Two weeks ago, an earthquake hit the Turkish province of Elazığ claimed 41 lives and plunged the country in a deep sorrow. According to the Kandilli Observatory, an Istanbul-based research institute, the earthquake’s magnitude was 6.8. Elazığ is a city that is located right on the Eastern Anatolia fault line. But despite warnings from scientists and seismologists that an earthquake could occur in that specific province, necessary precautions were not taken.
Turkey has experienced worse earthquakes: that of Van in 2011 and that of İzmit in 1999. Needless to say that Turkey is an earthquake-prone country. A discussion over the urgent necessity to invest in infrastructure and develop policies to raise awareness has been going on for many years. Yet the recent earthquake in Elazığ demonstrates that these necessary measures were not taken. At TurkiyeRaporu.com, we asked questions in our February survey to see how prepared the society is in the event of an earthquake.
In the survey, we asked our attendants a total of three questions. The first question was “Is your home earthquake-resistant?” and attendants were asked to pick one out of five options that reflects their circumstances. Based on our results, the percentage of attendants that have conducted an earthquake test for their homes was only 26.9%. On the other hand, 64% of attendants have never gotten an earthquake test for their homes. Interestingly, even though the majority of the society did not conduct an earthquake test, 66.4% of society believes that their home is earthquake resistant. In fact, 43.7% of attendants stated that they believe their homes are earthquake resistant even though they never conducted an earthquake test. This statistic is telling of our country’s vulnerability with regards to earthquakes. Almost half the country did not get its homes tested but is still confident that its homes are earthquake-resistant.
The second question in our survey had to do with examining how prepared we are as citizens, in the event of an earthquake. Aside from infrastructure improvements, we, as citizens, need to take certain precautions. Getting our homes tested is one of these precautions. Preparing an earthquake emergency kit and getting the mandatory DASK (Turkish Natural Catastrophe Insurance Pool) insurance are other examples. We asked our attendants “Which of the following precautions did you take against a possible earthquake?”, and requested them to give a “yes” or “no” answer to four statements. Based on our results, the percentage of attendants who prepared an earthquake emergency kit was 33,8%. Additionally, the percentage of attendants who got their mandatory DASK insurance was 46,7%. Lastly, a whopping 41,4% of attendants stated that they did not take any precautions despite awareness that they live in an earthquake zone.
The third and last question of our survey measured public opinion on urban transformation projects that were implemented in recent years, especially around Istanbul. The total percentage of attendants that found these urban transformation projects to be satisfactory was 25,4%. On the other hand, the total percentage of attendants who found these projects to be unsatisfactory was 56.6%. Lastly, 19% of attendants do not have an opinion on the matter. Overall, one cay that public opinion regarding urban transformation projects is negative. What is more, individual precautions have not been sufficiently undertaken. Therefore, our research demonstrates that Turkey is not prepared for earthquakes at both an infrastructure and individual level.
The move by the government to freeze the donation accounts of municipalities will not benefit anyone.It is not the public that is getting polarized, it is the politics. And those who polarize will lose this race.
Like all governments around the world, the Turkish government has a number of tough calls to make during this time of public health turned economic crisis. So far, the Turkish government seems to have opted to keep up economic activity as long as it can, before it imposes a total lockdown.
Only one in two people in Turkey are worried about Coronavirus, while close to 20 percent stated that they were “neither worried nor unworried”. More strikingly, despite the warnings only 48 percent do not shake hands while only 49 percent do not kiss when seeing someone.
Amid growing tensions between Turkey and Russia on the Syrian battlefront, we asked respondents to rate the countries and international organizations based on how much they trust them. The bottom line of this story is that Turkish society has lost faith in its allies and neighbors.
The Turkish public is focused on Idlib. Naturally so. The rising number of martyrs and the difficulty to see an definitive end in sight to conflict worries many people. The risk of losing Turkish soldiers is the chief concern by 47.1% among Turkish public. If the heavy Turkish casualties continue to rise, the government might risk losing domestic support.
