Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

[Catalunya]

List of Presidents of the Republic of Turkey:

2014 - 2022: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Justice and Development Party - from 2018 onwards People’s Alliance (Justice and Development Party,and Nationalist Movement Party), unofficially Patriotic Party)

• 2014: Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu (Independent - backed by Republican People’s Party, Nationalist Movement Party, Democrat Party,and Democratic Left Party), Selahattin Demirtaş (Peoples’ Democratic Party)
• 2018: Muharrem İnce (Republican People’s Party - Nation Alliance), Selahettin Demirtaş (Peoples’ Democratic Party) in preventive detention since 2016, Meral Akşener (Good Party - Nation Alliance)

2022 - 2029: Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu (Independent formerly Repubican People’s Party - backed by Nation Alliance (Repubican People’s Party, Good Party, Democracy and Progress Party,and Democrat Party), Left Alliance (Peoples’ Democratic Party, and Workers’ Party of Turkey) Future Party, Felicity Party, Homeland Party,

• 2022: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Justice and Development Party - People’s Alliance (Justice and Development Party, Nationalist Movement Party), and New Welfare Party)

2029 - 2036: Mansur Yavaş (Independent formerly Republican People’s Party - backed by Good Party, Republican People’s Party (Nationalist faction), Democracy and Progress Party, Crescent and Star Movement Party)

• 2029: Tunç Soyer (Republican People’s Party - backed by Republican People’s Party (Socialist, and Liberal faction), People’s Democratic Party, Workers’ Party of Turkey), Cem Uzan (Independent - backed by Democracy and Progress Party dissidents, and New Liberal Democrat Party)

List of Prime Ministers of the Republic of Turkey:

2022 - 2028: Ekrem İmamoğlu (Republican People’s Party)

• 2022 (Coalition): Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Justice and Development Party - People’s Alliance), Ekrem İmamoğlu (Republican People's Party - Nation Alliance), Meral Akşener (Good Party - Nation Alliance), Pervin Buldan, Mithat Sancar (Peoples’ Democratic Party - Left Alliance), and Erkan Baş (Workers’ Party of Turkey - Left Alliance), Devlet Bahçeli (Nationalist Movement Party - People’s Alliance), Ali Babacan (Democracy and Progress Party - Nation Alliance)
• 2023 (Coalition): Ekrem İmamoğlu (Republican People’s Party), Meral Akşener (Good Party), Hulusi Akar (Justice and Development Party, and Nationalist Movement Party coupon), Selahattin Demirtaş and Pervin Buldan (Peoples’ Democratic Party), Ali Babacan (Democracy and Progress Party), Erkan Baş (Workers’ Party of Turkey)
• 2026 (Coalition): Ekrem İmamoğlu (Republican People’s Party), Meral Akşener (Good Party), Selahattin Demirtaş and Meral Danış Beştas (Peoples’ Democratic Party), Ali Babacan (Democracy and Progress Party), Ümit Özdağ and Tanju Özcan (Crescent and Star Movement Party), Erkan Baş (Workers’ Party of Turkey)

2028 - 20XX: Canan Kaftancıoğlu (Repubican People’s Party)

• 2029 (Minority Coalition): Canan Kaftancıoğlu (Repubican People’s Party), Taylan Yıldız (Good Party), Meral Danış Beştaş and Garol Paylan (Peoples’ Democratic Party), Tanju Özcan (Crescent and Star Movement Party), Barış Atay and Sera Kadıgıl (Workers’ Party of Turkey), Selma Aliye Kavaf (Democracy and Progress Party), Fatih Erbakan (New Welfare Party)

