Although it has been three weeks since the March 31 local elections, Turkey’s domestic policy agenda is still dominated by the results. The primary reason for this is the ongoing ambiguity in Istanbul. Even though the Provincial Election Board gave the official certificate of election to Ekrem Imamoglu, the candidate of the CHP and Nation Alliance, the legal evaluation of the Supreme Electoral Board (YSK) will terminate all grey areas about the results of the Istanbul elections in the following days.

Another prominent issue of discussion in the past few days is the determinants of the March 31 elections. All parties conduct their own evaluations and analyze the dynamics affected by the results. This is also a hot topic of discussion among masses and on national and international media platforms. At this point, the critical question is whether electoral alliances are determinants of the March 31 local elections.

Answering this question requires a close examination of the election results. In general, the results show that electoral volatility among alliances was very low. In other words, two alliance blocs majorly kept their votes and consolidated their voters. For instance, while the People’s Alliance, consisting of the AK Party and MHP got 53.7% of the vote in the June 24 elections, they received 51.6% in the recent local elections. Thus, keeping the majority of its votes. Moreover, the Nation Alliance increased its votes almost by 4 percent in the local elections. This increase was due to the HDP’s involvement in the alliance in 11 provinces. Thus, neither the People’s Alliance nor the Nation Alliance increased their voting rates in the elections.

Electoral alliances determined the election results in metropolitan cities. Imamoglu won the mayoral race in Istanbul as a result of a broad alliance between the CHP, Iyi Party, and HDP.

The results of the March 31 elections in metropolitan cities show that electoral alliances are the determinant of the results in these provinces. Although there was not a major increase or decrease in the votes of political parties, Imamoglu won the mayoral race in Istanbul as a result of a broad alliance between the CHP, Iyi Party, and HDP. The candidate of Ankara, Mansur Yavas, also won the elections with the support of these parties. If they had failed to make an alliance, neither Imamoglu nor Yavas would have been able to win the elections. Thus, changes in the borders of alliances were one of the main determinants in the March 31 local elections.

HDP’s support for the Nation Alliance in 11 provinces played a crucial role in affecting the results. This can be understood by analyzing the difference between the votes of mayoral elections and city councils.

To sum up, the answer to the abovementioned question is clear: yes, electoral alliances are the main but not the only determinant of the 31 March local elections. There is a need of further detailed analysis on the causation between the results of the local elections and electoral alliances.

By February 2018 pre-electoral alliances became one of the game changers in Turkish politics. Even though all legal amendments and regulations regarding pre-electoral alliances were designed for the projected elections in 2019, the decision to hold early elections on June 24 completely changed this direction. Thus, the June 24 parliamentary elections brought new opportunities for collaboration to political parties on a legal basis.

Nowadays, Turkey has been discussing the possibility of pre-electoral alliances in local elections. Last week, chairman of the MHP – Devlet Bahceli – announced that they are open to discuss the issue of pre-electoral alliances in local elections – even though this will not be easy to formulate. While Bahceli indicated his reservations based upon a concern for the rules and nature of local elections, he brought this issue to the forefront again. President Erdogan responded positively to Bahceli’s call and stated that this could be a topic to discuss in the following days.

As has been underlined by the leaders of the AK Party and MHP, framing the rules of alliances in local elections will be different to parliamentary elections. Indeed, there are several variables that affect the formulation of alliances in local elections. Firstly, local dynamics play a fundamental role in local elections. Voters consider close-knit relations and candidate profiles more seriously in comparison to parliamentary elections. Turkey’s political culture is shaped through regionalism, which is a crucial determinant on voting behavior. People tend to vote for candidates rather than political parties and the votes of political parties show a change in local elections. For instance, since its establishment, the AK Party has always received a lower vote in local elections when compared to the vote share in parliamentary elections.

The second variable that affects the formation of alliances is related to the lack of legal infrastructure. The amendment adopted in February only regulates pre-electoral alliances in parliamentary elections. Both presidential and local elections were excluded. Thus, there is need for a new amendment that regulates official alliances on a local level. When it comes to examples from the world, we see that there are regulations on pre-electoral alliances in local elections in federal states such as Mexico and Brazil. Turkey should pay attention to frame possibilities and limitations to formulate a legal basis under a unitary structure.

For all these reasons, parties should take these factors into consideration before framing the rules of alliances in local elections. Until now, all discussions have concentrated on the positive and negative effects of alliances on the election results in metropolitan cities. Nonetheless, if there is need for a detailed framework, these questions should also be asked: how will alliances be formed in the AK Party-dominated and the MHP-dominated electoral districts? What will be ways of forming alliances in districts where voting rates between the two parties are close? Do these parties prefer to have a common candidate not running under a party banner? How will the CHP, HDP, Good Party, and the Felicity Party formulate their election strategy if forming official alliances becomes possible? What will be the strategy of these parties, especially in metropolitan cities? These questions are fundamental in designing pre-electoral alliances in local elections.

All these variables reflect that there is a need for maximizing gains and minimizing costs when determining the rules of pre-electoral alliances. All these parties should seriously calculate how alliances will reflect their voting rates. Finally, political parties should pay attention to design electoral stimulations for each district and make categorizations in order to see their total gains and losses.