|
إستماع
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Türkiye stands on the brink of a political reckoning, the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu—just days before his expected nomination as the opposition’s sole presidential candidate—has ignited widespread unrest and global concern. The move, paired with the revocation of his university diploma and allegations of terrorism, signals not just a personal attack, but a systematic effort to dismantle democratic opposition. Against the backdrop of Erdoğan’s tightening grip, a faltering economy, and rising authoritarianism worldwide, this analysis explores how Türkiye’s current crisis reflects a broader global shift—and why what happens in Istanbul today may echo far beyond its borders tomorrow.
From Democracy to Despotism: The Erdoğan Method
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s trajectory from Istanbul’s mayor in the 1990s to Türkiye’s all-powerful president is a textbook case of how democratic institutions can be turned inward to serve autocracy. He was once the symbol of Islamic conservatism’s democratic aspirations. Today, he stands as a cautionary tale: how elections alone do not guarantee democracy when the rule of law, press freedom, and judicial independence are systematically eroded.
Ekrem İmamoğlu’s arrest—on sweeping charges of corruption, terrorism, and even a diploma scandal—echoes the regime’s well-worn strategy of disabling opponents before they become threats. It’s the same playbook used against Selahattin Demirtaş, the jailed leader of the pro-Kurdish HDP. Journalists, professors, municipal leaders—none are immune. The institutions of the state have been hollowed out and refashioned into weapons of political survival.
Labeling political opponents as “terrorists” is no longer a scare tactic; it is the regime’s default setting. Revoking İmamoğlu’s diploma—a legal prerequisite for running for president—just days before the March 23 Republican People’s Party (CHP) primary, where he stands as the sole and certain candidate, is not a legal matter. It is an autocratic sleight of hand, a bureaucratic blow aimed directly at the ballot box.
Postmodern Coup: Türkiye’s “28 Şubat” in Reverse
What is happening in Türkiye today bears eerie resemblance to the “postmodern coup” of February 28, 1997—only now the generals have traded fatigues for robes and briefcases. Back then, Erdoğan’s mentor Necmettin Erbakan was ousted through institutional coercion and elite pressure. Now, Erdoğan appears to be reusing those same tools, this time to crush his own rivals.
This is a coup in slow motion. No tanks, no declarations. Just a judiciary compromised, a press intimidated, and a civil society under siege. This isn’t democracy in peril—it is democracy betrayed from within.
And the stakes could not be higher. On March 23, CHP is expected to officially declare İmamoğlu as its presidential candidate for the next national election. He is the only contender, and with the party unified around him, his candidacy should have been a moment of momentum and consolidation. Instead, the government revoked his diploma, placed him in detention, and exposed him to the risk of a political ban. In effect, Erdoğan has not waited for the campaign—he has struck preemptively.
Social Unrest and Information Blackouts: Fear of the People
The regime’s panic is palpable. Following İmamoğlu’s arrest, the government shut down roads, banned protests, and restricted access to X, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. These aren’t security measures—they are confessions of fear. The people, not the opposition, terrify the regime.
And the people responded. Thousands took to the streets in Istanbul’s Sarachane district. Demonstrations erupted across major cities, from METU in Ankara to İzmir and Trabzon. The slogans were defiant, the mood electric. “The day will come when the AK Party is called to account,” they chanted. Tear gas couldn’t silence them.
This isn’t just about İmamoğlu. It’s about the right to dissent, the sanctity of the vote, and the future of a republic now in the grip of one man’s ambition.
International Hypocrisy and the Netanyahu Mirror
Türkiye’s descent into autocracy should shock the world—but it doesn’t. Because Erdoğan is not the only one assaulting democracy under the guise of “security.”
Consider Benjamin Netanyahu. His brutal siege of Gaza—hailed by some as “self-defense”—has turned entire neighborhoods into rubble. Civilians, hospitals, schools—all targeted in what many see as collective punishment, if not worse. Yet much of the West stands by silently or offers tepid statements.
Erdoğan, ironically, is one of Netanyahu’s loudest critics. And yet he mimics the same rhetoric: all dissent is terrorism, all resistance is illegitimate, and all opposition is a national threat.
The double standard is galling. The same governments that condemn suppression in Iran or Venezuela remain largely silent on Türkiye—because Erdoğan is “strategically important.” But democracy doesn’t care about geopolitics. It either is, or it isn’t. And in Türkiye, it is not.
The PKK Shift: Hope or Strategy?
