What does Devlet Bahcheli want?

Apparently, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (NMP), Devlet Bahcheli, is very happy with the growth in the number of municipalities where victory was achieved. Probably therefore, in early April he made a proposal that had no precedent in the history of either the Ottoman Empire or the Republic of Turkey: to elect the chairs of the municipalities of the vilayets, and let them appoint the chairpersons of the district and township municipalities.

No need to choose them. Everyone knows that if he did not know the opinion of a big partner in the alliance, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), D. Bahcheli himself would never put forward such a proposal; or (as in most cases), the idea belongs to the AKP, but is voiced to the public by Devlet Bahcheli. This proposal by Devlet Bahcheli has so far been drowned in the big hype raised by the ruling party in connection with the well-known election results in Istanbul. Moreover, a few days ago, the NMP leader, referring not to the number of votes, but to the number of municipalities in the country, announced that his party"s rating was not 7.25% (the official figure of the Higher Election Commission), but 18.81%.

Bahcheli, who more than the ruling AKP insists on re-holding the municipal elections in Istanbul, on Sunday by his statement "How can Imamoglu be a chairman?" raised the bar to the maximum. However, the most notable proposals was drawn to the thesis "let"s elect the heads of the municipalities of the vilayets, and let them appoint the chairmen of the district and township municipalities".

Because it is one of the most powerful blows that can be inflicted on democracy in Turkey. For to build a dictatorship in any country, the most optimal way to do this is to narrow the scope of the activities of the municipalities and turn them into non-elected bodies.

So for what reason did the NMP leader, at the behest of the AKP and President Erdogan, voice this proposal? After all, even in one-party systems, despite the formalities, district, city and town municipalities were separate institutions.

After all, in the management structure of the USSR, both district, city and town councils of people's deputies were independent organizations, even the composition of rural councils of people's deputies, even if formally, was determined through elections. Each of them had their own sphere of management and their own powers. That is, within the framework, even if of a one-party system, the formalities were observed to the end.

In 1950, Turkey moved to a multiparty system. In the parliamentary system, after the transition to presidential rule, the importance of elections to the Mejlis as the main guarantor of the political system decreased. Now the people as such are considered local governments. Elections on March 31 exhaustively demonstrated this.

Although these obvious truths are clear to everyone, why did the NMP leader Bahcheli find it necessary to raise such a contradictory democracy question as "the appointment of chairmen of municipalities of districts and towns"? After all, if any chairperson of the municipality elected from the pro-Kurdish party himself appoints heads of district and city municipalities, what will be the importance of the votes received by this region from the AKP and the MHP?

If you ask D. Bahcheli himself, the answer is known: he wants this form of holding elections for the sake of preserving the integrity of the country by preventing separatism.

In other words, according to the plans of Bahçeli and the authorities, even if, for example, the representative of the pro-Kurdish party is elected the mayor of Diyarbakır, the Minister of the Interior, using his authority, can remove him from his post and appoint another in his place. By guaranteeing the right of the people to elect, and be elected in the "dangerous zones," it will be possible to ensure the integrity and unity of the country (according to the logic of Bahcheli.)

This situation is even worse than the formalities of a one-party system. Does not such an experienced politician as Devlet Bahcheli understand that appointing the heads of district and township municipalities, as the elected chairperson of the vilayet municipality will further weaken the already sensitive and fragile governance structure in the country?

Will this not be the hardest blow to the Turkish democracy, which serves as an example for the region, even without being fully formed? If this proposal of Mr. Bahcheli takes the form of a law, who can prevent the dismissal of the head of the municipality of Istanbul or Ankara elected from the opposition party and the appointment of a person of authority to his place.

In the elections of March 31, from the 39 districts of Istanbul, the AKP won in 24, the Republican People's Party won the 14th, and the NMP won the first time in history. According to the logic of the IPA leader, the head of the Istanbul municipality, who will be elected after an amendment to the law, can appoint his person to the Silivri district where his party won.

It seems that the March 31 elections will cause a tectonic break not only in Islamist, but also in nationalist politics. However, while the public through which it passes, cannot analyze many things from neutral positions. However, in no more than 2 months, when the first results of a "tectonic breakdown" will be felt, people will be able to do it.

If "despite the fact that 15 days have passed since the election, the mandate of the mayor of Istanbul is still not handed over to the new owner, can President Erdogan take control of one of the largest metropolitan areas of the world?"

How can this question be related to the proposal of the NMP leader Bahcheli?