1

TTracing the Contours of Turkish racing the Contours of Turkish Ideological Space, 2001-2004Ideological Space, 2001-2004

Ali Çarkoğlu Melvin J. Hinich

April, 2006

2

Vote Share on a Left - Right Scale 1950-2002Vote Share on a Left - Right Scale 1950-2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1950 1954 1957 1960 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1980 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2002

Election years

Vot

e sh

ares

(%) Left of Center,

"Extreme" LeftCenter-Left

Center-Right

Right of Center,"Extreme" Right

Military Coups

3

Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System

Extreme-Left (EL) Center-Left (CL)

People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi P.-HADEP) Republican Peoples Party (Cumhuriyet Halk P.-CHP)

Democratic People's Party (Demokratik Halkın P.-DEHAP) Democratic Left Party (Demokratik Sol Parti-DSP)

Programmatic/Policy Platforms

Ethnic Kurdish nationalist Strictly secularist

Pro-EU Relatively more state interventionist

Support base is east and southeastern Anatolia Pro-EU

Relatively more urban

Obtaining Alevi support (CHP)

Charismatic leader (DSP)

Support base is western and coastal provinces

4

Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System

Center-Right (CR) Pro-Islamist

Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi-ANAP) Felicity party (Saadet Partisi-SP)

True Path Party (Doğru Yol Partisi-DYP) Justice & Development Party (Adalet&Kalkınma P.-AKP)

Young Party (Genç Parti-GP) Nationalist

Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi-MHP)

Grand Unity Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi-BBP)

Programmatic/Policy Platforms

Secularist on policy matters but courting the brotherhoods Pro-Islamist

Market oriented economic policy Pro-Islamist Sunni supporters, close w/ Islamist circles

Relatively more developed rural support Relatively more eurosceptic

Pro-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist

Support base is western and coastal provinces Support base is central Anatolia

Support base is western and coastal provinces (GP) Nationalist

Ethnic Turkish nationalist, Sunni supporters

Sunni supporters, Anti-EU

Populist in economic policy, state interventionist

Support base is central Anatolia (MHP)

5

Province clusters in November 2002

1st Province Cluster

2nd Province Cluster

3rd Province Cluster

4th Province Cluster

5th Province Cluster

6th Province Cluster

•AKP is by far the largest party, CHP is the second with considerable votes, DYP and MHP are following

•AKP is by far the largest party, there are considerable votes for

the independent candidate

•28

•26

•107

•9

•23

•116

•36

•106

•54

•44

•50

•63

•23

•118

•65

•34

•30•27

•41

•248

•165

•47•203

•15

•50

•45

•14

•22

•54

•69

•45

•27

•24

•HATAY•KİLİS

•KAYSERİ

•SİVAS

•YALOVA

•BURSA

•SAKARYA

•BALIKESİR

•ÇANAKKALE

•İZMİR

•AYDIN

•MANİSA

•MUĞLA•ANTALYA

•AFYON

•KONYA

•ORDU•GİRESUN

•TOKAT

•SİNOP

•DÜZCE

•ANKARA

•BOLU

•KOCAELİ

•İSTANBUL

•ESKİŞEHİR

•KARABÜK•ZONGULDAK

•BARTIN

•KAHRAMANMARAŞ•ADANA

•ADIYAMAN

•GÜMÜŞHANE•BAYBURT

•AĞRI

•AMASYA

•ARTVİN

•BİLECİK

•BİNGÖL

•BİTLİS

•BURDUR

•ÇANKIRI •ÇORUM

•DENİZLİ

•DİYARBAKIR

•EDİRNE

•ELAZIĞ

•ERZİNCAN

•ERZURUM

•GAZİANTEP

•HAKKARİ•ISPARTA

•İÇEL

•KARS

•KASTAMONU

•KIRKLARELİ

•KIRŞEHİR•KÜTAHYA

•MALATYA

•MARDİN

•MUŞ

•NEVŞEHİR

•NİĞDE

•RİZE•SAMSUN

•SİİRT

•TEKİRDAĞ•TRABZON

•TUNCELİ

•ŞANLIURFA

•UŞAK

•VAN

•YOZGAT

•AKSARAY

•KARAMAN

•KIRIKKALE

•BATMAN

•ŞIRNAK

•ARDAHAN

•IĞDIR

•OSMANİYE

•DEHAP is by far the largest party, AKP is the second far behind

•CHP is the first party, AKP is the second with considerable votes and DYP is the tird party

•AKP is by far the largest party, CHP and DYP are second and third far behind

•AKP is by far the largest party, ANAP is the second far behind

6

Euclidean Distance ModelEuclidean Distance Model

Suppose that there are N observers and

M targets. Each observer at position

1 2,i i ix x x

2

m iπ x

1 2,m m m π

reports the squared Euclidean

distance

to the targets at locations

7

Squared Distances with ErrorsSquared Distances with Errors

2 2m i im m m m i i i ime e π x π π π x x x

For each error ime

0imE e

2 2m imE e

8

Removing the Nonlinear TermsRemoving the Nonlinear Terms

The nonlinearity is removed by subtracting

the distances to one target, target m=0

from the distances to the other targets.

