The budget talks at Parliament have been so intense that they overshadowed the rivalry between the government and the opposition’s vision documents. Speaking at Parliament, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) Chairperson Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu escalated tensions, leading to a fist fight among parliamentarians.

The presentations could not clarify how the CHP leadership intended to bridge the gap between neoliberal policies and popular recommendations, and amounted to fragmented peeks into its vision. In other words, it seemed like 'a cocktail'

The 'table for six' made a proposal that threatens to create a fragmented system of political parties, fuel conflict within the executive branch, start a tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, and usher in a period of coalition governments

As the Western-dominated liberal world order gives way to multipolarity, the opposition seems to think romantically about the possibility of aligning with this past reality

'The vision document Türkiye's Century, which uses inclusive and embracing language to urge various social groups to launch new initiatives and shape the country's next century, focuses on hope and working together'

The organization, which has nine members following Iran’s admission, recognized Egypt and Qatar as dialogue partners at the Samarkand Summit. At the same time, the SCO has launched processes related to the full membership of Belarus and granting 'dialogue partner' status to Bahrain, Kuwait, the Maldives, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Myanmar.

In truth, the question at hand goes beyond that. This is about who would make crucial political decisions (and how) if the opposition bloc were to win next year’s elections.

The million-dollar question in Turkish politics is whether the opposition bloc – known as the 'table for six'– should stay together or disband.

The opposition bloc is unable to present a feasible alternative for governing Türkiye despite considering themselves as the opposite of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party)

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to the Hüseyin Gazi Cemevi, an Alevi house of worship, following the recent assaults on three cemevis in Ankara came to be viewed as a sign that various identity groups were back on the political agenda. Some argued that Erdoğan’s visit, along with his plan to visit the Hacı Bektaş Lodge, was an 'investment for the election.'

The common theme in the 2023 campaigns of all parties will be Türkiye’s critical importance.

Türkiye’s political parties will ostensibly fight over the Kurdish vote bank in the 2023 election campaign. That competition has already fueled rumors about a new “opening,” yet it remains unclear whether that will lead to concrete and comprehensive policy proposals.

Needless to say, the election is just 11 months away and the People’s Alliance does a better job at highlighting the various contradictions of the “table for six.” Following in Erdoğan’s footsteps, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chairperson Devlet Bahçeli has been criticizing the profile of the opposition’s potential candidate.

The main source of disagreement between Türkiye's government and the opposition relates to which side could govern better. Alternatively, it is about the claim that the opposite side cannot govern properly. As Türkiye inches toward next year’s elections, that theme dominates domestic politics week in and week out.

The opposition has been criticizing the memorandum that Turkey signed with Sweden and Finland at the NATO summit in Madrid. Their main argument is that the government bowed to pressure and made concessions.

Obviously, the governing party bears responsibility for any action it takes – or does not. What really needs to be discussed is why the opposition cannot represent an alternative despite that baggage. The opposition seems to underestimate its own ability to make new points to target the government, instead fueling fears and concern.

On May 29, the leaders of six opposition parties met for the fourth time and unveiled a list of 'fundamental principles and objectives.' Supporters of the Future Party (GP) and the Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA) attached particular importance to the declaration, portraying the move as the relevant parties agreeing on a common vision – in addition to their previous proposal for an 'augmented' parliamentary system.