Türkiye Election Runoff 2023: What You Need to Know

Election representatives prepare ballots with the presidential candidates at a polling station A woman votes at a polling station in Istanbul, Türkiye, Sunday, May 28, 2023. (AP)
Election representatives prepare ballots with the presidential candidates at a polling station A woman votes at a polling station in Istanbul, Türkiye, Sunday, May 28, 2023. (AP)
TT

Türkiye Election Runoff 2023: What You Need to Know

Election representatives prepare ballots with the presidential candidates at a polling station A woman votes at a polling station in Istanbul, Türkiye, Sunday, May 28, 2023. (AP)
Election representatives prepare ballots with the presidential candidates at a polling station A woman votes at a polling station in Istanbul, Türkiye, Sunday, May 28, 2023. (AP)

Turks were voting on Sunday in a presidential election runoff between the incumbent Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his challenger Kemal Kilicdaroglu that will decide whether the president extends his rule into a third decade.

Here is a guide to the runoff, the two candidates and the key issues as well as details on how the May 14 parliamentary election unfolded:

Presidential vote

Turks will be electing a president for a five-year term.

In the first round of voting on May 14, Erdogan got 49.5% support, falling just short of the majority needed to avoid a runoff in a vote seen as a referendum on his autocratic rule.

Kilicdaroglu, the candidate of a six-party opposition alliance, received 44.9% support. Nationalist candidate Sinan Ogan came third with 5.2% support and was eliminated. The outcome confounded the expectations of pollsters who had put Kilicdaroglu ahead.

A referendum in 2017 narrowly approved Erdogan's move to broaden the powers of the presidency, making the president head of government and abolishing the post of prime minister.

As president, Erdogan sets policy on Türkiye’s economy, security, domestic and international affairs.

THE CANDIDATES:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

More than 20 years after Erdogan and his AKP came to power, he hopes to extend his tenure as modern Türkiye’s longest serving ruler.

His strong performance on May 14, when he managed to mobilize conservative voters, defied predictions of his political demise.

Victory would entrench the rule of a leader who has transformed Türkiye, reshaping the secular state founded 100 years ago to fit his pious vision while consolidating power in his hands in what critics see as a march to autocracy.

Over the last week, Erdogan received the endorsement of hardline nationalist Sinan Ogan, boosting the incumbent and intensifying Kilicdaroglu's challenge in the runoff.

In the parliamentary vote held on May 14 support for Erdogan's AKP tumbled seven points from the 42.6% which it won in the 2018 elections, but with his alliance enjoying a parliamentary majority he has called on voters to support him in order to ensure political stability.

Kemal Kilicdaroglu

Kilicdaroglu is both the main opposition candidate and chairman of the CHP, which was established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - the founder of modern Türkiye.

He has offered voters an inclusive platform and promised a democratic reset, including a return to a parliamentary system of government and independence for a judiciary that critics say Erdogan has used to crack down on dissent.

However, his rhetoric since May 14 has taken a hawkish turn as he reaches out to nationalist voters in his bid to overtake Erdogan, vowing to send back millions refugees.

Türkiye’s pro-Kurdish parties on Thursday reaffirmed their support for Kilicdaroglu in the runoff without naming him, a day after expressing anger at a deal which he reached with the far right, anti-immigrant Victory Party (ZP).

ZP leader Umit Ozdag declared his party's support for Kilicdaroglu on Wednesday in a potential boost to the CHP leader, countering the impact of Ogan's support for Erdogan. The ZP received 2.2% of votes in the parliamentary election.

What is at stake?

The vote will decide not only who leads Türkiye, a NATO-member country of 85 million, but also how it is governed, where its economy is headed amid a deep cost of living crisis, and the shape of its foreign policy.

Erdogan's critics say his government has muzzled dissent, eroded rights and brought the judicial system under its sway, a charge denied by officials.

Türkiye’s economy is also in focus. Economists say it was Erdogan's unorthodox policy of low interest rates despite surging prices that drove inflation to 85% last year, and the lira slumping to one tenth of its value against the dollar over the last decade.

Kilicdaroglu has pledged to return to more orthodox economic policy and to restore the independence of the Turkish central bank.

On foreign affairs, under Erdogan, Türkiye has flexed military power, forged closer ties with Russia, and seen relations with the European Union and United States become increasingly strained.

Türkiye and the United Nations also brokered a deal between Moscow and Kyiv for Ukrainian wheat exports and Erdogan announced on May 17 the latest two-month extension.

Polling

More than 64 million Turks are eligible to vote at nearly 192,000 polling stations, including more than 6 million who were first-time voters on May 14. There are 3.4 million voters overseas, who voted between May 20-24.

Polling stations in Türkiye opened at 8 a.m. (0500 GMT) on Sunday and close at 5 p.m. (1400 GMT). The sale of alcohol is banned on election day.

Turnout in Turkish elections is generally high. On May 14, the overall turnout was 87.04% of eligible voters, with a level of 88.9% in Turkey and 49.4% abroad.

Results

Under election rules, news, forecasts and commentaries about the vote are banned until 6 p.m. (1500 GMT) and media are only free to report on election results from 9 p.m. (1800 GMT).

However, the High Election Board may allow media to report on results earlier and usually does. Results on Sunday evening are likely to emerge earlier than they did on May 14 given the relative simplicity of the ballot paper.



