Although the expert survey method is not very popular in Turkish party position research, it is heavily used for the positions of political parties across Europe concerning a variety of different issues.
The primary data source for this method is the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) project carried out by University of North Carolina. The first expert survey was conducted in 1999 and it has been ongoing since then. This survey is designed to estimate party positions regarding European integration, ideology, and policy issues of political parties in a variety of countries. The first survey included 14 countries but the most current wave incorporates 31 countries that also includes Turkish political parties50.
Since the literature on Turkish political parties does not seem to have specific empirical studies using CHES data, there will not be a discussion of secondary resources. Instead, the 2007, 2010, and 2014 survey data will be presented to demonstrate the shifts in positions of political parties in Turkey concerning the issues relevant to the objects of this research. This effort will substantiate the arguments on changing positions of political parties in Turkey that were presented in the previous chapter.
Positions on the Ideological Spectrum According to CHES Data
One of the critical aspects of party positions is about the ideological spectrum. The CHES data has two different conceptualizations of ideological positions. The first one is the classical left-right scale and the second one is called “GAL/TAN” scale, which incorporates post-materialist issues such as environmentalism, minority rights, cultural and identity issues. The classical left-right scale has been criticized by some students of Turkish politics for being inadequate to capture nuances in Turkish politics (Çarkoğlu 1998, Çarkoğlu 2007, Kalaycıoğlu 2010, Özbudun 2013, Öniş 2007). These criticisms will be discussed in the next section regarding the different examples on manifesto research in Turkey. Yet, it is important to investigate the data concerning ideological left-
right to see potential correspondence between this scale and other interpretations, such as GAL/TAN.
The graph below displays the changes in left-right positions between 2007 and 2014 of the four political parties of interest51. The graph shows that experts placement of AKP moved to the right over the years, while CHP’s position drastically changed between 2010 and 2014. This observation is in line with the discussion on CHP in the previous chapter which argued that the party’s emphasis on rights and liberties has become more pronounced especially after 2010. MHP moved slightly to the left, possibly because of its recent adoption of more social-democratic language in its electoral campaigning. HDP is positioned at far-left by the experts compared to its predecessor, BDP. The reason might be the coalition of interests that HDP claims to represent. While BDP was primarily a pro-Kurdish party, HDP incorporated leftist groups as well. This might have caused experts to situate HDP at far-left.
Graph 1 Mean scores for lrgen variable of 2007, 2010, and 2014 CHES
Note: The scale is between 0 and 10 where 0 represents extreme left and 10 represents extreme right. Source CHES data.
51 HDP’s predecessor is BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) and its position in the 2010 survey is used to make sense
The second scale, i.e. GAL/TAN, incorporates post-materialist dimensions and positions political parties accordingly. This scale is considered as a revised left-right ideological scale, where GAL represents Green, Alternative and Liberal positions that prioritize post-materialist values, personal rights and freedoms; whereas TAN stands for a combination of Traditional, Nationalist positions that emphasize order and authority (Hooghe, Marks and Wilson 2002: 967,977). Since main fault-lines of political competition in Turkey are more cultural and identity-related, this differentiation will provide a more nuanced outlook in terms of party positions in Turkey.
The graph below displays the variations of political party positions on GAL/TAN scale. The left-end of the scale represents the libertarian/postmaterialist position, while the right-end represents the traditional/authoritarian one. One striking difference from the ideological left-right scale is the position of AKP. While the Graph 1 positions MHP to the right of AKP, GAL/TAN scale displays that AKP has moved to a more traditional, authoritarian position than MHP in 2014. The shift occurred in CHP’s position is also surprising: for the experts, CHP’s position on GAL/TAN scale displays significant variation. CHP shifted from slightly central position to a more traditional authoritarian one and then became closer to the Green, Alternative, Liberal end of the scale in 2014. HDP is positioned at the left-end of the scale signifying a clear GAL position, which is potentially related with the interest coalitions it represented. MHP’s positions displayed less variation, suggesting that the party has more or less stayed as a traditional, authoritarian party prioritizing order and security.
Graph 2 Mean scores for galtan variable of 2007, 2010, and 2014 CHES
Source CHES data.