Then compute the sample covariance

matrix of the differences

2 2

0 0,m i m i i i imD e e π x π x π x

9

0, 2m i m m m i im iD e e π x π π π x

Assume that the errors me

are independently & identically distributed and that they are independent of the observer positions ix

10

Covariance Matrix of Distance DifferencesCovariance Matrix of Distance Differences

• Assume that the observer positions are uncorrelated random variables whose variances are 2 2

1 2 &

Then the covariance matrix of the distancedifferences is

204D x Σ Π Σ Π Ψ 1 1

2

1

2

2

0

0x

11

1 , , M

π π

is a Mx2 matrix of target positions

21

2

0

0 0

0

0

0 M

Ψ

2 2m imE e

12

2001 Survey2001 Survey

A nation-wide representative survey of urban population conducted during the chaotic weeks of the second economic crisis of February 2001

12011201 face-to-face interviews were conducted in 12 of the 81 provinces of Turkey

The survey was run during 2/20 – 3/16 using a

random sampling method that represents the nationwidevoting age urban population based on the urban population figures of 1997 census data.

13

Estimated ideal points & party positions - 2001 survey

ANAPA Labor Leader

A Prominent Businessman

HADEP

MHP

FP

DYP

DSP

CHP

A Very Religious Leader

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-9 -4 1 6 11

14

Party positions & mean ideal points of party voters ideal points - 2001

None of the presently available parties Mhp

Hadep

Fp

DypDsp

Chp

Anap

Abstainers

A Very Religious Leader

CHP

DSP

DYP

FP

MHP

HADEP

A Prominent Businessman

A Labor Leader

ANAP

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Estimated party names in capital letters - mean ideal points of party voters in lower case

Quadrant 1Quadrant 4

Quadrant 3 Quadrant 2

15

Mean ideal points of primary identity groups - 2001

Turkish World

Islamic WorldEuropean Union

Very religious (8-10)

Mildly religious (3-7)

Non-religious (0-2)Kurdish speaker

Cannot speak Kurdish

AleviKurd

Citizen of TurkeyMuslim

Turk

None of the presently available

Mhp

Hadep

Fp

DypDsp

Chp

Anap

Abstainers

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

16

KEY DATA ABOUT THE SURVEY

• The target of the sample was the nation-wide urban and rural settlers who are 18 years or older.

• The sample consisted of a total of 2028 face-to-face interviews conducted in 54 districts, 291 neighborhoods and 95 villages of a total 33 provinces.

• Under the restrictive assumption of simple random sampling this sample has a confidence interval of 95% with an error margin of +/- 2,2%.

• Provinces chosen according to probability proportionate to size (PPS) principle on the basis of their registered voter population in 1999 general election.

• The questionnaire was administered between the 10th and 25th of October 2002.

17

FACTS ABOUT THE FIELD RESEARCHFACTS ABOUT THE FIELD RESEARCH• Training for questionnaire implementation was given by Ali

Çarkoğlu and Ersin Kalaycıoğlu on October 4. The questionaire was tested and necessay corrections made after a pilot study on October 5-6.

• During the project 9 experts, 35 supervisers and 186 interviewers were assigned.

• 45% of the interviews were completed in the first trial. The rest is completed by either trying for a second time or selecting new streets and households.

· Interviews lasted 35 minutes on average.

• 45% of the interviews were randomly controlled. Controls are made either by phoning or going to the households one more time. 332 interviews were cancelled and conducted with replacements.

18

Basic Independent VariablesBasic Independent Variables

Sex Male 52 Socio-economic status Low 59Female 48 Medium 31

Age 18-24 20 High 1025-34 25 Religious conservatism Low 2935-44 22 Medium 4145-54 15 High 3055+ 17 Ethnic nationalism Low 12

Education No schooling-illiterate 13 Medium 29Primary school 46 High 59Junior high school 11 Xenophobia Low 28High school 22 Medium 38University+ 8 High 34

Kurdish Can speak 12 Political efficacy Low 23Cannot speak 88 Medium 40

Inhabitant of Province centre 46 High 37District centre 20 EU membership Supports 73Rural village 34 Does not support 27

