Turkish election ‘unfair’, but the vote was not rigged

From Turkey to China, leaders think they can ignore history and rule their people alone

INTERNATIONAL election observers said yesterday that Turkey’s election was unfair, because the opposition had “no equal opportunities” to make their case against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but they did not find evidence of widespread vote rigging.

The observers’ report was issued hours after Muharrem Ince, Mr Erdogan’s main challenger, formally conceded defeat in the election and warned that Turkey was becoming “a one-man regime”.

Observers from the Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said that voters had a “genuine choice” but that the opposition was not able “to compete on an equal basis”.

The OSCE team said that Mr Erdogan had benefited from “excessive coverage” by state and private media. It also said that emergency laws Mr Erdogan imposed “limited fundamental freedoms of assembly and expression”.

The report focused on the pro-kurdish People’s Democratic Party, which faced “a number of attacks and disruptions”. Selahattin Demirtas, the party’s presidential candidate, is in prison and “could not campaign freely”.

“There is some work to be done by the authorities to ensure that future elections in Turkey are in line with democratic standards and commitments,” said Audrey Glover, the head of the observer mission.

However, the observers said that election day procedures were “generally followed” and did not report any widespread vote rigging, as some opposition parties had feared.

Mr Ince, speaking in Ankara yesterday, said he did not believe that voter fraud had tipped the balance of the election. “Did they steal votes? Yes, they did. But did they steal 10million votes? No,” he said. He warned about the new executive presidency system which will come into force after the election.

“Turkey has cut off its links with democracy. It has cut off links with the parliamentary system. It is transitioning toward a one-man regime,” he said. Mr Ince also apologised for not addressing his supporters on Sunday night and instead texting his concession to a Turkish news anchor, who read it out on live television. “An experienced politician like me shouldn’t have done that,” he said.

Some supporters remained furious with Mr Ince and his Republican People’s Party (CHP) for not contesting the election results.

A spokesman for Theresa May said the UK looked forward to continuing a “close association” with Turkey. There were recriminations in both Germany and Austria after the results showed that Turkish voters living in both countries had voted overwhelmingly for Mr Erdogan.

Nearly two thirds of the Turkish community in Germany (65.7 per cent) voted for Mr Erdogan, a stronger show of support than in Turkey, where Mr Erdogan received just over half the vote. Around 475,000 people of Turkish origin are thought to have voted in Germany.

The re-election of President Erdogan of Turkey, ready to assume greatly enhanced powers to make laws as he desires and abolish the post of prime minister, marks another milestone in the global rise of the Strong Man. It is a paradox of the early 21st century that the more the world develops complexity beyond the understanding of any individual and the more millions of highly educated people graduate from outstanding universities, the greater the tendency to reach for the single leader who will alone determine the fate of a nation.

Like any trend this is not universal or taking place without a fight. The voters of Malaysia recently ejected a prime minister developing such power, although it took the discovery of hundreds of millions of unexplained dollars in his bank account to push them into it. South Africa’s ruling party finally overthrew the corrupt administration of Jacob Zuma.

Yet the general direction is clear: Putin intends to rule indefinitely; Xi Jinping has concentrated more power in his hands than any Chinese leader since Mao and has now provided for his own perpetual reappointment; Egypt allows no credible challenger to President Sisi. In democracies, Viktor Orbán is showing in Hungary how the media and judicial restraints on governments can be weakened and more populist leaders across the continent would like to follow suit.

President Trump, while hemmed in by judges and commentators whom he threatens and bullies, removes officials who disagree with him and is at home with the Strong Man idea. He noted with approval that when Kim Jong-un speaks “people sit up at attention” and he would like his own people to do the same. Yes, Mr President, North Koreans do that because of the threat of beatings, murder and starvation and because no rival source of information is allowed to them. That is not something to admire.

Be in no doubt whatever that so many countries voting for or acquiescing in their version of a Strong Man is an incontestably bad thing. Many of us in Britain revere our toughest leaders of recent decades – Churchill and Thatcher – and many countries could do with the likes of them now. The difference is that these were people who respected and preserved the democratic and balanced system that produced them.

Today’s Strong Man undermines, insults and destroys if he can any check, balance, alternative candidate or contrary opinion. We know that this will be disastrous for the country concerned and sometimes for the whole world. For a start, we know this from the history that some of these leaders have not bothered to read. We know it from the tyranny of Rome once dictatorships succeeded the Republic; from the grand folly of the ambitions of Napoleon; from the catastrophes wrought by Hitler and Stalin; and in our own time from the fate of Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro, even though it had a wellconstructed democratic constitution.

Millions also know this from their daily experience of their local charity, town council or political party – in all of which the rotation of officers and sharing of authority are beneficial for the organisation and its aims. In the business world, well-run firms now go to great lengths to plan for future succession of leadership, to limit directors to a number of fixed terms, and to evaluate their chief executives on their ability to create a strong team around them. Diversity of opinion, experience, background and gender is rightly regarded as a vital strength.

Those businesses have got it right. Even a brilliant leader benefits from others’ opinions, sensible constraints and not being allowed to go on forever. The best leaders give their greatest attention to appointing people who are prepared to argue with them and bring a perspective different from their own. They give power to colleagues, acknowledging that one person cannot decide everything, particularly given the mind-boggling complexity of financial markets and new technology. David Cameron was an example of someone who was good at that, as I know from 10 years alongside him.

So why is a world of educated people heading in a direction that all history and common sense tell us is very stupid indeed? Partly it is because people are looking for simple answers in a less stable world. It is also a feature of the rise of populism and nationalism, a rejection of elites fuelled by migration or economic disappointment.

Most worryingly, there is a growing case that it is helped by the digital revolution. Social media allows the Strong Man – notice it is always a man – to sway his followers without any filter through newspapers or TV channels explaining facts or providing another view. Not only other media but also formerly powerful politicians who prevented any colleague from dominating are cut out. Worse still, the rise of a world based on data about every individual – their whereabouts, payments, habits and opinions – is starting to allow their manipulation and will ultimately permit them to be completely controlled.

The stage is thus unwittingly being set for powerful individuals who think, whatever the arguments, that they are an exception. Their faith in themselves is excessive and their mortality is something they do not contemplate. They succumb to the most dangerous of all addictions – the addiction to power – on a journey that starts with wild applause, moves through nepotism and corruption, culminates in great error and ends, unless cut short by death, in despair.

Is there any hope or solution? Yes, if voters and opinion-formers stop, read, think and understand what is at stake. A leader going on for more than a decade is rarely a good idea. The preservation of balances of power for the future is more important than getting our way today. For a model of democracy think Switzerland, with a steady rotation of individuals. For a model of leadership think Abraham Lincoln, with his legendary “team of rivals”, all powerful in their own right.

When evaluating a leader, ask if they are providing for their successor and creating a team of strong people around them who answer back, while still providing strategy and direction. And finally, when you realise the digital world is starting to provide all your opinions and means of existence, make sure you don’t allow it to do so if you want your mind or body to be free.