Meral Akşener has undoubtedly been a significant figure in Turkish politics over the past seven years. In 2017, she established the Good Party (İYİ Party) after parting ways with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) due to significant internal disagreements. Since its inception, the Good Party rose to become the second-largest opposition party, following the Republican People’s Party (CHP), a position it maintained until the local elections at the end of March 2024. While the Good Party has been influential in numerous political discussions, it has primarily gained attention for its internal disputes.
The fact that the party convened its 5th extraordinary congress last Saturday is another indicator of how turbulent this short period has been.
The party was founded to appeal to dissident nationalist voters after the MHP allied with the incumbent AK Party. However, it also targeted conservatives, supposedly Türkiye’s largest voter group. It aimed to become the largest party in Turkey on the assumption that the AK Party would lose power. However, in the four elections held in the last seven years, the Good Party failed to come close to this goal.
In the 2024 local elections, the Good Party competed without its previous ally, the CHP, for the first time and secured merely 3.7% of the national vote. In key cities like Istanbul and Ankara, where the majority of election observers concentrated, the party’s support dipped below 1%. Following these outcomes, Meral Akşener, the party’s founding leader, declared that an extraordinary congress would be convened at the end of April and announced her decision not to seek re-election as party leader.
In 2018, Akşener also resigned after her vote as a presidential candidate fell short of the Good Party’s vote in the parliamentary elections. However, at a time when the party had just been founded, party members convinced the founding leader and the materialization of resignation was prevented. In 2018, the Good Party received 10% of the vote and Akşener 7%. From a particular perspective, this percentage can be considered a success for a newly established party.
This time, Meral Akşener’s decision to not seek re-election faced no opposition within the party. At the congress, three formidable candidates competed closely. In the final round, Müsavat Dervişoğlu, who was known to have Akşener’s support, narrowly defeated his rival Koray Aydın to become the new chairman of the Good Party. The close relationship between Dervişoğlu and Akşener could pave the way for her future involvement with the party, although this will largely depend on the success of the new leadership.
Challenging times lie ahead for Dervişoğlu. Following a significant decline in support after the 2023 general elections, the Good Party has seen substantial attrition; six of the 44 deputies elected have since departed the party. Additionally, several key figures within the party who were influential among conservative voters have resigned. Given these difficulties, the slogan chosen for Saturday’s congress, which draws from the party’s sun emblem, was poignant: “The Sun of the Goodwill not set.” This motto not only rallies hope but also acknowledges the looming threat of decline facing the Good Party.
All the congress speakers were familiar figures from the nationalist tradition, underscoring the dwindling interest of the centre-right in the party. Additionally, the speeches delivered by the candidates at the congress highlighted a heightened focus on Turkish nationalism.
Since its inception, the Good Party has appealed to the secular nationalist base. However, its main political purpose was to reach out to a wider electorate beyond this base. Meral Akşener’s background of serving in centre-right parties and governments, despite her nationalist roots, was in line with this effort. This latest congress and the election of Dervişoğlu as the new chairman suggest that the party will struggle to maintain this ambition.
Moreover, a critical question for the party is how effectively it can appeal to the secular nationalist base. The March elections illustrated that seven years into the presidential system, Turkish voters are gravitating towards a two-party system, focusing mainly on the AK Party and the CHP. The influence of other parties in politics is largely determined by their closeness to these two dominant parties. Recent electoral outcomes indicate that Good Party supporters, who predominantly harbour anti-government sentiments, migrated to the CHP. This shift has been influenced, in part, by the CHP’s successful outreach to centre-right voters through its appealing rhetoric.
Moving forward, the CHP will work to keep these newly acquired voters. Conversely, the Good Party will focus on regaining its lost voter base, which lead to tensions with the CHP. Clashing with the CHP was not beneficial for the Good Party during the last local elections. Additionally, as the CHP needs to sustain positive relationships with left-wing factions, it might adopt positions and rhetoric that could alienate voters who are inclined towards the Good Party.
Under these circumstances, the Good Party might explore the possibility of reconciling with the CHP. The leadership change presents a timely opportunity to mend fences with their former ally. However, given that the CHP has strengthened its position within the opposition, it may not be as willing to engage in the same level of cooperative spirit with the Good Party as it has in the past.
Rapprochement with the AK Party and the MHP, the mainstream party of nationalist ideology, seems difficult for the Good Party in the short term as it carries the risk of severing its relationship with its supporters altogether. However, the Good Party’s 38 parliamentary deputies are critical in making various decisions in parliament, especially in the discussions on the new constitution. The failure of the party leadership to get things right could trigger at least some of the party elites to shift to the incumbent bloc. Indeed, there have been similar examples in the past year.
Dervişoğlu faces the difficult task of ending the splits in the party and overcoming the identity crisis. On the other hand, he must also protect his party against threats from rivals who appeal to the same electoral base and party cadres.