The pre-election debate, held for the first time in seventeen years in Turkey, took place between Ekrem İmamoğlu and Binali Yıldırım with İsmail Küçükkaya as moderator.
Broadcast by many TV stations and news websites, reaching a broad mass of viewers and becoming a trending topic on social media, the debate started tensely and ended relaxed. We have listed fourteen highlights of the broadcast whose format had been determined with the agreement of people from the AKP and CHP, thanks to which no surprise was experienced, and in which Küçükkaya was seen not to give the candidates too hard a time as moderator.
In the reply he gave to İsmail Küçükkaya’s question about the repeating of the elections, Ekrem İmamoğlu said he saw the 23 June election as a “fight for democracy” and not a local election. İmamoğlu said, “It is the fight to defend the rights of sixteen million peoples against the infringers of the rights ordained to humans.”
There was less discussion than had been expected about the ruling of the Supreme Election Council (SEC), which annulled the Istanbul elections. With reference to Yıldırım’s talk of “Votes were stolen,” Ekrem İmamoğlu gave a reminder that there was no such determination in the SEC ruling. In expounding on the matter, Yıldırım said, “It is the SEC that will find who stole the votes. Let me explain the business of stealing like this. Somebody pickpocketed my wallet while walking along the road. You go to the police station and say your wallet was stolen. You don’t say it switched places. And this is what happened and the SEC then ordered the rerunning of the election in keeping with this.”
Arguing that they did not want the election to be annulled, either, Binali Yıldırım said, “Our demand was for a recount but the CHP did not assist us in this.” For his part, İmamoğlu disputed the veracity of the interpretation that the CHP did not want a recount.
A further contentious issue regarding the election was Yıldırım’s claim about the majority falling from 29,000 to 13,000. İmamoğlu said the AKP was distorting this point and the majority fell from 24,000, not 29,000, to 13,000. İmamoğlu indicated that reference to a majority of 29,000 was included in a comment made when up to a hundred ballot boxes had yet to be opened.
Responding to İsmail Küçükkaya’s question about “losses amounting to 753 million lira and 308 million lira devoted to foundations over the past five years” contained in a Court of Account report, Yıldırım asked Küçükkaya if he had read the report. Following on from Küçükkaya’s response, “I haven’t read it but plenty of headline news was made about it,” he alleged that there were no such figures in the report and there was only a loss of 108,000 lira.
Ekrem İmamoğlu, for his part, indicated that he had the Court of Account report with him and said, “If he wishes, I present the report that emerged from the Court of Account inspection to Mr Yıldırım. It says that 753 million lira went to the Istanbul Electric Tram and Tunnel Company and Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration.” At this, Küçükkaya asked Yıldırım if he had read the report and Yıldırım also confessed to not having read the report about which he had confidently asserted, “There is no mention of a 753 million lira loss.”
In response to İsmail Küçükkaya's remarks, “When you talk about your pledges, the question arises, ‘The AKP has been running Istanbul for 25 years. Why hasn’t it been done until now?’” Yıldırım said, “We have provided a great deal of service to Istanbul in 25 years. In 1994, 14 litres of water were provided and now 101 litres are provided per capita.” However, confusion arose from the inclusion of data indicating that it referred to Izmir on the sheet Yıldırım said pertained to 1994.
With the issue attaining prominence on social media, Good Party Deputy General Chair Mehmet Aslan said he had spoken to a figure close to Yıldırım about the broadcast and the person he had spoken to had said, “I have spoken to one of those closest to Binali Yıldırım. He said, ‘The flaky information left over from FETO and İzmir has destroyed us. From now on, good luck to İmamoğlu as mayor.’”
Binali Yıldırım described İmamoğlu’s instruction for the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal data base to be copied as soon as he took office as the FETO tactic of “granting access to cosmic rooms by people apart from official appointees.” For his part, İmamoğlu said what had been done was a data backup procedure and it was an “innocent procedure.” He described the halting of the procedure as an “illegal decision.”
İmamoğlu commented, “And the instruction we gave was 31 December, the start of the new year, 31 March, that is the evening of the election, 18 April, that is the day on which the certificate of election was entrusted to us. Viewing this as a new dawn, backing up of the data base and also its protection at the metropolitan municipality.”
İmamoğlu replied as follows to Küçükkaya's question, “Why did you do it?”: “You see, Mr Küçükkaya, a minor change might be made. A transaction might be conducted in that period. Warnings were also reaching us. In fact, we couldn’t do it. It wasn’t done in time.”
CHP Istanbul Provincial Chair Canan Kaftancıoğlu asked following this debate, “Why has backing up data put fear into certain people?”
During the broadcast, İsmail Küçükkaya addressed the question to Ekrem İmamoğlu, “Did you go to their hostels or visit the FETO ringleader?” There was criticism on social media about the failure for the same question to be posed to Yıldırım following İmamoğlu’s reply, “I have not the slightest connection.” Reacting to this criticism, Küçükkaya asked this same question to Yıldırım. Yıldırım replied “No” in a deadpan voice, but reminders were given on social media that Yıldırım had attended the Turkish Language Olympics in 2013 and said, “Turkish is the esteemed scholar Fethullah Gülen’s language” and had attended the funeral of Gülen’s brother Hasbi Nidai Gülen in Erzurum along with ministers at the time Recep Akdağ and Faruk Çelik.
Attention has once more turned to whether Ekrem İmamoğlu said of Provincial Governor Seddar Yavuz, “He’s acted like a cur” during the VIP crisis in Ordu. Imamoğlu, claiming to have said he had engaged in simplicity, continued to assert that he had not used the expression in question. Yıldırım, however, said that İmamoğlu was lying to the people and should apologize.
