By Nergis Demirkaya
During a party debate, veteran AKP politician Bülent Arınç once distinguished himself from his comrades by declaring, “I have a certain weight of my own.” Though Arınç’s own weight has faded over the past decade, if one were to search for true “political weight” in today’s Turkey, one name stands out above all: Devlet Bahçeli.
Having led the MHP for 28 years, Bahçeli has always been a force shaping Turkish politics—but in recent years, as part of the ruling People’s Alliance, he has become almost the determining factor in many critical decisions.
And the smallest gesture from him – sometimes through his quirky arithmetic, at others with a symbolic ring or badge, or even a walking video set to a Ferdi Tayfur song – can spark debates that ripple across the political spectrum. If one were to make a list of “unorthodox,” “surprising,” or “bold” outbursts, it would be filled with recent statements from Bahçeli.
Despite its vote share hovering between 7 and 10 %, the MHP wields disproportionate “certain weight” within the alliance. Asked what exactly the party aims to do as the staunchest pillar of the People’s Alliance, MHP figures give a three-part answer: “Balance and Oversight, Empowerment, and Paving the Way.” Let’s detail these.
MHP MISSION
Balance and Oversight: The AKP lost its ability to rule alone in the 2015 elections. Instead of remaining in opposition, the MHP chose to join the People’s Alliance and influence the AKP from within. Identifying itself with the “survival of the state,” the MHP assumed a “checks-and-monitoring” mission — both to safeguard the state’s continuity and to ensure the sensitivities of its nationalist voter base were taken into account. While laws were being drafted, the MHP’s priorities were carefully considered; before key decisions were made, its approval was sought. As one influential MHP MP puts it, by joining the alliance, the MHP “set limits” for the AKP and “restrained Erdoğan” on many fronts. The AKP was not always pleased with this, yet since it could not secure a parliamentary majority without the MHP, it had no choice but to heed its partner’s sensitivities every time.
Empowering the Government Abroad: For a party whose politics revolves around “state survival,” foreign policy and security top the agenda. The party’s second mission within the alliance, therefore, is described as strengthening the government’s hand in these two areas. By voicing issues that state officials may find difficult or inconvenient to express openly, the MHP helps expand the government’s room for maneuver. A recent example came during President Erdoğan’s visit to the U.S., when Bahçeli proposed a “Turkey–Russia–China” model. His statement was widely interpreted as a message that “Turkey is not without alternatives” — a move that, intentionally or not, bolstered Erdoğan’s bargaining position.
Paving the Way on Chronic Issues: The MHP’s third self-appointed role is to open paths on Turkey’s most entrenched problems. By leveraging its long-standing credibility, the party can make daring, even shocking statements that no one else could—and thus lend legitimacy to controversial steps. The latest example came during the PKK’s disarmament and dissolution process, when Bahçeli’s “stunning” remarks set the tone. “Who else but us could say this and still be trusted?” one party official told Turkey in Depth.
FUTURE OF PEOPLE’S ALLIANCE
The MHP split in 2016, giving rise to the İyi Party—which went on to surpass 10 percent of the vote. From İyi also emerged the Zafer Party and the Anahtar Party, yet despite these offshoots, the MHP has consistently managed to maintain its support above the electoral threshold. According to party administrators, recent polls likewise indicate that there will be no major decline in its vote share.
Having long abandoned its own claim to power, the MHP appears intent on continuing its role as Erdoğan’s ally within the People’s Alliance. The partnership between the AKP and MHP is often dubbed a “Catholic marriage,” implying mutual dependence. Party insiders, however, see that as overstated. For Erdoğan, the priority is always the “survival of his rule”; for Bahçeli, it is the “survival of the state”. As long as these two forms of “survival”—continuity—can be reconciled, cooperation will endure despite occasional friction.
Most recently, AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik dismissed talk of rifts within the alliance: “We are two distinct parties and may differ on certain issues, but we have not allowed those differences to turn into fractures. Our cooperation and unity of strength remain intact.”
Given the current balance in Parliament and the constitutional requirement of 50+1 votes to win the presidency, it would be no surprise if the People’s Alliance contests the 2028 elections together once more. Any real crack—or crisis—will likely come only after that vote.
