The critical question about this election is its main theme. Is it the economy, Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) violence or the presidential election? What is the primary issue for the electorate? This is of course a question that has many answers, depending on who is asked. That said, my travels in Anatolia over recent weeks produced a number of impressions that may provide some answers.

First of all there seems to be anger at the violence unleashed by the PKK. Our population is genuinely concerned about an increasing number of losses brought about by the heinous improvised explosive devices. However a good amount of the electorate is also aware of the cheap exploitation of the funeral ceremonies of fallen soldiers, by and large orchestrated by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan’s swift reaction to the exploitation of those ceremonies has worked well and there seems to be recognition that such practices constitute low politics.

The second and most striking theme emanating from the electorate is a distinct sense of “victimization.” The electorate is very much aware of the injustice forced upon the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül during the presidential election process. “One of us was not permitted to become president” is what one hears frequently in numerous coffeehouses, village meetings or private conversations with Anatolians. Also, the tendency to view the other side as “an uncompromising camp” is evident. The democratic deficit, very openly exhibited through the presidential election, has become a major issue among the electorate. In this sense the dismal performance of Democrat Party (DP) leader Mehmet Aðar and Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) leader Erkan Mumcu has pretty much been described as “political suicide.” Democracy matters, especially in an information age. Free from the stress and intense lifestyles of urban Turks, provincial elites as well as the rural electorate have been following political developments closely. The long-accepted perception of rural Turkey being out of touch with Ankara is no longer valid. Equipped with satellite dishes and cable TV they watch and understand the political process better than many urban Turks. Hence one may engage in a very intense democracy debate in a remote village in central Anatolia and be astounded by the depth of understanding. Those who underestimate the power and gravity of Anatolia will be rudely reminded on the evening of July 22.

Finally, the economy is also a major issue. Most Turks understand that their lives are better than they were five years ago. Their purchasing power has increased, economic predictability has been established and credit is available at considerably cheaper rates. Many of them have purchased houses and cars with loans. The last thing they desire is political instability that may upset their personal fortunes. They also recognize the highways and dams built, the computers and Internet access supplied in their local schools and the improvements in the health sector.

All in all, this election is about what direction this country should take. Should it become an open, transparent and normal democracy or should it remain a limited democracy that runs from one crisis to the next? I believe that decades later the early 2000s will be remembered as a time when Turkey made a breakthrough and began to transform itself, to become a normal democracy.