The MHP won 13 percent of the vote in the June 2011 elections, which guaranteed it 52 seats in parliament. Ever since the 1960s, the MHP has operated with a vague party identity that amalgamated different, even contradictory, elements such as Islam, folk nationalism, secularism, militarism, Kemalism, statism, and even Ottomanism. However, the serious issues that are challenging Turkish politics today, such as civilian-military relations, the Ergenekon trial, Islam in the public sphere, the Kurdish question, the crisis of the presidential election, or the 2010 referendum, have made a nebulous discourse operationally impossible. This paper argues that the recent political polarization between the AK Party and the CHP put an end to the MHP’s strategy and discourse of traditional obscurantism, causing in these last elections this party’s unimpressive electoral performance.
Despite the negative atmosphere it created for both sides, the Davos case should be seen as an opportunity to revisit the various aspects of Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkish-Israeli rapprochement is important for the regional order. However, both sides should realize that like all bilateral relations the Turkish-Israeli one is subject to social, political and psychological parameters. There is no ideal, correct model that is free of social effects. The fluctuations of a bilateral contact cannot be understood through simplistic analyses that prioritize personalities or other trivial issues. Every single event, including that at Davos, should be seen as one function of complex social phenomena. Even the most unexpected events in politics are the products of several major social machineries. This article will offer an alternative analysis of the Turkish-Israeli relationship in the light of a number of social structures.