VZCZCXRO9284
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHAK #1986/01 2141328
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 021328Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY ANKARA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3246
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEHAK/USDAO ANKARA TU
RUEUITH/TLO ANKARA TU
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEUITH/ODC ANKARA TU
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J-3/J-5//
RHMFIUU/39ABG CP INCIRLIK AB TU
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHMFIUU/425ABS IZMIR TU//CC//
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001986 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL TU
SUBJECT: TURKEY: PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS DELIVER SMOOTH 
RESULTS BUT PROBLEMS LOOM 
 
 ¶1. (U) Summary:  Turkish election experts believe the GOT's 
public campaign financing system contributed to the 
trouble-free July 22 election.  Supporters contend that 
providing campaign operating funds to parties that garnered 7 
percent in the 2002 election allows candidates to focus on 
campaigning and governing, rather than fundraising.  It also 
reduces the influence of special interest groups and the 
wealthy on election results.  Detractors argue that the 
system adds unnecessary government costs, detaches the 
political parties from the needs of their constituents, and 
diminishes political competition.  While the system served 
the country well during this parliamentary election, the 7 
percent threshold could make it difficult for dissenting 
voices to be heard in the next.  End summary. 
 
Public Election Financing Contributes to Smooth Elections 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶2. (U) Political parties in Turkey receive much of their 
revenue from government grants.  To receive government funds, 
parties must have captured at least 7 percent of the popular 
vote in the preceeding national election.  Parties that 
garner less than 7 percent receive nothing.  In 2007, the 
government paid 100 million YTL to five parties for annual 
operating expenses, 216.3 million to those parties to fund 
the July 22nd elections, and an additional 100 million to the 
Supreme Election Board to implement the elections.  Parties 
procure funds proportional to the percentage of votes won in 
the preceeding national election.  For example, in 2002 AKP 
received 34 percent of the vote, which assured that in 2007, 
the party would receive 43 percent of the funds, in this case 
47 million YTL for annual operating expenses and an 
additional 94 million for the national elections. 
 
¶3.  (U) Proponents contend that the system allows parties to 
focus on campaigning and governing rather than fundraising. 
Competing in Turkish elections is costly.  Political rally 
organizer Sermurat Kucukgul says technical work to stage 
rallies in Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir cost roughly 12,000 
YTL each.  Major political party leaders like Tayyip Erdogan, 
Abdullah Gul, and Deniz Baykal held multiple rallies daily. 
The parties also spent a prodigious amount on flags and 
pennants -- CHP alone amassed over 5.5 million pieces of such 
paraphernalia -- which cost between 2.5 and 7.5 YTL each. 
Kucukgul and other experts maintain the system also reduces 
the influence of special interest groups and curbs the 
effects of wealth inequality on election results.  They also 
contend the system does not stifle competition, as evidenced 
by this election, where five parties representing a diverse 
array of ideas received government funds. 
 
Detractors Argue Money Talks 
---------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) Detractors argue that the extensive government funds 
lead to a gap between political parties and the needs of 
their constituents.  Parties are less likely to craft 
representative policies, allowing a top-down management 
style, commonplace in Turkish politics, to flourish.  The 
system also works to shut out smaller parties, they claim. 
Omer Faruk Genckaya, an election expert from Bilkent 
University, contends there now exists "a cartel party 
system," where leaders from the major political parties 
collude with each other to keep government funding high, and 
avoid reforms that would allow funds to be distributed more 
widely. 
 
¶5. (U) Comment: Turkey's dynamic parliamentary election 
environment was partly due to a system that provided funds to 
the five parties that surpassed the 7 percent threshold in 
the 2002 elections (AKP, CHP, MHP, DYP, GP).  That same 7 
percent threshold could make it difficult for dissenting 
voices to be heard the next time, however.  Only AKP, CHP, 
and MHP garnered over 7 percent in the July 22 vote, setting 
them but not other parties up to receive substantial 
government funding in the next national election.  Smaller 
parties lacking government-funded campaigns are likely to 
struggle, if not close down altogether.  Ultimately, voters 
will suffer by having fewer choices.  While Turkey is known 
for holding lively, free and fair elections, the GOT may 
 
ANKARA 00001986  002 OF 002 
 
 
revive proposals to lower the 7 percent threshold to ensure 
that continues. 
 
Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/ 
 
MCELDOWNEY