Since 2019, Turkish political progress has changed its axis. The total opposition block is significantly higher than the total control block. Voters who voted for the opposition are more motivated than those who voted for the government, and there is a growing expectation that the opposition will win the first election, and I am one of them. The indicators we follow often show similar hopes. However, I would like to pay attention to two details. The first is that despite the negativeness of the country, it is still not easy for the opposition to win the election, and the second is the major structural problem awaiting the new government after the change of government. It is an existence. There are many areas where these major structural problems can be seen, but the first three are education, justice, and poverty. In order to discuss education and justice separately in other articles, I would like to touch on the issue of poverty in this article.
Except for the very short period since its establishment, the republic has generally succeeded in increasing its prosperity and advancing the country. The fact that he was able to improve the educational opportunities he provided to the public with proper planning and develop his own successful school model played an important role in this. Access to education was the most important means of class transition. Each new generation consisted of a relatively large middle-income and high-income group than the previous generation. The biggest beneficiaries of this education-centric class transition mechanism were the poor children who migrated from Anatolia to the big cities. In our hometown, this mechanism was demolished in collaboration with AKP decision makers and unqualified bureaucrats stationed in the state.Signed by the citizens of the Republic “If you are an educated individual, the rest of your life will prosper.” All pages of the implied contract have been torn by the AKP government.
In AKP Turkey, the poor are currently poor, but the recent middle class has made up a new poor. The overwhelming majority of nationally qualified professionals work at wages below the poverty line. When these experts get together, they talk about whether they saw the price of sunflower oil, not what beauty their vacation destinations have as in the past. Turkey faces the psychological burden of uncertainty created by society as a whole and the struggle against the high cost of living due to inflation. I would like to share powerful data that summarizes this struggle. We sought to understand how difficult it is for society to buy basic consumer products for food. The results of this week’s survey are as follows.
As you can see, only 38.3% of society say they have no problem buying bread. The percentage of people who can easily get the tea thrown by voters at the rally remains at 27%. Aloe vera with dragon fruit smoothies and starex enhances the menu at the reception at the palace, but only 17.1% of Turkey’s population can buy sunflower oil without any problems.
The Finance Minister, who is responsible for removing these negatives of this bad situation in society and the economy, is busy reversing the slightest improvements possible. In this week’s speech to give investors confidence, he managed to get rid of the confidence scraps left for investors.Even economics students “Have you had a problem? Relax. You can get in touch right away. My favorite themes are law and bureaucrats that bring difficulties to investors. Let’s fight together. Defeat bureaucrats and relax. Behind us is the president … “” Investor who heard his speech “There is no system in this country. 3-5 people decide everything.” He knows that he will receive his message clearly. It is predictable what investors think. For this reason, we sought to understand this explanation and the view of society. We asked 1067 subjects across Turkey to read the following Minister’s statement.
As can be seen from the results below, society is not pleased with this statement made by Minister Nabati with a little power addiction. Only 31.2% answered that they agreed with the minister, and 60.6% did not agree with the minister. Those who are undecided are 8.2%. In summary, we can see that the light that the minister claims to shine from his eyes towards society does not scatter from society to the relevant ministers. In particular, I would like to pay attention to the far approach of AKP and MHP voters to this statement.
One of the highlights of the week was Prime Minister Erdogan’s statement not to send Syrians. In my opinion, making such a statement, despite the fact that most of society, including his own base, is anti-immigrant, is a great risk that Erdogan took in his last period. It is one. Let’s take a look at the answers to the two questions we asked in this week’s survey to understand the magnitude of the risk.
As you can see, 71.9% of society believe that Turkish immigrants (asylum seekers) will not return to their country once the war in Syria is over. The expectation that they will return among all party bases is still relatively high among AKP bases. I realized that expectations were in this direction. Now, looking at the direction of demand, the table below shows completely different results.
91% of society is opposed to Erdogan’s statement, saying that it should be sent back against the message that we will not send it. This number is the best we have ever found. I think the fact that voters, who thought they might go up to this day, received a clear message from Erdogan that they wouldn’t go, played a key role in this increase at this level. Unfortunately, in my opinion, as of this week, we will face greater immigration restrictions in society. I always say that we should fight the politics that created immigrants, not the politics that created them. It seems that this view is being voiced more and more.
Finally, all these negatives of the country affect more or less the voters who support the government. A survey conducted on March 11 found that the voting difference between AKP and CHP was reduced to 1.4%. A survey conducted on March 18 shows that this difference has been reduced to 1.1. As more bills reach citizens, citizens prefer to issue bills to the government.