Fragile but Resilient? Turkish Electoral Dynamics, 2002-2015

Fig. 1.1. Population shares in province and district centers, 1927–2017 (%)

Fig. 1.2. GDP at current prices by kind of economic activity (% share), 1998–2017

Fig. 1.3a. Mean party positions along the conventional left-right scale, 2002–2015

Fig. 1.3b. Mean party constituency positions along the conventional left-right scale, 2002–2015

Fig. 1.4. Mean positions of major party voters along the left-right dimension, 2002–2015

Fig. 1.5. Rightmost minus leftmost average party constituency positions, 2002–2015

Fig. 2.1. Participation in Turkish general, senate, local, and presidential elections (%)

Fig. 2.2. Vote for the centrist and peripheral parties and volatility, 1950–2015

Fig. 2.3. Party Families across the Center-Periphery cleavage

Fig. 2.4. Volatility, 1950–2015

Fig. 2.5. Evaluations of the statement that university students and women state employees should be able to cover their heads if they want to

Fig. 2.6a. Can people freely practice the worship requirements of their religion in Turkey? And is there oppression of religious people in Turkey?

Fig. 2.6b. Are secular people free from the oppression of fundamentalist Islamists? Is there oppression of secular people?

Fig. 2.7. Effective Number of Parties, 1950–2015

Fig. 4.1. Possession Rates, 2002–2015

Fig. 4.2. Monthly Household Income (TL), 2002–2015

Fig. 4.3. What, in your view, are the first and second most important problems Turkey faces? (% within total number of answers given)

Fig. 4.4. Which party can bring the best solution to the most important problem? AKP, 2002 to 2015.

Fig. 4.5. The credibility margin of the AKP over the CHP in resolving the most important problems facing Turkey

Fig. 4.6. Performance evaluations for the AKP government in different policy areas, 2007–2015 (difference between successful and unsuccessful evaluations).