levels, even celebrities who express opposing views. Ever worsening record on freedom of expression and press, establishment of government control over much of the media outlets, brutal police response towards any public protest are well known. Turkey topped the list for highest number of jailed journalists in 2013. In the first half of 2015, Turkish government requested 408 account removals from Twitter, accounting for 78% of such requests from the company. More than 100,000 websites have been banned. Just three days before the elections, police seized two opposition channels, following the removal of several others from digital networks two weeks ago.

The most significant damage to democracy is, however, the growing distrust of the electoral process among the people in Turkey. Opposition MPs and journalists have questioned the discrepancies between number of votes at the ballot box reports and those entered into the central electronic vote system. Possible irregularities in the local elections of 2014, especially in Ankara, never got investigated. As a response, citizen groups borne out of the Gezi protests organized election monitoring groups. In an unprecedented grassroots effort, Oy ve Ötesi made sure ballot casting and tallying was properly done on June 7. For those who opposed AKP, the last tool to having their voices heard was the ballot box, and they worked hard to protect it. As the election day nears, a smear campaign against Oy ve Otesi is carried out in pro-government media and social media associating them with any and all enemies of the state.

Societal Polarization and Alienation of Minorities

In June, HDP passed the 10% electoral threshold by 3% of the votes. Many ethnic Turks had strategically voted for the pro-Kurdish party to help HDP pass the 10% electoral threshold. That 3% margin was detrimental in AKP losing parliamentary majority and the lesson was not lost on the party leaders. Immediately after the electoral setback in June, Erdoğan and AKP adopted a polarizing discourse towards the Kurds. In the five months between the two elections, the violence in the Kurdish dominated southeast regressed back to levels experienced in the 1990s. Kurdish towns of Cizre and Şırnak were under de facto military siege. Clashes with the militant Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) got intensified.

Increasing violence in the Southeast, soldier and police deaths and funerals helped amp up nationalism and anti-Kurdish sentiments, further polarizing the country along ethnic lines. HDP offices and Kurdish businesses were burnt by mobs. On October 10, 2015 a pro-peace rally organized by leftist groups including the HDP was interrupted with bombs, claiming 106 lives. This biggest terrorist attack in the country to date became a showcase for how divided the country is. Some Turks did not express sympathy for the deaths in Ankara bombings but felt rectified for the soldier/police deaths. Establishing social peace after such polarization needs a government that is trusted by both sides. After all the post-June vilification AKP has carried out against all opposing societal forces, it is unlikely that such social peace is possible under a dominant AKP government.

Continuation of a single-handed, powerful AKP government may suit the short term interests of the international community. Such a government may be a more efficient partner in dealing with ISIS in Syria and managing the refugee flow into Europe. However, recent history of shows that European and American alliances with authoritarian Middle Eastern leaders do not end well. An all powerful AKP government is very bad news for democracy and peace in Turkey. The people in Turkey will choose the fate of the country at the ballot boxes this Sunday.