Positions Concerning Civil Liberties, Religion, and Social Norms
In addition to ideological spectrum, there are more specific variables measuring parties’ positions regarding a variety of social issues in CHES data. Separate graphs that are relevant to the objectives of this research and Turkish context will be discussed below.
The first graph displays the positions regarding the positions on support for civil liberties and support for tough measures concerning law and order. The relevant variable “civlib_laworder” concerns 0 to signify strong support for civil liberties while 10 signifies strong support for tough measures to fight crime and promote law and order. Since one of the citizenship rights used in this research concerns civil liberties, this data provides a proxy for parties’ changing positions vis-à-vis protection of civil liberties.
Graph 3 Mean scores for civlib_laworder variable in 2010 and 2014 CHES.
Note: This variable does not exist in 2007 survey. Source CHES data.
According to the Graph 3, most visible shifts happened for AKP and CHP in terms of the clash between support for civil liberties and support for tough measures for fighting crime and sustaining law and order. While AKP is positioned closer to the right-end, which signifies support for tough measures, CHP has moved closer to the left-end, signifying that the party has adopted a more supportive stance towards civil liberties. MHP’s position has more or less stayed the same between 2010 and 2014; displaying strong support for tough measures. HDP is positioned at the left-end of the spectrum, which displays continuity with its predecessor, BDP.
In Graph 4, two variables are used for displaying changing positions regarding lifestyle and emphasis on religious principles in politics. Although these variables are distinct, there is a common underlying dimension that relates them. The variable “sociallifestyle" demonstrates parties’ positions regarding lifestyle preferences such as homosexuality, while “religious_principle” is about saliency of religious issues in political life in party positions. The common point between them is that they display
differences in terms of religious/conservative and secular/liberal positions. That’s why using these two variables in the same graph is logical.
Graph 4 Mean scores for sociallifestyle and religious_principle.
Note: These variables do not exist in 2007 survey. Source CHES data.
Graph 4 demonstrates that AKP’s position regarding lifestyle issues has remained conservative, while it has adopted a more religious outlook of politics in 2014, compared to 2010. MHP has moved to the liberal end in both of the variables, yet still at the conservative end compared to the other parties. CHP’s stance towards religious principles has stayed the same between 2010 and 2014 displaying that party’s stance towards secularism has not changed. Yet, in 2014, experts have positioned CHP at a more liberal point concerning lifestyle issues, which suggests that the party has adopted a more liberal stance. HDP has also emerged as a more liberal/secular party compared to BDP.
The last items that will be demonstrated are about the issue of nationalism. There are two variables that are related with nationalism. These are: “ethnic_minorities” and “nationalism.” While the former measures positions regarding the rights of ethnic minorities, the latter concerns the image of society. For the “ethnic_minorities” high scores display opposition to the rights of ethnic minorities, while low scores display support for these rights. For “nationalism”, low scores display support for a cosmopolitan image of society, while high scores display support for a nationalist image. The variable “nationalism” does not exist in 2010 survey, but it exists in 2007 survey, while “ethnic_minorities” does not exist in 2007 survey. Still, as these two variables both display positions regarding a unitary, nationalistic outlook concerning the society, it is logical to use them together in a single graph.
Graph 5 Mean scores of ethnic_minorities and nationalism in 2007, 2010, and 2014 surveys.
Source CHES data.
According to Graph 5, MHP’s position regarding rights of ethnic minorities and nationalism does not display much variation, which is expected given that MHP openly
advocates a nationalist stance and does not recognize rights of ethnic minorities. AKP’s position on rights of ethnic minorities has slightly moved to the right between 2010 and 2014, which suggests that the party advocates less support for rights of ethnic minorities. With relation to nationalism, AKP has moved to the right according to the experts suggesting that the party has adopted a more nationalist position in 2014 compared to 2007. This is significant because it demonstrates the clear shift in party’s position on nationalism. While AKP was promoting policies for cultural rights during its early years, its position was considered to be at the center between strong support for ethnic minority rights and opposition to it. Yet, as discussed in the previous chapter, AKP has stopped putting pro-multicultural policies in its later years in government. CHP, on the other hand, has become less nationalist between 2007 and 2014, while more supportive of rights of ethnic minorities between 2010 and 2014. HDP’s relatively stable position is similar to MHP’s in the sense that the party displays clear continuity with its predecessor BDP in terms of the support for the rights of ethnic minorities, i.e. the Kurdish minority. In addition, party is positioned as a cosmopolitan party.