>opposition remains united and pulls of a 59-41 victory
>everybody is happy
>country goes back to parliamentary system after a year
>with 5% threshold
>centrist coalition only lasts for 3 years because Good Party starts going right again to pick up former AKP-voters
>chp wins very narrow election and is expected to form another grand coalition
>Imamoglu goes to the left instead and makes a deal with the Kurds and commies
>nationalist kemalists go mental and join the hardcore kemalist crescent and star movement
>coalition pushes through based things
>assassination attempt on pm fails but he has to resign due to injury
>recommends his right hand as his successor
>party goes through with it despite it being political suicide
>the left wing firebrand loses her first battle as the presidency is won by the popular centre-right governor of ankara
>her coalition falls because liberal democracy and progress party’s leadership is won by a moderate islamist
>threshold dropped to 3%
>good party elects a liberal as their leader
>earthquake in istanbul causes rally around the flag effect just before election
>following 2029 election nobody is
able to form a majority
>two biggest parties form a minority coalition
>climate change causes forests to burn more than half the year

 

[lerk]

List of Presidents of the Republic of Turkey:

Out of curiosity, why does the AKP crash and burn after just a few years?

 

[Catalunya]

Out of curiosity, why does the AKP crash and burn after just a few years?

Because it’s already in a state of constant infighting, and without the state’s resources keeping the party together, I can’t see them stay together if Erdogan is out of power.

In this scenario they tried to force the collapse of the new government, and criticized them for not moving back to a parliamentary system soon enough (and the usual Anti-Kurdish stuff). They joined forces with their MHP allies in the 2023 election, to at least secure enough seats to form a right-wing coalition, but nobody was interested in working with them, and slowly their former leadership either fled or was imprisoned.

 

[gentleman biaggi]

Presidents of the United States:
1949-1957: Harold Stassen (Republican)
1948 def. (with Dwight Green) Harry Truman (Democratic), Henry Wallace (Progressive) Strom Thurmond (State's Rights)
1952 def. (with Dwight Green) Calvin E. Wright (Democratic), Walter O'Brien (Progressive)
1957-1965: Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. (Democratic)
1956 def. (with Johnston Murray) Dwight Green (Republican)
1960 def. (with George Docking) Johnston Murray (Republican), Orval Faubus (State's Rights), Phil Willkie (Independent Republican)
1965-1966: George Docking (Democratic)
1966-1969: Alfred M. Gruenther (Democratic)
1964 Def. (with Alfred M. Gruenther) Jack Schroeder (Republican), Carroll Gartin (State's Rights)
1969-1973: Richard B. Kay (Republican)
1968 Def. (with James P. Mitchell) Alfred M. Gruenther (Democratic), James D. Johnson (State's Rights)
1973-1977: Stanley Arnold (Democratic)
1972 Def. (with Abe Beame) Richard B. Kay (Republican), James D. Johnson (State's Rights)
1977-1994[1]: Richard B. Kay (Republican)
1994-1995: Walter Boomer (Republican)
1976 Def. (with Jimmy Swan) Stanley Arnold (Democratic), Charles Mathias (Independent Republican)
1980 Def. (with Jimmy Swan) Tony Celebrezze Jr. (Democratic)
1984 Def. (with Patrick Buchanan) Bob Packwood (United Opposition)
1988 Def. (with Patrick Buchanan) James Longley Jr. (United Opposition)
1992 Def. (with Walter Boomer) none


Presidents of the Republic of America:
1995-1996: Walter Boomer (Nonpartisan)
1996-2001: Emma Wong Mar (Independent)
1996 Def. [backed by People's Union] Dan Lungren (Conservative), Pete du Pont (Independent), David Duke (Dixie)
2001-2011: Dan La Botz (Independent)
2001 Def. [backed by People's Union] Lynn Swann (Conservative), Joe Vogler (Sovereigntist)
2006 Def. [backed by People's Union] Wayne Allyn Root (Conservative/Sovereigntist)
2011-2016: Ron Paul (Sovereigntist)
2011 Def. [backed by Conservative] Bev Stein (Independent)
2016-????: Connie Johnson (Independent)
2016 Def. [backed by People's Union] Joe Deters (Conservative/Sovereigntist)



[1] Removed from office in "Boomer Coup".

 

[CTTeller]

1994-1995: Walter Boomer (Republican)

OK, Walter.

 

[Nyvis]

Did you write the list for the sake of the joke?

