“Post-AKP preparations” – what are they good for?

Elections in Turkey have been stripped of any meaningful power under Erdogan’s fascist regime. The revolutionary-democratic point of view therefore conceives the “post-AKP” period not as a particular election result, but as the formation of a union of people’s democratic republics – which can only be the product of the victorious antifascist struggle of the working class and oppressed.

To answer the titular question by way of Edwin Starr – absolutely nothing. With the idea of “post-AKP preparations” belonging strictly to CHP and the bourgeois-oppositionist Nation Alliance, Kılıçdaroğlu is trying to make a mantra of his nonsense slogan geliyor gelmekte olan essentially “what’s coming is coming” – which betrays the lack of any real substance in their plans to take the election.

The “strengthened parliament” programme of the CHP/IYIP opposition bloc is little more than a narrow plot for bourgeois restoration. By supporting the people’s desire to rid Turkey of the fascist Erdoğan, it aims to bind tens of millions of workers to a parliamentary system long since discredited. With a few populist promises to distract the workers with a handful of limited political rights, this imagined new parliament will undoubtedly continue to overlook Kurdish national rights, fail to recognise Alevis as an oppressed faith group and ignore the demands of women and LGBT people; while offering up natural resources freely to the oligarchy and approving IMF austerity. The restoration will naturally receive the support of world monopolies, Turkish capital and Western imperialist states.

The political content of “post-AKP preparations” is simply to polish off the old bourgeois parliament, which has proven time and again that it cannot and will not solve the fundamental problems of working people, and will only narrow the horizons of those struggling for real salvation.

The most important premise of the post-AKP era is that Erdoğan will lose his presidential seat and parliamentary clout in the next elections. Indeed, the polls suggest that the voting base of fascism is shrinking rapidly, which can be plainly seen in a little conversation with workers themselves. But is it such a done deal as the bourgeois opposition would have us think? What guarantee is there that the fascist-in-chief will lose? And if he does, what is there to suggest he will hand over power so easily?

It cannot be forgotten so quickly that Erdoğan outright rejected the election results of June 2015. He cast the shadow of massacre over the later elections of November that year, imprisoning HDP MPs and usurping their municipalities. He took the presidential referendum with obvious fraud, kept the HDP candidate in prison during his presidential run in 2018, and attempted to change electoral law to his own advantage. What more do we need to doubt that the Erdoğan dictatorship can be ended with electoral defeat?

Elections have been stripped of any meaningful political power under the fascist chieftaincy, which is structured so as to be immune to the vagaries of electoral democracy. It is typical of bourgeois parliamentary chatter to assume, in spite of all evidence, that Erdoğan will be content to sit back and watch a losing election with folded arms; that he will refrain from arbitrarily postponing, repeating or rejecting the election, or worse, to despicable methods like martial law, voter intimidation and outright fraud.

But admitting this would be admitting the decisiveness of the united antifascist resistance in getting rid of the dictatorship. Instead, the bourgeois opposition deceives and disarms with false hymns to democracy, undermining the only power that stands a real chance against fascism. With this political orientation, the bourgeois opposition once again remains a crutch for the regime they claim to oppose.

Some on the left call for early elections every now and again, hoping to strike up electoral alliances or joint presidential candidates with bourgeois oppositionists against Erdoğan – seeing a bourgeois restoration as the lesser evil, and postponing the armed forms of struggle to the hereafter. This is a weakness.

The revolutionary-democratic point of view conceives the true “post-AKP” era not as the result of a particular electoral result, but as the formation of a union of people’s democratic republics – which can only be the product of the victorious antifascist struggle of the working class and oppressed. This perspective requires that we prevent the dissipation of the great antifascist potential energy in the hearts of our peoples in parliamentary dreams, and pave the way for a ferocious cascade of struggle. All democratic forces are obliged to unite the most urgent demands of the workers and oppressed under the banner of socialism, and to expand the antifascist resistance in all forms legal and illegal, violent and peaceful, unarmed and armed. 

We must not be distracted by the dream of a post-AKP paradise, but keep up the fight to destroy fascism at its roots.