2. 1 Tracing the Contours of Turkish Ideological Space, 2001-2004 Ali Çarkoğlu Melvin J. Hinich April, 2006

3. 2 Vote Share on a Left - Right Scale 1950-2002

4. 3 Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System Extreme-Left (EL)Center-Left (CL) People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi P.-HADEP)Republican Peoples Party (Cumhuriyet Halk P.-CHP) Democratic People's Party (Demokratik Halkın P.-DEHAP)Democratic Left Party (Demokratik Sol Parti-DSP) Programmatic/Policy Platforms Ethnic Kurdish nationalistStrictly secularist Pro-EURelatively more state interventionist Support base is east and southeastern AnatoliaPro-EU Relatively more urban Obtaining Alevi support (CHP) Charismatic leader (DSP) Support base is western and coastal provinces

5. 4 Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System Center-Right (CR)Pro-Islamist Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi-ANAP)Felicity party (Saadet Partisi-SP) True Path Party (Doğru Yol Partisi-DYP)Justice & Development Party (Adalet&Kalkınma P.-AKP) Young Party (Genç Parti-GP)Nationalist Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi-MHP) Grand Unity Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi-BBP) Programmatic/Policy Platforms Secularist on policy matters but courting the brotherhoods Pro-Islamist Market oriented economic policy Pro-Islamist Sunni supporters, close w/ Islamist circles Relatively more developed rural support Relatively more eurosceptic Pro-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist Support base is western and coastal provinces Support base is central Anatolia Support base is western and coastal provinces (GP) Nationalist Ethnic Turkish nationalist, Sunni supporters Sunni supporters, Anti-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist Support base is central Anatolia (MHP)

6. 5 Province clusters in November 2002 1 st Province Cluster 2 nd Province Cluster 3 rd Province Cluster 4 th Province Cluster 5 th Province Cluster 6 th Province Cluster AKP is by far the largest party, CHP is the second with considerable votes, DYP and MHP are following AKP is by far the largest party, there are considerable votes for the independent candidate 28 26 107 9 23 116 36 106 54 44 50 63 23 118 65 34 30 27 41 248 165 47 203 15 50 45 14 22 54 69 45 27 24 HATAY KİLİS KAYSERİ SİVAS YALOVA BURSA SAKARYA BALIKESİR ÇANAKKALE İZMİR AYDIN MANİSA MUĞLA ANTALYA AFYON KONYA ORDU GİRESUN TOKAT SİNOP DÜZCE ANKARA BOLU KOCAELİ İSTANBUL ESKİŞEHİR KARABÜK ZONGULDAK BARTIN KAHRAMANMARAŞ ADANA ADIYAMAN GÜMÜŞHANE BAYBURT AĞRI AMASYA ARTVİN BİLECİK BİNGÖL BİTLİS BURDUR ÇANKIRI ÇORUM DENİZLİ DİYARBAKIR EDİRNE ELAZIĞ ERZİNCAN ERZURUM GAZİANTEP HAKKARİ ISPARTA İÇEL KARS KASTAMONU KIRKLARELİ KIRŞEHİR KÜTAHYA MALATYA MARDİN MUŞ NEVŞEHİR NİĞDE RİZE SAMSUN SİİRT TEKİRDAĞ TRABZON TUNCELİ ŞANLIURFA UŞAK VAN YOZGAT AKSARAY KARAMAN KIRIKKALE BATMAN ŞIRNAK ARDAHAN IĞDIR OSMANİYE DEHAP is by far the largest party, AKP is the second far behind CHP is the first party, AKP is the second with considerable votes and DYP is the tird party AKP is by far the largest party, CHP and DYP are second and third far behind AKP is by far the largest party, ANAP is the second far behind

7. 6 Euclidean Distance Model Suppose that there are N observers and M targets. Each observer at position reports the squared Euclidean distance to the targets at locations

8. 7 Squared Distances with Errors For each error

9. 8 Removing the Nonlinear Terms The nonlinearity is removed by subtracting the distances to one target, target m=0 from the distances to the other targets. Then compute the sample covariance matrix of the differences

10. 9 Assume that the errors are independently & identically distributed and that they are independent of the observer positions

11. 10 Covariance Matrix of Distance Differences Assume that the observer positions are uncorrelated random variables whose variances are Then the covariance matrix of the distance differences is

12. 11 is a Mx2 matrix of target positions

13. 12 2001 Survey A nation-wide representative survey of urban population conducted during the chaotic weeks of the second economic crisis of February 2001 1201 1201 face-to-face interviews were conducted in 12 of the 81 provinces of Turkey The survey was run during 2/20 – 3/16 using a random sampling method that represents the nationwide voting age urban population based on the urban population figures of 1997 census data.

14. 13

15. 14

16. 15

17. 16 KEY DATA ABOUT THE SURVEY The target of the sample was the nation-wide urban and rural settlers who are 18 years or older. The sample consisted of a total of 2028 face-to-face interviews conducted in 54 districts, 291 neighborhoods and 95 villages of a total 33 provinces. Under the restrictive assumption of simple random sampling this sample has a confidence interval of 95% with an error margin of +/- 2,2%. Provinces chosen according to probability proportionate to size (PPS) principle on the basis of their registered voter population in 1999 general election. The questionnaire was administered between the 10th and 25th of October 2002.

18. 17 FACTS ABOUT THE FIELD RESEARCH Training for questionnaire implementation was given by Ali Çarkoğlu and Ersin Kalaycıoğlu on October 4. The questionaire was tested and necessay corrections made after a pilot study on October 5-6. During the project 9 experts, 35 supervisers and 186 interviewers were assigned. 45% of the interviews were completed in the first trial. The rest is completed by either trying for a second time or selecting new streets and households. ·Interviews lasted 35 minutes on average. 45% of the interviews were randomly controlled. Controls are made either by phoning or going to the households one more time. 332 interviews were cancelled and conducted with replacements.

19. 18 Basic Independent Variables

20. 19 Vote Intentions for the November 3rd Election % 8,7 % 7,1 % 1,9 % 1,3 % 0,6 % 0,7 % 1,0 % 1,5 % 2,4 % 3,3 % 4,1 % 5,0 % 9,9 % 14,4 % 29,4 %0%10%20%30 AKP CHP GP DYP MHP DEHAP ANAP SP YTP DSP BBP Other Will not vote Will not vote for the existing parties Undecided DK/NA

21. 20 Xenophobia & Political Efficacy XenophobiaXenophobia Foreigners who settle in our country harm our culture. Foreigners who settle in our country make our chances of finding a job more difficult Some should either love Turkey or leave it. I would not want a foreigner to be my neighbor Political efficacyPolitical efficacy Regular citizens like me have no power for changing political decisions in Turkey for their advantage. Turkey is being ruled by a small and powerful group. Whatever I do I don't think I can reach a better position in society

22. 21

23. 22

24. 23

25. 24 Valence Question - Revitalizing the Economy

26. 25

27. 26

28. 27

29. 28

30. 29

31. 30

32. 31 March-2004 survey of nation-wide representative urban population (N=1,232)

33. 32

34. 33 ● 1st D.2nd D. Alevis -1.5 -3.8 Non-Alevis+0.3 -1.7