LATEST
TRAVEL
ADVI
SORY
POLITICAL RISK
TRAVEL ADVISO RY • 18 APRIL 2017
The Outcome and Implications
of the Turkish Referendum
KEY POINTS
•
On 16 April 2017, a constitutional referendum was held in Turkey.
•
Incumbent President Erdogan has claimed victory, meaning that the constitutional changes will now be implemented.
•
The vote was only won by a small majority, indicating that Turkish society is deeply divided.
SITUATIONAL SUMMARY
Political: On 16 April 2017, Turkish nationals voted in a highly contentious constitutional referendum aimed at changing the
country’s political system from that of a parliamentary democracy to an executive presidency, expanding the power of incumbent
President Erdogan. Prior to this date, Turkish nationals living abroad had already voted. President Erdogan declared victory for the
“Yes” vote late on 16 April. Published results have indicated that “Yes” won with around 51.4 per cent of the votes, with a
nationwide turnout of 85 per cent. However, the two main opposition parties will reportedly be challenging the results of the
referendum, citing massive irregularities with the voting and suggesting that state media had manipulated the results. There have
already been reports of violence and protests throughout Turkey in the aftermath of the referendum. Three people were shot dead
at a polling station in Diyarbakir on 16 April over an apparent argument about the referendum.
Con ta ct : +44 ( 0 ) 12 0 2 7 9 5 80 1
SOLACEGLOBAL.COM
1 of 4
POLITICAL RISK
TRAVEL ADVISO RY • 18 APRIL 2017
Solace Global Comment
Implications of Constitutional Change
The changes proposed in the constitutional referendum will increase and solidify the power of the Turkish President. Presiden t
Erdogan could ostensibly be in office until 2029. Primarily, the referendum will pass many parliamentary and cabinet powers t o the
president. The constitutional changes would also allow the president to appoint certain officials, as well as curbing the pow er of the
powerful Turkish military. In effect, the “Yes” vote has transformed the politics of Turkey, and further empowered President
Erdogan.
Supporters of the “Yes” vote have suggested that the constitutional amendments bring the country’s system of government closer
to that of France or the United States, who also have presidential-style political systems. However, both these countries have
checks and balances on the power of the executive not present in Turkey’s proposed constitutional changes.
What does the vote tell us?
The turnout of 85 per cent was impressive and shows how the decision over the country’s future political direction captured the
imagination of the Turkish populous. The tightness of the vote and its geographical breakdown indicate deep divisions in the
country. Turkey’s western regions and the Kurdish-majority southeast were the strongest supporters of the “No” campaign.
Turkey’s west is home to a more western-focussed, secular population. Turkey’s three largest cities, Istanbul (51.4 per cent),
Ankara (51.2 per cent), and Izmir (68.8 per cent) all voted in favour of the “No” campaign. Erdogan’s support was largely drawn
from the more conservative central Anatolian heartland. Perhaps the most surprising outcome of the referendum vote was how the
attempted merger of conservative-Islamism (AKP Party and Erdogan’s base) and ultra-nationalism (the MHP party’s constituency)
failed to materialise. Ultra-nationalists and Islamic conservative supporters of the Felicity Party, who come from the same political
tradition as the AKP, appear to have voted against President Erdogan.
Issues with the Vote and Responses
Many international monitors have already expressed concerns over the outcome of the vote. A team from the Organisation for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) heavily criticised the fairness of the vote, stating – “The 16 April constitutional
referendum took place on an unlevel playing field and the two sides of the campaign did not have equal opportunities .” The OSCE
cannot force an annulment of the vote or a rerun but their critique will surely embolden the Republican People ’s Party (CHP) and
People’s Democratic Party (HDP) who both campaigned vehemently for the “No” vote. President Erdogan has dismissed the
OSCE’s criticism. Monitors have also criticised the shaming of potential “No” voters by equating them to terrorists or terroristsympathisers. The decision by Turkey’s High Electoral Board on the day of the vote to allow unauthenticated ballot papers to be
counted as valid, has also been severely criticised. Moreover, since the failed coup attempt in July 2016, media outlets critical of
Erdogan and the AKP Party have been routinely censored (Turkey jails more journalists than any other country) and widespread
politically-motivated arrests have been prevalent.
The referendum outcome has already led to serious internal dissent and civil unrest. The CHP, Turkey’s main opposition party has
formally sought an annulment of the vote. Indeed, the deputy chairman of the CHP (the primary opposition party), said there is "only
one way to end the discussions about the vote's legitimacy and to put the people at ease, and that is for the High Electoral Board to
cancel the vote." In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, both sides held large rallies throughout Turkey. Following the
announcement of the result however, much larger protests occurred. These were concentrated in Istanbul and Ankara, and were
mostly in opposition to President Erdogan. During victory speeches by Erdogan supporters in Istanbul, pots and pans were banged
by opponents of the referendum, in a traditional form of protest. Further unrest of this kind is to be expected in large cities such as
Istanbul, Anakara, and Izmir, given their opposition to the proposed constitutional changes. Heightened levels of unrest shou ld also
Con ta ct : +44 ( 0 ) 12 0 2 7 9 5 80 1
SOLACEGLOBAL.COM
2 of 4
POLITICAL RISK
TRAVEL ADVISO RY • 18 APRIL 2017
be expected in the southeast of the country. Erdogan’s success in this referendum will undoubtedly lead to fears in the Kurdish
community that military crackdowns may intensify. The ability of Erdogan’s opponents to prevent the changes being made or him
being re-elected, rest on their ability to strengthen and mobilise. There has not been a strong opposition to his rule in some time
and Erdogan’s success in the vote may act as a wakeup call to opposition parties; a coalition of opposition parties is certainly a
possibility.