Positions Concerning Welfare
In order to assess the positions concerning welfare, the variable called “spendvtax” in CHES data will be used. This variable measures positions on improving public services or reducing taxes and ranges from 0 to 10. According to the codebook, 0 signifies a position that is fully in favor of raising taxes for funding public services while 10 displays a position favoring cutting public services and taxes. Since this variable is related with positions concerning public services, it is a good proxy for stances regarding welfare.
Graph 6 Mean scores of spendvtax in 2010 and 2014
Source CHES data.
It is interesting to see that in 2014 experts positioned AKP closer to the right-end of the spectrum given that the party promotes its past policies concerning public services. This shift from 2010 to 2014 can be related with the neoliberal healthcare policies of the party discussed in the seconday literature (Eder 2010, Bozkurt 2013, Kartal 2009). While CHP’s position remained the same, MHP has moved towards a less-welfarist position according to the experts.
To conclude, these graphs demonstrate the shifts in the positions of the four political parties that are currently in the parliament. It seems while claiming to mobilize different segments of the population, these political parties also engage in strategic decisions to change their policy positions regarding matters relevant to citizenship. For instance, while AKP had a more liberal approach towards rights and liberties, it had become more nationalist, less multiculturalist and pro-state over the years, CHP’s position had become more liberal vis-à-vis rights, liberties, and nationalism albeit inclining towards a clearer secular position.
4.4 Manifesto Analysis for Positioning Political Parties
The other method being used for estimating positions of political parties is analyzing party manifestos. In this method, contents of the party manifestos are coded and they are analyzed through various content analytic methods by counting and associating words or statements. Manifestos are analyzed through discourse analytic perspective where party discourses on specific issues are used to assess party positions. For this strand of research, party manifestos signal a specific stance on various policy dimensions and thus analysis of them can provide insight into the positions of political parties in a given political context. Moreover, signaling their positions through the manifestos, parties also expose their stance in the competition with each other.
In party manifesto research, the policy spectrum is usually one-dimensional, i.e. parties are positioned on a left-right ideological space (Volkens 2007: 109). One of the most established currents within that field is the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP) data compiled and maintained by Manifesto Research Group. The project is continuing since late 1970s and currently covers manifestos of more than 1000 political parties since 1945 in over 50 countries. In that sense, CMP data has the advantage of offering cross- national and longitudinal data on political parties, which makes comparative research possible and easier. Relying on a system of coding sentences in a manifesto, CMP method assumes an ideological left-right spectrum and positions political parties along that spectrum.
There are various criticisms targeted towards the CMP data. In addition to the ones pointing out the problems related with human coders and inter-coder reliability, there are scholars arguing that what CMP data measures is not the policy positions but the “issue saliency,” which is about the preferences of political parties in emphasizing certain policies or concerns over the others (Pennings and Keman 2002: 57). For critics, measuring “party-specific saliency weights of different policy dimensions” is not helpful for estimating party positions on policy dimensions (Benoit and Laver 2006: 65). CMP’s left-right scale is also criticized for assuming that left and right mean the same thing across time and space (Benoit and Laver 2006).
The coding scheme is also being criticized for having certain internal validity problems when it comes to focusing on specific policy dimensions. Pennings and Keman (2002: 66) point out the lack of certain categories such as feminism in the coding scheme,
as well as the general problem of inter-subjective coding. Others argue that specific policy dimensions may have misleading results. Protsky and Garaz (2011: 300-303), in their empirical research on politicization of ethnicity, argue that ethnicity-related statements are either undercounted as those statements are usually coded under non-ethnicity related categories; or these statements are not distinguished adequately from each other, i.e. it is not possible to designate statements focusing on protection or limitation of minority to one of the CMP’s ethnicity related categories52.
Although there are such problems concerning the CMP method, its dataset is useful for tracing the change of positions over the years. The next section will present the positions of the four political parties in the parliament concerning issues relevant to the objectives of this research.
4.4.1 Positions of Turkish Political Parties According to Manifesto