SAYING, “WE KNEW WE WOULD LOSE THE ELECTION” IS NOT ENOUGH…

Transport Minister and YDP Chairman Erhan Arıklı stated that they knew and could see that Ersin Tatar, whom they supported in the presidential election, would lose, saying, “We said we were ahead and that we will win until the last minute, what else can you say? We were not in a position to say, ‘we will lose’.”

Arıklı’s words were widely discussed on social media. It was emphasised that it is dishonest to say “we are ahead, we will win” for someone you know will lose…

Is it honest to first tell a lie and then admit to having told a lie? Which category should we put Mr. Arıklı in… Won’t people ask, “Let’s see how many more lies you’ve made up for us?’ (Although the public is aware of many lies and broken promises.)

While I’m on the subject, Mr. Erhan Arıklı’s statement that, “If there are no early elections by March, we will withdraw from the government as YDP” is not causing excitement on anyone’s part. No one believes it. Your threat to ‘withdraw from the government’ has unfortunately turned into the story of ‘the boy who cried wolf’…

They want to accustom the public to the idea that deception and lying are normal in politics. Unfortunately, many people have indeed become accustomed to this. They accept lies and deception as normal…

However, I object to this; whatever the circumstances, one must stay away from lies, and the public must not be deceived. Politics must be conducted properly; politicians should not be seen as an army of liars.

Of course, there are also those who tell lies but do not admit them in public, only saying them behind closed doors. So, which category should we put them in? Some other ministers and MPs, while not stating it so publicly, have indicated in private conversations that they, too, could see that the election would not be won.

Pointing to the difficulty of working for someone they know will lose, they explain that their lack of motivation stems from this, saying, “Even if everyone went out into the field and worked very hard, the result would not have changed; the people had made their decision.”

Even though they were absolutely certain that they were going to lose, they said, “We are ahead, we will win,” since they consider it as a party duty, a matter of discipline…

I try to empathise and understand them. Can a person behave like a wrestler who accepts defeat before stepping onto the mat? I can’t help but think, “Who sets out thinking, ‘I’m going to lose’”?’

However, in my opinion, it is necessary to behave courteously and ethically, despite everything. Of course, I don’t expect them to come out and say, “We will lose”, or “We are losing.” Yet, they shouldn’t tell lies based on non-existent polls, saying things like, “We saw the polls, our candidate is ahead, we are such and such far ahead.” The outcome is humiliating as it is.

Seeing that your opponent is ahead and resorting to false politics, incitement, and provocation is also wrong.

For example, bringing the ‘two-state resolution’ to parliament a few days before the election and putting it to a vote was seen as a last resort to rectify the bad situation. However, apparently, it was not done to secure a win, but to close the gap and avoid a scandalous result…

What a noteworthy decision… It was obvious that Mr. Tatar would not win this election. However, while the coalition government—which mismanaged the country—played a major role in Tatar’s crushing defeat, getting the ‘two-state resolution’ passed by parliament did not help Tatar, but rather harmed him even more.

  It was also strange to invent an ‘attack policy’ in the middle of the election process. Because the banners on attack policy listed ‘all the things the government did not and could not do’. When the government’s inadequacies, which the public complained about and reacted to, were reflected on the attack policy banners, our citizens’ traumas were further reinforced. While Mr. Tatar promised hospitals, nurses and doctors, citizens were not able to find the medicines they needed and were struggling with health problems. The attack policy caused the public’s reaction to transform into an attack.

My point is this: the government is very unsuccessful, and it played a major role in the election result. They need to engage in self-criticism, and admit that they have actually been very unsuccessful and made many mistakes. It is especially imperative that the Prime Minister recognises this reality. An extraordinary congress and a very early election are inevitable for UBP.

It is not enough to say, either publicly, or behind the scenes, “We knew we would lose the election.” You need to analyse why you received such a harsh blow from the public. On the night the election results were announced, you said, “We will be learning from the ballot box.” You need to show that you have learned that lesson.

Of course, Mr. Tatar must also engage in self-criticism and learn some lessons, but I will not dwell on that as he will be enjoying his retirement. The issue is that those currently in power wish to continue their mistakes and carry on as before.

I see that neither the major party in the coalition nor the smaller partners intend to engage in self-criticism. You want to continue on your chosen path without heeding the message from the people, but the path you are on is not right. You have no right to continue mismanaging the country in this manner, to continue with these failures, and you cannot continue without accounting for the disaster you have created, especially after receiving such a severe blow.

This article was originally published on 27.10.2025

Source: SAYING, “WE KNEW WE WOULD LOSE THE ELECTION” IS NOT ENOUGH…