Relationship with the EU and Turkish Voters Abroad
Turkey’s relationship with the European Union had already degraded prior to the referendum, with Erdogan likening some EU
ministers and countries to Nazis and supporters of fascists. Most Turks resident in European nations voted in favour of the
constitutional changes. In Germany, which has the largest Turkish-ethnic population, 63.7 per cent voted in favour of the changes.
In France this was 64.85 per cent, in Belgium it was 74.98 per cent, and in the Netherlands it was just under 71 per cent .
Governments in these countries will obviously be concerned by the attitudes of the residents in their borders . They will also need to
carefully consider their response to further developments in Turkey, as it could lead to scenes of unrest similar to those seen during
the referendum campaign.
Many commentators believe that with his new powers, Erdogan will seek to establish better ties with Middle East countries, ra ther
than with the EU. Indeed, initial proposals have already been made to propose another referendum in Turkey, this time on whether
the country still wishes to join the EU. Erdogan has also suggested that he may put the issue of capital of punishment to the people
of Turkey; this would be a red line for Turkish membership of the European Union. Both of these issues could see further civil
unrest and political infighting.
What does the future hold?
There is little reason to suggest that Erdogan will not use his newly won powers. This should be a concern for the internal a nd
external stability of the country. Further crackdowns on freedoms of speech and assembly should be expected. Turkish authorit ies
have historically crushed protests with the use of some extreme tactics, it is likely they will be given further authority to continue this
crackdown on dissent. It is also probable that Erdogan will look to muzzle the voices of opposition in the country. The crackdown on
free media and those critical of Erdogan, which has been prevalent since the failed coup attempt in July 2016, will likely co ntinue,
perhaps in an accelerated fashion. Geopolitically, the success of the “Yes” vote may strengthen Erdogan’s and the AKP’s
expansionist aspirations. Many in the party have nostalgic memories of the expansive Ottoman Empire and wish to regain not only
influence, but also territory in the Middle East, North Africa, and South-eastern Europe.
There has not yet been any reaction from terrorist groups to the referendum. Prior to the start of voting, there were fears that polling
stations would be targeted by Islamic State or Kurdish militants. There were mass arrests of Islamic State operatives in Turk ey in
the days before the voting, and Kurdish militants were also detained. However, on the day there were no such disruptions.
Nevertheless, the imminent civil unrest and protests may pose potential targets for terrorism in Turkey. Major cities, such a s
Istanbul and Ankara, may be targeted more than usual. The constitutional changes are also likely to lead to an increase in military
action against militants in Turkey. The primary rationale for increasing the Presidents power was to counter rising terrorism in the
country. It remains to be seen what will be done by Erdogan, but an increase in military operations against such militants seems
probable. It is unclear whether this will reduce the militant threat, or whether it will increase terrorism as a reaction to increasing
state pressure.
Con ta ct : +44 ( 0 ) 12 0 2 7 9 5 80 1
SOLACEGLOBAL.COM
3 of 4
POLITICAL RISK
TRAVEL ADVISO RY • 18 APRIL 2017
SECURITY ADVICE
MODERATE POLITICAL RISK
The primary risk arising from the Turkish referendum is the increase in civil unrest. Protests in this region are known to turn
violent with little notice. It is strongly advised that travellers avoid the area and consider contingency measures in case of
widespread violence. Moreover, security forces are known to act in a repressive fashion. Foreigners caught in demonstrations of
this kind may be subjected to harsher punishments by local security forces. It remains to be seen how far reaching these
protests will become. Such gatherings may also be targeted by Islamic or Kurdish militants.
Due to the potential for unrest, and the ongoing arguments surrounding the validity of the vote, travellers are advised that they
may wish to reconsider their need to travel to the country. Indeed, travellers may wish to consider delaying their travel unt il the
full outcome of the vote is understood.
Solace Global would advise clients to employ enhanced security measures when visiting Turkey – airport meet and greet and a
security driver for the length of a visit should be a minimum security precaution. For certain areas, including the restive southeast
of the country, it is advisable to employ security measures above this level. Travellers should also employ travel-tracking
technology with an intelligence feed for the length of their stay, so they are kept abreast of security developments.
Con ta ct : +44 ( 0 ) 12 0 2 7 9 5 80 1
SOLACEGLOBAL.COM
4 of 4