Amidst the turmoil, an unexpected development: Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the outlawed PKK, called for the group’s disbandment. On paper, this is a monumental shift—an invitation to end a conflict that has claimed over 40,000 lives since 1984. But in politics, timing is everything.
The move appears calculated. Analysts suggest Öcalan’s declaration was not spontaneous—it likely followed secret negotiations with Ankara. With Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the far-right MHP, signaling support for Öcalan’s parole if he disarmed the PKK, the stage was set.
What does Erdoğan gain? Everything. He removes a long-time bogeyman, casts himself as a peacemaker, and earns political capital that could help justify early elections or even constitutional amendments to extend his presidency. But history warns us: Erdoğan has used Kurdish reconciliation as a political tool before, only to abandon it when convenient.
A Desperate Gamble or a Final Gambit?
The lira’s historic collapse to 42 against the dollar—despite billions in central bank intervention—is a symptom of deeper malaise: economic instability driven by political recklessness.
Inflation remains high. Investor confidence is shaky. Global markets read İmamoğlu’s arrest not just as political turbulence, but as structural decay. A regime willing to jail its most popular politician days before a primary is a regime that no longer believes in the stabilizing power of the ballot box.
And Erdoğan knows time is not on his side. Constitutionally barred from running again in 2028, he faces three options: step down, call early elections, or change the rules. Blocking İmamoğlu checks multiple boxes—it removes a rival and creates chaos he can exploit to justify the rest.
But with İmamoğlu expected to be formally announced on March 23 as the opposition’s official candidate, and now effectively disqualified or detained, Türkiye has crossed into uncharted political waters. The democratic process is no longer merely at risk—it is unraveling in real time.
What Next? Resistance or Resignation?
This is not the time for euphemisms. İmamoğlu’s arrest, diploma revocation, and prosecution are not “controversial.” They are authoritarian.
But the spirit of resistance still burns. From Gezi Park to the current protests, the Turkish people have shown they will not surrender easily. The opposition must do more than protest—it must organize, collaborate, and reclaim the narrative.
This is not just about one man. It is about the right of citizens to choose their leaders without state interference. If İmamoğlu falls without resistance, it will not end there. It never does.
The Rise of Autocrats and Anti-Democrats: A Global Phenomenon
Erdoğan is not an anomaly. He is part of a larger, sinister club of elected autocrats—strongmen who come to power through democracy only to disembowel it from within.
Vladimir Putin began with promises of stability and reform. Today, Russia is a prison state, where critics are exiled, silenced, or killed. The death of Alexei Navalny was not a failure of the system—it was its fulfillment.
Viktor Orbán in Hungary has built a one-party state while still holding elections. He coined the term “illiberal democracy”—a polite way of saying dictatorship with ballots. The judiciary is captured. The press is neutered. And Europe largely looks away.
Donald Trump, even after inciting a violent insurrection, not only remained an eligible candidate in the U.S.—he was elected to the highest office and has since been actively engaged in dismantling the very norms that underpin the Western democratic tradition. His disdain for constitutional checks and balances, his attacks on the judiciary and press, and his open admiration for authoritarian leaders have emboldened others across the globe. His “Big Lie” strategy—refusing to accept electoral defeat and instead claiming fraud without evidence—has now become a global export, adopted by aspiring autocrats seeking to delegitimize elections and cling to power.
In this ecosystem, Erdoğan thrives. Like Putin, he consolidates power. Like Orbán, he cloaks repression in legality. Like Netanyahu, he uses security fears to justify injustice. And like Trump, he creates parallel realities to destroy trust in institutions.
They are not defenders of democracy. They are anti-democrats in suits, enemies of freedom hiding behind flags.
A Nation at a Crossroads
Türkiye stands at a pivotal moment. The decision is not between parties or ideologies—it is between democracy and despotism.
What we are witnessing is not a temporary crackdown. It is a systemic, strategic assault on the republic itself. Erdoğan may believe he is shaping his own legacy as the founding father of Türkiye’s second century. But history often reserves its harshest judgment for those who mistake power for permanence.
The March 23 CHP primary may now proceed without a viable candidate. İmamoğlu, once the hope of the opposition, now sits in prison, his future uncertain, his candidacy sabotaged. In parallel, Türkiye’s democratic institutions teeter on the edge of collapse.
The world must pay attention—not because Türkiye is a NATO member, or a regional power, but because its fate is a mirror of our times. If democracy can be buried in Istanbul, it can be buried anywhere.
Democracy doesn’t always die in fire. Sometimes, it is quietly loaded into a police van, as the crowd chants slogans in a silenced square.