 

[Catalunya]

Still a WIP

de Facto Commissars of the United American Socialist Republics

1933 - 1940: collective (Workers’ Communist Party)
1940 - 1944: Leon Trotsky (Workers’ Communist Party)
1944 - 1962: James P. Cannon (Workers’ Communist Party)
1962 - 1973: Henry M. Jackson (Workers’ Communist Party)

——————————————————

2014 - 20XX: Mitch McConnell (Workers’ Communist Party)

 

[Nyvis]

Still a WIP

de Facto Commissars of the United American Socialist Republics

1933 - 1940: collective (Workers’ Communist Party)
1940 - 1944: Leon Trotsky (Workers’ Communist Party)
1944 - 1962: James P. Cannon (Workers’ Communist Party)
1962 - 1973: Henry M. Jackson (Workers’ Communist Party)

——————————————————

2014 - 20XX: Mitch McConnell (Workers’ Communist Party)

Pain.

Though honestly Mitch is enough of an opportunist that this doesn't tell us much about 21th century red America.

 

[Catalunya]

Pain.

Though honestly Mitch is enough of an opportunist that this doesn't tell us much about 21th century red America.

It’s a mixture of the Trotsky to NeoCon trope and the USA as the PRC. I’m just trying to find a good way to fit the SDUSA in.

 

[Nyvis]

It’s a mixture of the Trotsky to NeoCon trope and the USA as the PRC. I’m just trying to find a good way to fit the SDUSA in.

A Trotskyist USA with Neocon-like takes on its cold war with the USSR would be interesting for sure. That would do interesting things to the world.

I think it's a bit harder to fit in the PRC parallel considering there's no wealthy capitalist superpower to open up to anymore though.

 

[Catalunya]

A Trotskyist USA with Neocon-like takes on its cold war with the USSR would be interesting for sure. That would do interesting things to the world.

I think it's a bit harder to fit in the PRC parallel considering there's no wealthy capitalist superpower to open up to anymore though.

Maybe Germany goes more traditionally fascist and leaves Western Europe mostly alone + a capitalist China or India? Also it’s more analogues in the sense that there is a split between the two biggest communist nations, and the non-Russians align with the capitalists, though I’m sure the American Trotskyist/NeoCons would do it in such a way that it would turn Mao into a Khrushchevist.

 

[Nyvis]

Maybe Germany goes more traditionally fascist and leaves Western Europe mostly alone + a capitalist China or India? Also it’s more analogues in the sense that there is a split between the two biggest communist nations, and the non-Russians align with the capitalists, though I’m sure the American Trotskyist/NeoCons would do it in such a way that it would turn Mao into a Khrushchevist.

It's an interesting reversal of the PRC position, in that case, since it'd be a capitalist bloc pretty much led by a "socialist" nation.

On the other hand, you could lean into the neocon angle adapted to the socialist nature of America and have them attempt to export socialism at gunpoint. It reminds me of Reds! Militarized Internationalism and Reagan's role in it, actually.

But a totally pragmatic "the USSR is the ultimate evil" Trotskyist red America allying with British and French imperialists to oppose it would be hilarious(ly sad).

 

[Mumby]

Special Relationship

2001-2005: George W. Bush (Republican)
2000 (with Dick Cheney) def. Al Gore (Democratic)
2005-2013: Howard Dean (Democratic)
2004 (with Dick Gephardt) def. George W. Bush (Republican)
2008 (with Dick Gephardt) def. George Pataki (Republican)

1997-2005: Tony Blair (Labour)
1997 (Majority) def. John Major (Conservative), Paddy Ashdown (Liberal Democrat), David Trimble (Ulster Unionist), Alex Salmond (Scottish National)
2001 (Majority) def. William Hague (Conservative), Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat), David Trimble (Ulster Unionist), John Swinney (Scottish National), Ian Paisley (Democratic Unionist)
2005-2010: Gordon Brown (Labour)
2005 (Majority) def. Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative), Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat), Ian Paisley (Democratic Unionist), Alex Salmond (Scottish National), Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein)
2010 (Minority; Caretaker Ministry); Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat), Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative), Peter Robinson & Andrew Hunter (Democratic Unionist), Alex Salmond (Scottish National), Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein)
2010-2016: Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat)
2011 (Majority) def. John McDonnell (Labour), Edward Leigh & Peter Robinson (New Force Coalition), David Davis (Free Conservative), Alex Salmond (Scottish National), Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein)

Basically purely riffing on Howard Dean's OTL pro-LibDem stance.

