Nowadays, it is very popular, but, no, I am not going to recount AK Party's mistakes. However, I am sure nobody has doubt AK Party staff did their best. Moreover, the thing called "failure" is quite relative that; in order to define AK Party “unsuccessful” which has 16 percent difference between the closest rival, and is still the only hope for 41 percent of the country, one should only compare it with itself…

Of course, what you see when the other face of Janus is turned, although it got 41 percent of the votes, is the reality is that it cannot come to power alone. That's the reason why AK Party feels as though it failed and the Erdoğanphobics are celebrating with a festival.

As for the factors causing this:

1-ELECTION THRESHOLD: Even if there are sentences of disappointment in the social media towards the Kurds, blaming the pious Kurdish voters from AK Party on treachery is both an injustice and it inhibits an objective perspective. Even if the pious Kurds continue to support AK Party after this, HDP's being under the election threshold should be considered, because of the existential reasons as the ethnic representation.

Could they be blamed because of this choice? I think no. However,-check yourself-as a Turk if you faced the same dilemma, you should choose the same option.

Don't look at the whiteness of Demirtaş and his accomplices whitened with the Kemalist detergents, Kurds are still the “black children” of this country and it is not incomprehensible that this mass, one of injustice against whom has just begun to come to an end, should have the reflex against an obstacle as the 10 percent election threshold “to stand united against that old tyrant state”.

It is saddening, but it is a rational situation. The 10 percent threshold seems to be an injustice with regards to the ethnic representation in politics for Kurds

2-THE SHIFT OF THE NATIONALIST SECTARIAN MASS TO MHP: One of the trivets determining the rates of the pious people living in this country that cannot be underestimated is “nationalism”. The pious mass that has been approaching the resolution process suspiciously since the very beginning, but just for Erdoğan's sake, by never withdrawing their support and indirectly supporting it, began to shift to MHP as Selahattin Demirtaş began to speak…

As HDP's co-chair talked about disbandment of the Religious Affairs Directorate (Diyanet) and the religious lessons, gay rights, recognizing the genocide, this mass got restless. Moreover Demirtaş was as a pop icon; as he was polished by the allied powers and turned into a flower child, this restlessness increased among the mass more.

Even if AK Party developed some anti-arguments against Demirtaş's words hurting the pious people, this mass saying that “It is AK Party which spoiled them during the resolution process” intimidated and shifted to MHP.

Conclusion: However, a few points of the Kurdish voters went to HDP due to the election threshold, since HDP made use of the benefits of democratization that the resolution process brought a few points to that would come from the nationalist conservatives and went to MHP.

The road that was taken to finish the ethnic nationalism increased the ethnic sensitivity. But these were not the things Erdoğan, the architect of this process, could not see. I think the reason why he said “even if it costs my political life, I will continue this project” and he criticized the Dolmabahçe image a few months before the election was because of that.

On my own behalf, I thank that staff for each day I did not watch the martyr funerals.

3-CONFLICT IMAGE: With HDP, CHP, those who are not under the political roof, all the opposition covertly united against AK Party. In fact during the election period, just as it happens in the presidential systems, the country was divided into two as; AK Party and the others.

However, the image in AK Party was different. Speaking without burdening the responsibility on the shoulders of this or that person, hither or further, the criticism that should be made inside rather than outside, dual arguments, intervening the issues on behalf of this or that political actors; did not make AK Party's and Davutoğlu's work easier, but made it more difficult. One of the results of the election was that; it had a function of warning by reminding that all of us are in the same ship. Did this function work, we will see?