Dwelling type Shanty town 21Medium registered 73Luxurious registered 5

19

VVote ote Intentions for Intentions for the November 3rd the November 3rd EElectionlection

• % 8,7

• % 8,7

• % 7,1

• % 1,9

• % 1,3

• % 0,6

• % 0,7

• % 1,0

• % 1,5

• % 2,4

• % 3,3

• % 4,1

• % 5,0

• % 9,9

• % 14,4

• % 29,4

•%0 •%10 •%20 •%30

•AKP

•CHP

•GP

•DYP

•MHP

•DEHAP

•ANAP

•SP

•YTP

•DSP

•BBP

•Other

•Will not vote

•Will not vote for the• existing parties

•Undecided

•DK/NA

20

Xenophobia & Political EfficacyXenophobia & Political Efficacy

• XenophobiaXenophobia• Foreigners who settle in our country harm our culture.• Foreigners who settle in our country make our chances

of finding a job• more difficult• Some should either love Turkey or leave it.• I would not want a foreigner to be my neighbor• Political efficacyPolitical efficacy• Regular citizens like me have no power for changing

political decisions in Turkey for their advantage.• Turkey is being ruled by a small and powerful group.• Whatever I do I don't think I can reach a better position in

society

21

Party/ (Hypothetical Politician) N Mean Std. DeviationAKP 1904 6.06 3.44CHP 1889 4.28 3.11

GP 1877 4.06 3.06A prominent businessman 1830 3.74 3.10

DYP 1907 3.69 2.65A very religious leader 1848 3.31 2.94

MHP 1899 3.23 2.61SP 1880 3.06 2.49

ANAP 1900 3.00 2.43YTP 1847 2.98 2.37

BBP 1829 2.81 2.25DSP 1926 2.31 2.19

DEHAP 1850 2.10 2.19Valid N (listwise) 1727

Descriptive Statistics of the Grade Scores 2002

22

Question - I'm going to give to you a series of promises and would like to get your evaluation as to which party do you find most convincing in realizing each one. 1 Limiting the MP immunity 2 Reducing unemployment 3 Reducing taxes 4 Membership in the EU 5 Increased effort to combat corruption 6 Revitalizing the economy 7 Resolving the Cyprus problem

23

8 Reducing inflation

9 Resolving education and health

policy problems

10 Resolving the headscarves

problem

11 Resolving the problems in

agriculture

12 Enforcing the moral values in

Turkish society

Respondents are asked to pick one party

as most credible.

24

Valence Question - Revitalizing the EconomyValence Question - Revitalizing the Economy

AKP 532 26.23 ANAP 39 1.92 BBP 8 0.39 CHP 227 11.19 DEHAP /HADEP 25 1.23 DSP 7 0.35 DYP 82 4.04 Genç P 157 7.74 MHP 38 1.87 SP 22 1.08 YTP 11 0.54 BTP 1 0.05 İP 2 0.10 LDP 2 0.10 ÖDP 2 0.10 TKP 1 0.05 None of them 654 32.25 No answer 218 10.75

25

Estimated ideal points and party positions, full sample, 2002 survey

GP

RELIGIOUS

YTP

AKP

CHP

SP

ANAP

BBP DYP

MHP

DEHAPDSP

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

-13 -8 -3 2 7 12

26

Party positions & mean ideal points of party voters - 2002 survey

GP

RELIGIOUS

YTP

AKP

CHP

SP

ANAP

BBPDYP

MHP

DEHAP

DSP

Ytp

Bbp

Dsp

No vote

None of the PA

Undecided

Sp

Mhp

Gp

Dyp

Dehap

Chp

Anap

Akp

Others

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Estimated party names in capital letters - Mean voter ideal points in lower case

27

Mean ideal points for ethnic identity & attitudes toward religious issues

Can speak Kurdish

Can not speak Kurdish

Muslims are NOT under pressure

Muslims are under pressureNo to Şeriat

Yes to Şeriat

DSPDEHAP

MHP

DYPBBP

ANAP

SP

CHP

AKP

YTP

RELIGIOUS

GP

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

28

Mean ideal points for positions on foreign policy preferences

TUR should be closer to other ME countries

TUR should be closer to İsrail

TUR should develop closer tiese with Western countries

TUR should develop closer tiese with Muslim countries

Feels part of the whole World

Feels part of the ME

Feels part of Europe

Feels part of Turkey

Feels part of native region

Feels part of native province

GP

RELIGIOUS

YTP

AKP

CHP

SP ANAP

BBP

DYP

MHP

DEHAP

DSP

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

29

Mean ideal points for nationalism attidued & L-R ideology

Middle (5-6)

Rightist (7 to 10)

Leftist (1 to4)

Women

Men

GP

RELIGIOUS

YTP

AKP

CHP

SP

ANAP

BBPDYP

MHP

DEHAP

DSP

Xenophobia High

Xenophobia Low

Ethnic nationalism High

Ethnic nationalism Low

Religious conservatism High

Religious conservatism Low

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

30

Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Unstandardized CoefficientsB Sig. B Sig.