Butterflies flap in 2003, Duncan Smith clings on and Bush endures some scandal or other that leads the Democratic primary voter and the American public at large to plump for the anti-war populist in the field. The Iraq War stumbles with Dean in the Oval Office and Blair's position in holed under the waterline. While the OTL effort to impeach him also barely gets off the starting line ITTL it does prove more embarrassing and in 2005 he quits a couple of months ahead of a general election that Labour is not polling very well in with him at the helm. Brown manages to pull off an unopposed leadership election, albeit John McDonnell's effort gets a bit more publicity.

The 2005 election sees the Tories lose more seats as Brown enjoys a honeymoon and the LibDems get the advantage of a presidential endorsement and a vague vindication that they are on the right side of history with Blair leaving office (a similar polling boost for the SNP gets drowned out by the Orange Tide). With Duncan Smith out, the Tories plump for a moderniser, on the understanding that this will probably be a two election job.

As the Tories strap themselves in for the prospect of not returning to government for another eight to ten years, the country has to contend with the creeping integration of the EU and almost at the same time a devastating economic crisis. While Dean's America manages to implement some elements of Glass-Steagal, and Brown is now quietly hailed as the man who saved the world from a deeper Depression, at the time the world's burdens are laid at his feet. Nevertheless, 2010 proves not to be Cameron's to lose. His own party splinters, with a handful of Monday Club types hurrying into the DUP's kennel, and the LibDems surge under an ascendant Kennedy. While the Conservatives come first in the popular vote their margins are torn apart by the Orange Tide who claim seats on narrow pluralities across the country.

Brown continues to lead a caretaker ministry as leadership elections are held in his own party and the Conservatives. This ends as McDonnell returns to win the Labour leadership and Edward Leigh emerges the victor in the Tories' own election. Leigh leads his party into a pact with the DUP, while a rump of Eurosceptic libertarians under David Davis cleave away. Pro-European centrists from both the Tories and Labour defect to the Liberal Democrats, granting Kennedy an vaguely workable minority. He enjoys a polling boost once in Number 10 and within a few months calls a snap election, shoring up his parties' position in the Tories former shire seats.

 

[Catalunya]

It's an interesting reversal of the PRC position, in that case, since it'd be a capitalist bloc pretty much led by a "socialist" nation.

On the other hand, you could lean into the neocon angle adapted to the socialist nature of America and have them attempt to export socialism at gunpoint. It reminds me of Reds! Militarized Internationalism and Reagan's role in it, actually.

But a totally pragmatic "the USSR is the ultimate evil" Trotskyist red America allying with British and French imperialists to oppose it would be hilarious(ly sad).

I don’t think an America which went through a civil war (probably not clear through the list), and 25-30 years of planned economics could lead a faction, which included an economically and militarily stronger British Empire, though it could be an equal partner.

A communist America joining the French imperialists to shoot down Vietnamese freedom fighters because they’re backed by the degerated workers’ state, while the more moderate socialists’ (DSA + New Left + New Politics) calls for democratic elections and an end to a war against a socialist anti-imperialist/colonialist rebellion has them branded as Stalinists, at the same time the entire upper echelon of the Workers’ Communist Party have all secretly and individually from one another stopped believing in Marxism, but are too scared to say it out loud and end up in Alaska, would indeed be hilariously sad.

 

[Nyvis]

I don’t think an America which went through a civil war (probably not clear through the list), and 25-30 years of planned economics could lead a faction, which included an economically and militarily stronger British Empire, though it could be an equal partner.

