It is argued that in Türkiye, particularly during AK Party governments, the opposition’s main problem has been that it has confined itself to criticizing and scrutinizing the government. In democratic politics, the opposition must also offer an alternative government and develop measurable, costed and feasible policies on the economy, inflation, agriculture, livestock farming, energy, foreign policy, education, healthcare, employment and incomes. The opposition is expected to set out its own vision for the country’s future. It is emphasized that, in the face of internal party divisions, management problems, allegations of corruption and changes in municipalities, the opposition should engage in self-criticism rather than placing all responsibility on the government. It is considered a sign of political maturity for parties that select their candidates to take responsibility for the results and acknowledge their mistakes. Moreover, elected officials switching to another party is regarded as wrong because votes are cast largely for the party they represent as well.
Why it matters
This approach proposes assessing the opposition’s performance based on whether it is ready to govern rather than on the severity of its criticism of the government. Because this standard requires promises concerning the economy and public services to be tested against their cost, feasibility and measurable outcomes, it affects both party platforms and how voters compare alternatives. For party leaderships, candidate selection, municipal performance, internal disputes and allegations of corruption become not merely communication problems but direct areas of political responsibility. The objection to elected officials changing parties also brings to the fore the debate over whether the mandate to represent belongs to the individual or the party. However, because the text does not establish a connection with a specific current event or policy proposal, it remains unclear through which mechanisms these standards would be applied.