Challenges of the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Pier Offer Lessons for the US Army

A truck carries humanitarian aid across Trident Pier, a temporary pier to deliver aid, off the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, near the Gaza coast, May 19, 2024. US Army Central/Handout via REUTERS
A truck carries humanitarian aid across Trident Pier, a temporary pier to deliver aid, off the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, near the Gaza coast, May 19, 2024. US Army Central/Handout via REUTERS
TT

Challenges of the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Pier Offer Lessons for the US Army

A truck carries humanitarian aid across Trident Pier, a temporary pier to deliver aid, off the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, near the Gaza coast, May 19, 2024. US Army Central/Handout via REUTERS
A truck carries humanitarian aid across Trident Pier, a temporary pier to deliver aid, off the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, near the Gaza coast, May 19, 2024. US Army Central/Handout via REUTERS

It was their most challenging mission.
US Army soldiers in the 7th Transportation Brigade had previously set up a pier during training and in exercises overseas but never had dealt with the wild combination of turbulent weather, security threats and sweeping personnel restrictions that surrounded the Gaza humanitarian aid project.
Designed as a temporary solution to get badly needed food and supplies to desperate Palestinians, the so-called Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore system, or JLOTS, faced a series of setbacks over the spring and summer. It managed to send more than 20 million tons of aid ashore for people in Gaza facing famine during the Israel-Hamas war.
Service members struggled with what Col. Sam Miller, who was commander during the project, called the biggest “organizational leadership challenge” he had ever experienced.
Speaking to The Associated Press after much of the unit returned home, Miller said the Army learned a number of lessons during the four-month mission. It began when President Joe Biden announced in his State of the Union speech in March that the pier would be built and lasted through July 17, when the Pentagon formally declared that the mission was over and the pier was being permanently dismantled.
The Army is reviewing the $230 million pier operation and what it learned from the experience. One of the takeaways, according to a senior Army official, is that the unit needs to train under more challenging conditions to be better prepared for bad weather and other security issues it faced. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because assessments of the pier project have not been publicly released.
In a report released this week, the inspector general for the US Agency for International Development said Biden ordered the pier's construction even as USAID staffers expressed concerns that it would be difficult and undercut a push to persuade Israel to open “more efficient” land crossings to get food into Gaza.
The Defense Department said the pier “achieved its goal of providing an additive means of delivering high volumes of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza to help address the acute humanitarian crisis.” The US military knew from the outset “there would be challenges as part of this in this complex emergency,” the statement added.
The Biden administration had set a goal of the US sea route and pier providing food to feed 1.5 million people for 90 days. It fell short, bringing in enough to feed about 450,000 people for a month before shutting down, the USAID inspector general's report said.
The Defense Department’s watchdog also is doing an evaluation of the project.
Beefing up training Army soldiers often must conduct their exercises under difficult conditions designed to replicate war. Learning from the Gaza project — which was the first time the Army set up a pier in actual combat conditions — leaders say they need to find ways to make the training even more challenging.
One of the biggest difficulties of the Gaza pier mission was that no US troops could step ashore — a requirement set by Biden. Instead, US service members were scattered across a floating city of more than 20 ships and platforms miles offshore that had to have food, water, beds, medical care and communications.
Every day, said Miller, there were as many as 1,000 trips that troops and other personnel made from ship to boat to pier to port and back.
“We were moving personnel around the sea and up to the Trident pier on a constant basis,” Miller said. “And every day, there was probably about a thousand movements taking place, which is quite challenging, especially when you have sea conditions that you have to manage.”
Military leaders, he said, had to plan three or four days ahead to ensure they had everything they needed because the trip from the pier to their “safe haven” at Israel's port of Ashdod was about 30 nautical miles.
The trip over and back could take up to 12 hours, in part because the Army had to sail about 5 miles out to sea between Ashdod and the pier to stay a safe distance from shore as they passed Gaza City, Miller said.
Normally, Miller said, when the Army establishes a pier, the unit sets up a command onshore, making it much easier to store and access supplies and equipment or gather troops to lay out orders for the day.
Communication difficulties While his command headquarters was on the US military ship Roy P. Benavidez, Miller said he was constantly moving with his key aides to the various ships and the pier.
“I slept and ate on every platform out there,” he said.
The US Army official concurred that a lot of unexpected logistical issues came up that a pier operation may not usually include.
Because the ships had to use the Ashdod port and a number of civilian workers under terms of the mission, contracts had to be negotiated and written. Agreements had to be worked out so vessels could dock, and workers needed to be hired for tasks that troops couldn't do, including moving aid onto the shore.
Communications were a struggle.
“Some of our systems on the watercraft can be somewhat slower with bandwidth, and you’re not able to get up to the classified level,” Miller said.
He said he used a huge spreadsheet to keep track of all the ships and floating platforms, hundreds of personnel and the movement of millions of tons of aid from Cyprus to the Gaza shore.
When bad weather broke the pier apart, they had to set up ways to get the pieces moved to Ashdod and repaired. Over time, he said, they were able to hire more tugs to help move sections of the pier more quickly.
Some of the pier's biggest problems — including the initial reluctance of aid agencies to distribute supplies throughout Gaza and later safety concerns from the violence — may not apply in other operations where troops may be quickly setting up a pier to get military forces ashore for an assault or disaster response.
“There’s tons of training value and experience that every one of the soldiers, sailors and others got out of this,” Miller said. "There’s going to be other places in the world that may have similar things, but they won’t be as tough as the things that we just went through.”
When the time comes, he said, “we’re going to be much better at doing this type of thing.”
One bit of information could have given the military a better heads-up about the heavy seas that would routinely hammer the pier. Turns out, said the Army official, there was a Gaza surf club, and its headquarters was near where they built the pier.
That "may be an indicator that the waves there were big,” the official said.