I mean, the USSR could and the starting position was infinitely worse than the American one. Maybe if the civil war lasts very long and has proxies throw oil onto the fire, but the US has all the resources it needs to thrive and an enormous industrial starting point that the USSR hadn't and yet the soviets managed to run their own cold war faction for quite a bit.

A communist America joining the French imperialists to shoot down Vietnamese freedom fighters because they’re backed by the degerated workers’ state, while the more moderate socialists’ (DSA + New Left + New Politics) calls for democratic elections and an end to a war against a socialist anti-imperialist/colonialist rebellion has them branded as Stalinists, at the same time the entire upper echelon of the Workers’ Communist Party have all secretly and individually from one another stopped believing in Marxism, but are too scared to say it out loud and end up in Alaska would indeed be hilariously sad.

Meanwhile the USSR goes full hog on anti imperialism despite their own convictions at home being lacking due to Stalin purging all the non opportunists.

Actually I wonder where China would end up. Maybe the American communists back the Kuomintang and you get a divided country?

India may end up being a quagmire for the British empire with the soviets backing more radical anti imperialist politics while American support encourage the British to keep trying to retain control?

 

[Catalunya]

I mean, the USSR could and the starting position was infinitely worse than the American one. Maybe if the civil war lasts very long and has proxies throw oil onto the fire, but the US has all the resources it needs to thrive and an enormous industrial starting point that the USSR hadn't and yet the soviets managed to run their own cold war faction for quite a bit.



Meanwhile the USSR goes full hog on anti imperialism despite their own convictions at home being lacking due to Stalin purging all the non opportunists.

Actually I wonder where China would end up. Maybe the American communists back the Kuomintang and you get a divided country?

India may end up being a quagmire for the British empire with the soviets backing more radical anti imperialist politics while American support encourage the British to keep trying to retain control?

Yeah, that’s true. The US would obviously not be the hegemon it was IOTL, but I shouldn’t underestimate it either.

The USSR would probably in whatever form it finds itself in post-1921 be roughly the same as OTL imo, though the details could obviously differ greatly.

Maybe Stalin could go even more anti-Mao seeing the Trotskyist control America, and back the KMT instead, which may push it to a more left-wing and anti-imperialist direction. By the time the UASR has the ability to adequatly back the CCP, it could already be on its death bed. A KMT China would probably be poorer than OTL China according to SLP, and end up similar to I dia

As for India, I thought the Brits may act more pragmatic towards it, seeing what happened across the Atlantic and give it Dominion status, which would keep it closer to the imperialist powers down the line, and also more capitalist. It would be interesting if there are three great powers, which speak English.

 

[Mumby]

an 'American Raj' in which the US backs a longer British transition to Dominionhood, which means fighting an insurgency with Yankee blood and guns

 

[Nyvis]

Maybe Stalin could go even more anti-Mao seeing the Trotskyist control America, and back the KMT instead, which may push it to a more left-wing and anti-imperialist direction. By the time the UASR has the ability to adequatly back the CCP, it could already be on its death bed. A KMT China would probably be poorer than OTL China according to SLP, and end up similar to I dia

Stalin was already backing the KMT until it was too late and they were killing communists OTL so that somewhat believable.

Not sure the Americans would get there in time to save Mao's bacon in that case, but they might, the KMT was a bit of a dumpster fire and it took very long for the soviets to start backing the CPC OTL anyway.

Actually, what happens to Japan? That's going to change the face of China entirely.

As for India, I thought the Brits may act more pragmatic towards it, seeing what happened across the Atlantic and give it Dominion status, which would keep it closer to the imperialist powers down the line, and also more capitalist. It would be interesting if there are three great powers, which speak English.

Hmm, something to consider is also when exactly the US falls into neocon mindset too. For all that Trotsky criticized the USSR, this deformation is one of his followers' sins, not his own, so probably after his death? By then India might be a done deal.