(Constant) -0.11 0.82 1.85 0.00Age 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.14

Sex (Male=1) -0.40 0.01 -0.05 0.70Can speak European languages (English/Germa/French) 0.46 0.03 -0.12 0.47

Can speak Arabic -0.24 0.42 -0.32 0.16Can speak Kurdish -0.55 0.04 0.41 0.04

Unemployed -0.06 0.82 -0.67 0.00Student 0.15 0.67 -0.10 0.71Worker (public+private) -0.33 0.14 -0.04 0.81

Public Employee (public+private) -0.62 0.04 -0.22 0.35Ownership status index -0.07 0.42 0.02 0.76Dummy for no schooling -0.07 0.86 -0.03 0.92Dummy for primary school 0.27 0.41 0.05 0.85Dummy for junior high 0.29 0.41 -0.18 0.52Dummy for High school 0.25 0.39 -0.29 0.20Shanty town (Gecekondu) dummy -0.36 0.06 -0.18 0.21

Religious conservatism REGR factor score 1 -0.71 0.00 -0.50 0.00Ethnic nationalism REGR factor score 2 0.10 0.20 -0.20 0.00

Xenophobia REGR factor score 3 -0.23 0.00 -0.16 0.01Political efficacy REGR factor score 4 -0.03 0.70 -0.03 0.54To what degree is it important that one party wins the elections in order to have your family income rise. -0.01 0.61 -0.01 0.71To what degree you vote will influence the outcome of the elections. -0.01 0.69 0.00 0.86

Self placement on L-R index -0.12 0.00 -0.39 0.00Dummy for those who do not believe that there exists a party that can resolve TUR problems 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.35

Dummy for those who support EU membership 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.02Dummy for those who had taken the local initiative to resolve some of their local problems 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.77

Dummy for those who always cast a vote in general electionsHer seçimde oy kullanmış dummy 0.38 0.02 -0.17 0.17İncome gap between the real and desired income 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.46Dummy for those who had been angry in the recent past -0.20 0.21 -0.02 0.86Positive evaluation of the past on family 0.58 0.33 0.62 0.17Positive evaluation of the past on Turkey 0.84 0.06 0.47 0.18

Dummy for positive evaluations of the present day 0.72 0.01 -0.04 0.85Positive for familiy's future -0.11 0.63 0.09 0.60Positive for Turkey's future 0.10 0.65 0.09 0.58Yes to Şeriat -0.38 0.07 0.07 0.68

Degree of belief in destiny 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.51R Square 0.278 0.430

Adjusted R Square 0.253 0.410

Std. Error of the Estimate 2.283 1.760

Dimension 1 Pro-Islamism vs Secularism

Dimension 2 Pro vs anti Reform

Determinants of the positions on the two dimensions

31

Mean Thermometer Scores for Party Leaders-2004

6,46

2,43

2,41

2,27

2,10

2,08

1,91

1,83

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

AKP (T. Erdoğan)

DYP (M. Agar)

CHP (D. Baykal)

MHP (D. Bahceli)

DEHAP (T. Bakirhan)

SP (N. Erbakan)

ANAP (M. Yılmaz)

GP (C. Uzan)

March-2004 survey of nation-wide representative urban population (N=1,232)

32

Estimated Party Positions-2004

GP

AKP

ANAP

CHP

SP

DEHAP

MHP

DYP

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11

33

-2,5

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

Speaks Kurdish

No to EU

District Center

Closer ties w Israel

Feels unsafe at night in neighborhood

Unhappy at work

Does not speak KurdishIncome sufficient to meet

needs

Income insufficient to meet needs

Neighborhood has different identity groups

Neighbors are not in harmonious relationships

Unhappy with the way democracy works

Yes to EU

Happy at work

HProvince Center

Women

Men

Neighborhood does not have different identity groups

Closer ties w other ME countries

Neighbors are in harmonious relationships

Feels safe at night in neighborhood

Happy with the way democracy works

Unhappy w/work, democracy, income

and neighborhood, living in relatively larger province

centers.

However, supports closer ties w/ Israel and the EU

Ethnic (?) Turkish

Happy w/work, democracy, income and neighborhood living mostly

in smaller district centers.

However, does not support closer ties w/ Israel and the

EU

Mean positions across different groups and issue stands-2004

●

1st D. 2nd D.

Alevis -1.5 -3.8

Non-Alevis +0.3 -1.7