While one usually knows what people like about their preferred political parties, one tends to be less aware of what voters dislike about their parties. An investigation into this by TurkiyeRaporu.com showed that Turkey's two largest parties also have the most disgruntled base.
The most pressing problem Turkey faces today is unemployment. The main cure for it is an structural improvement of the Turkish economy.
In a country that has more than 50 million registered voters, a single vote does not carry much influence. Yet voter turnout in Turkish elections remains over 80%. So why do Turkish people vote? In fact, fulfilling one's duties as a citizen matters more than having an impact on the election results.
Following a significant earthquake and amid a turbulent political conjuncture, Turkey's citizens are worried. Yet rather than politics or economics, people are mostly concerned about their individual security and that of their families.
Speculation regarding the potential of new parties are abound. According to our September 2019 polling across Turkey, the potential for the new parties that would be established by former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu and former economy chief Ali Babacan stood a little over 17% combined. This number in line with the 15-20% of the electorate who are looking for something new. We will have to wait and see whether the new parties will be able to realize this potential.
As the demands of its electorate have changed, the AKP can no longer resort to ideological polarization. This could allow for shifts in the political landscape.
A nation-wide poll, conducted during the first week of January, showed that 58% of the population is against sending troops to Libya. A breakdown of the result according to party supporters is telling. The AKP base itself is opposed to it and a divergence prevails between the AKP and the MHP bases.
Turkey is now sending military support for the Government of National Accord (GNA) to aid in its fight against General Hafter. The potential benefit of this decision is too distanced from the public life. Particularly, if the mission turns into an operational one, it will be very difficult to explain to the public why we are indeed in Libya.
Turkey is locked into a single issue and it is not the new wave of Turkey bound refugees from Idlib. It is the mega Canal İstanbul project. However, public does not have adequate knowledge of the project according to a recent poll.
Finally, last week, former Prime Minister and chief of foreign policy, Ahmet Davutoğlu’s much anticipated Future Party was inaugurated. Analysts are rushing to deem his party’s chances slim. I see that there is a fundamental flaw in that analysis.
For a long time now, all our polling points to two main sources of dissatisfaction among the public. First is the economy. Second is the Syrian refugees and the Syria policy. Both are policy areas where Mr. Babacan and Mr. Davutoğlu were responsible for at the highest level of public office. It would have been much easier and strategically correct for President Erdoğan to link today’s woes to the wrong doings of the two during when they were in office.
Most recently, an event transpired likely to be seen in scenarios of an absurd comedy piece. With the “pro” votes of MHP and AK Party MPs, the bill postponing the requirement for filtration in thermal power plants, was approved in the parliament. The decision caused an uproar in the opposition ranks but also in a large section of society. Then, something quite unexpected happened; President Erdoğan vetoed the bill. The irony is of course, that the very same law that was tabled by Mr. Erdoğan’s AK Party was vetoed by President Mr. Erdoğan himself.
Last Tuesday, former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan for the first time appeared on national television as an opposition politician. Mr. Babacan did not object when the host of the talk show host suggested he appears as more of a “political organizer” than a “political leader”. It shows that his movement is not organized in the typical political hierarchy that voters are used to see.
A couple of months ago, when three HDP mayors were removed from office, I had predicted that this increased the chances of early elections in the fall of 2020. Looking at the economic sentiment of the house hold, it is safe to say chances for an early elections has slimmed since. Because, right now economy is the number one priority of the Turkish electorate and they are not happy.
According to a latest poll, President Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AK Party) appears to have lost 1.2 points of support whereas Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) increased its support by 3.1 points after Turkey's "Operation Peace Spring" in northern Syria.
In Turkey and across the world, the voting behavior of the young is changing. Turkey hosts close to 5 million citizens comprised between the ages of 14 and 17. By 2023, this entire group will vote, constituting close to 10% of the entire electorate.
Day-to-day events and inconsistent messages that have been coming from Turkey's traditional Western partners over the past decade have fostered negative sentiments. Yet the majority of the Turkish public values a long-term partnership with the West.
Since 2015, patterns in voting behavior have been shifting. Poor governance and a stagnant economy are largely behind this change.