On the other hand, you could also have a more serious communist insurgency in an India that's felt to have sold out, potentially USSR backed?

I can't see a more capitalist India doing that much better than the OTL one, especially if the British retain more involvement, since they'll want to keep extracting something out of it for their troubles. So like KMT China it probably doesn't do too great. Those big undevelopped countries would need serious political power to implement a developmentalist program to catch up and I can't see that happening with weak foreign influenced governments.

an 'American Raj' in which the US backs a longer British transition to Dominionhood, which means fighting an insurgency with Yankee blood and guns

Maybe something like Vietnam, where the British bungle it, decide to leave but the Americans go back in to fight the now obviously soviet aligned follow up?

 

[Mumby]

Maybe something like Vietnam, where the British bungle it, decide to leave but the Americans go back in to fight the now obviously soviet aligned follow up?

Oooh yeah, like the British try to do One Big India and civil war breaks out between Hindus, Muslims, Communists (of various stripes) and Princes and the Yanks pick up the pieces installing 'Peoples Republics' and propping up Princes in the aftermath.

 

[Catalunya]

an 'American Raj' in which the US backs a longer British transition to Dominionhood, which means fighting an insurgency with Yankee blood and guns

No matter how anti-Stalin, I can’t see a socialist America supporting the UK in India in the 40s. My idea was that you would have three sides staring angrily at one another, until the 1960s, when ‘only Henry Jackson could go to London’ happens.

Stalin was already backing the KMT until it was too late and they were killing communists OTL so that somewhat believable.

Not sure the Americans would get there in time to save Mao's bacon in that case, but they might, the KMT was a bit of a dumpster fire and it took very long for the soviets to start backing the CPC OTL anyway.

Actually, what happens to Japan? That's going to change the face of China entirely.



Hmm, something to consider is also when exactly the US falls into neocon mindset too. For all that Trotsky criticized the USSR, this deformation is one of his followers' sins, not his own, so probably after his death? By then India might be a done deal.

On the other hand, you could also have a more serious communist insurgency in an India that's felt to have sold out, potentially USSR backed?

I can't see a more capitalist India doing that much better than the OTL one, especially if the British retain more involvement, since they'll want to keep extracting something out of it for their troubles. So like KMT China it probably doesn't do too great. Those big undevelopped countries would need serious political power to implement a developmentalist program to catch up and I can't see that happening with weak foreign influenced governments.



Maybe something like Vietnam, where the British bungle it, decide to leave but the Americans go back in to fight the now obviously soviet aligned follow up?

China could go either way, I honestly don’t know enough about it. Could the left-KMT pull off a victory with more backing by the USSR?

Japan wouldn’t differ too much from OTL I think. I’m not sure if they would intervene in the American Civil War. Maybe they might take Hawaii, though the UK could do that as well. The Falcon Cannot Hear had Japanese soliders in California in the 1940s to aid the fascists, but I don’t think they could pull that off in the mid-30s. Either way, a Japanese-American war would still be close to inevitable, and a weaker America would focus more on Japan than the European front. Post-WW2 Japan may be an American puppet or a neutral (socialist) state inbetween the Soviets, Americans and maybe also the Brits and French.

I thought America might really fall into it by the mid to late 60s, just in time for 1968, albeit it would be a gradual process from ‘the Soviets are just as bad as the imperlists’ to ‘the degenerates are worse’.

You’re right on capitalist India, but would Stalin really be willing to piss of the UK enough to back communists in India? It’s one of those things that could cause WW2, and knowing Stalin he’d like to portray himself as the lesser of two evils between himself and the UASR.

Oooh yeah, like the British try to do One Big India and civil war breaks out between Hindus, Muslims, Communists (of various stripes) and Princes and the Yanks pick up the pieces installing 'Peoples Republics' and propping up Princes in the aftermath.

This could be really interesting. Maybe the Dominion gets hastily split up between various factions, though it’s more of a ceasefire. Twenty years down the line you have white Trotskyists shooting south-Asian Marxist-Leninists in Andhra Pradesh or something like that.