For the duration of the broadcast, Yıldırım confronted İmamoğlu with such expressions as “lying,” “distortion” and “not speaking the truth.”
Both candidates gave evasive replies to İsmail Küçükkaya’s question, “I am a citizen in love with the Republic of Turkey having Kurdish roots. Why should I vote for you?”
Ekrem İmamoğlu said he had given prominence to poverty in Istanbul in his electioneering and noted that he had not asked those experiencing this poverty, “Do you have Turkish roots or Kurdish roots?” In saying he had supporters from every party, İmamoğlu did not pass on the HDP while listing them, and said partisanship was this country’s most important problem “following terrorism.”
Binali Yıldırım then said, “We don’t look at people’s faith and ethnic roots in providing service” and also exemplified this with reference to İzmir.
The candidates were also asked about the Syrian refugee issue that has been one of the most controversial topics in Turkey in recent years.
Ekrem İmamoğlu, along with saying, “Turkey has been left on its own as to what happened in Syria,” stated that good management of the refugee issue had not been achieved. Saying Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality lacked a Syrian refugee policy and he would create a refugee desk within Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality on becoming mayor, İmamoğlu said, “We’ll engage actively in developing a national policy on behalf of our country.” Saying, “Three and a half million refugees shouldn’t have been distributed around the country all at once,” İmamoğlu commented, “Those who have come from the north, east and south onto Istanbul’s streets sense that their bread is being taken from their hands.”
With reference to the discriminatory implementations against Syrians that have been mooted at certain CHP municipalities, İmamoğlu said, “Even if from my party, I won’t accept this if it’s against human rights.”
In turn, Binali Yıldırım replied, “These people escaped from death and took refuge among us to save their souls. We hosted them in accordance with our traditions and faith. We’re the host and they’re the migrants. They have a transitional protected status. This is the identification they have. They all have records of various kinds. They are also provided with educational and health services. We conducted the Afrin Operation. Now we have sent a portion of them there. Nearly 500,000 Syrians have gone. Now we are going to clear out that region to the east of the Euphrates and will send the others there, too. If, in this process, those living in Istanbul, especially in certain sub-provinces such as Fatih and Beyoğlu, become embroiled in public order problems and events that disturb Istanbulians’ peace and comfort and they engage in illegal acts, we will apprehend and dispatch them without awaiting their departure in the normal course of events.”
Prominent among Ekrem İmamoğlu’s rhetoric while electioneering was the pronouncement, “The business of service for particular individuals and people, foundations and religious brotherhoods has ended.”
To the question, “If you are elected mayor how will you solve this state of affairs you call waste, the figures and the funds transferred to foundations?” İmamoğlu responded as follows on the programme: “51 million 218 lira to the Turkish Youth and Education Service Foundation. It’s written here. 29 million 797 thousand to the Ensar Foundation. It’s the state that’s paramount. Of course, I’ll engage in cooperation with foundations and associations. You cooperate with clean associations and foundations. I have cooperated with associations and foundations of all persuasions. I have done so with the Humanitarian Relief Foundation. You’ll engage in cooperation but the municipality will make hostels, brother. In fact, a plague, a FETO terrorist organization, came into being. We’ll make hostels as the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and give support to schools and educations.”
Having said in response to this, “Are you going to identify clean associations by washing them with detergent?” Yıldırım made a comment about the Turkish Youth and Education Service Foundation following the broadcast and called on İmamoğlu to apologize to them.
Recalling that prior to the 31 March election President Tayyip Erdoğan had been in the forefront and a discourse of survival had been frequently paraded in the AKP campaign, İsmail Küçükkaya asked, “Why has your campaign discourse changed?” For his part, Binali Yıldırım argued that their campaign had not changed.
At this, Ekrem İmamoğlu said, “What do you mean, the same campaign? Those who in the past spoke of the existence of a survival issue are making no discourse of survival this time round.”
In the course of the debate, Ekrem İmamoğlu recalled events of the evening of 31 March and noted that the Anadolu Agency (AA) had halted the flow of data immediately before Binali Yıldırım declared victory. İmamoğlu asked Yıldırım if he had consulted with AA officials on election night. Yıldırım, for his part, stated that he had not consulted with the AA and had made the statement based on his own figures and indicated that the AA was the party to field this question.
At this, the AA has issued a statement on the matter following two and a half months and said, “The AA, in the same manner as with the previous six elections prior to 31 March, left the announcement of the final result to the SEC once the percentage of opened ballot boxes had reached 99. The practice implemented on 31 March was not different from other elections. We wish in particular to recall that the AA is a media organization that transmits data, not the one to declare the election result. The SEC declares election results in Turkey, not the AA.”
İsmail Küçükkaya posed the question, “How much money did you have before entering politics and how much now? Will you make a declaration of assets if you’re elected mayor?” to the candidates.
Yıldırım said they made a declaration of assets to the state but there was no custom of going public with this.
İmamoğlu, in turn, stated that, as Yıldırım had said, there was no such custom but consented to this proposal in line with the new way of doing things and new approach to morality and said, “Of course, it must be family-wide.”
For the entire programme, Ekrem İmamoğlu complained about Binali Yıldırım interrupting him. With Yıldırım having interrupted İmamoğlu more than ten times, at this İmamoğlu remarked, “The reason I have not butted in like him was my respect for the programme. And I will not respond differently to these events. And this is due to my family breeding.” İmamoğlu requested additional time from moderator Küçükkaya at times when Yıldırım interrupted him on the programme on which the candidates had a period of three minutes to answer each question. (EVRENSEL DAILY)
(Translated by Tim DRAYTON)
Hediye Levent
Yusuf Karadaş
Yücel Özdemir