Articles for category: Türkei

Boiling the Frog

In the wake of Turkey's recent presidential elections, previous blogposts objected to characterizing authoritarian regimes such as Turkey, Hungary and India as ‘competitive’ solely by virtue of regular elections, which are formally free but fundamentally unfair. However, this blogpost argues that the prior ones missed the main problem in Turkey: The playing field in Turkey is not only “massively tilted in favor of Erdogan” now; it has always been tilted in favor of the majority – long before Erdoğan. This blogpost discusses the slow death of Turkish electoral competitiveness. First, I describe the politico-legal context that enabled Erdogan’s rise. Second, I contrast the developments in Turkey regarding election competitiveness to European legal standards and strikingly late political demands.

A Flawed Vote, Not a Horse Race

The elections in Turkey/Türkiye showed the dilemma for the political opposition in competitive authoritarian regimes: They have to create momentum for change. They must believe it is possible to win elections. If they don't believe this, their voters won't. It is difficult to avoid this dilemma, but there is something journalists, experts and officials from other countries can do: Always stress the unfairness of the conditions in which the elections are being held. Do not get a carried away by the excitement of the race. Focus on the fact that the race is not being run on level ground.

Turkey’s Envisioned Exit from Authoritarianism

Turkey has been ruled by the AKP under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s leadership for more than 20 years. Throughout this time, Erdoğan got almost total control over state administration and judiciary, and enchained the media and big capital owners to himself. The Nation Alliance vows to change the political regime from executive presidentialism to parliamentary democracy in case it should defeat Erdoğan on May 14. In that regard, Turkey will turn over a new leaf in its Republican history, if, for the first time, a regime change would take place through a civilian transition.

The Constitution under the Rubble

On 6 February 2023, the century-old Republic of Turkey witnessed the most horrific environmental catastrophe in its history. Despite the evident responsibility of the central government and local administrations in the exacerbation of the social disaster, a particular state institution and an affluent Sufi cult apparently sought to capitalise on the destitution of young earthquake victims. Such was the context of the two criminal complaints filed by the lawyer-led NGO “Children and Women First Association” (Önce Çocuklar ve Kadınlar Derneği). Theocratic practices in a constitutionally secular country like Turkey do not merely erode the rule of law, but also violate the rights of children as defined under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Elections Held in Response to Demand

After the disastrous earthquakes of 6 February, the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 18 June were treated like the elephant in the room. Although being evidently unconstitutional, given the government’s influence, the Supreme Board of Election could enforce a postponement of the elections. However, relatively free elections are what remain of Turkish democracy and what are keeping it alive.

Shutting Down the Internet to Shut Down Criticism

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes which hit southwestern Turkey, internet connectivity had enabled civil society to provide additional on- and off-site assistance. However, the use of social media is not seen as innocent by Turkish authorities. Immediately after the earthquakes, authorities started to use legal instruments to silence the use of social media platforms even at the expense of utilizing its benefits during catastrophic times.

The Sultan’s Last Dance

Long-time ruler Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently declared that he would run for president for the last time in the upcoming elections in 2023, indicating the end of his political career that stretched over four decades. This may sound like a strategic move to mobilize voters but it is actually not possible for him to run again according to the current constitution. The possibility for a renewed or "last" run for office does not lie in the hands of Erdoğan alone.

Interfering with Free Speech and the Fate of Turkey

On 21 April 1998, the then mayor of İstanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was sentenced to one year (subsequently reduced to ten months) in prison and a hefty fine by the State Security Court of Diyarbakır for “incitement to hatred and hostility on grounds of religious discrimination”. His criminal act was that of reading two provocative verses from the poem “Divine Army” by Cevat Örnek (“the minarets are bayonets, the domes are helmets / mosques are our barracks, the faithful our soldiers”) during a rally of the Islamist Welfare Party (of “Strasbourg fame”) in 1997. Twenty-five years after the aforementioned rally, Turkey experienced a free speech case involving another conservative-leaning political figure on the rise: on 14 December 2022, İstanbul’s mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu was sentenced by İstanbul’s 7th Criminal Court of First Instance to a term of imprisonment of two years, seven months and fifteen days for criminal defamation.

Back to the Future

After over nine months of preparatory meetings, the Turkish opposition coalition consisting of six political parties have announced their constitutional amendment proposal. While it has been plausibly argued in this blog that constitutional restoration in the case of Turkey can be conducted without necessarily amending the Constitution, the main cause unifying the opposition coalition at the moment is a comprehensive proposal for constitutional amendment that allegedly aims for transitioning towards a ‘strengthened’ parliamentary system. In this blogpost, I will evaluate several key provisions of the opposition’s proposal and explain its likely path towards adoption in the aftermath of the upcoming general elections.