In Turkey’s Dark Times, Protesters Are A Democratic Light

-Analysis-

ISTANBUL — Ekrem İmamoğlu is the mayor of Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city. He received the majority of votes in the 2019 local elections twice — after the results of the March 31 election were canceled and a second election for mayor of Istanbul was held on June 23. He became the city’s first mayor from the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) in 25 years. İmamoğlu was then reelected in the 2024 local elections, and the CHP became the country’s leading party for the first time in 47 years.

Needless to say, İmamoğlu is the strongest rival for the seat of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who leads the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP).

On March 19, İmamoğlu and dozens of municipal officials were taken into police custody with accusations of “terrorism” and “corruption” — just days before İmamoğlu was nominated by the CHP as its candidate for the presidential elections in 2028. He was arrested under court orders and sent to the Silivri Prison, pending investigation into the corruption charges.

A dark chapter

The court based its decision of pre-trial arrest on witness testimonies, police reports and reports from Turkey’s Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK). Some of these reports are from investigations that started after İmamoğlu’s 2019 election, while others focus on his 17 real estate properties in the Provinces of Balıkesir, Istanbul and Çanakkale, including five properties the mayor inherited from his father.

Investigative journalists who inspected the reports say there are not solid findings in them. Ramazan Başak, a MASAK former deputy chair, agrees that the reports do not feature any findings concerning corruption. It seems that some of these reports were previously used in the government-controlled media for accusing the opposition municipalities with corruption. Yet none of these reports have led to any prosecutions before.

There’s no way to sugarcoat it: This is a dark chapter for Turkey’s democracy.

It is rather tragic for the government to rely on MASAK, which had previously reported on irregularities in AKP-controlled municipalities of Istanbul, public entities such as the Post Office (PTT), state banks Ziraat and Halkbank, the national electric distribution company (TEDAS) and Turkey’s government-backed housing agency (TOKI). But nobody paid any attention to those; we never heard about them because the mainstream media did not report on them.

All of this comes as freedom of the press is being limited. And rule of law and democratic rights are being throttled. But political tactics are gaining pace.

There’s no way to sugarcoat it: This is a dark chapter for Turkey’s democracy. But it is a common story for political scientists who focus on populist regimes.

A common story

Populist leaders are on the rise around the world, and they are getting stronger. The populists present themselves as the representatives of the will of the pure, and true people’s will in conflict with the corrupt elites.

Erdogan in Turkey, President Aleksandar Vučić in Serbia and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary all used anti-corruption rhetoric to gain power and attract votes. One of the three enemies Erdogan had declared war against — during the 2002 electoral campaign when AKP first came into power — was corruption. The other two were poverty and prohibition. But do not assume that the populist leaders stay true to their words when they come into power.

On the contrary, they weaken the checks and balances that would help fight corruption. The judicial institutions suffer the most damage in this process. Media outlets are put under government control. The decline of institutional autonomy increases corruption even more than before. Yet the media aren’t allowed to investigate or report on corruption under the populist regime’s authoritarian control.

A will for democracy

Populists claim that accusations of corruption made against them are politically motivated attacks. They blame the opposition and their supposed alliance with foreign powers that seek to weaken the country. This rhetoric appeals to the nationalist leanings and draws votes for populist regimes. The disproportionate power they have over the media eventually allows them to dictate the national agenda.

This populist narrative resonates more strongly in authoritarian regimes, where the government has unlimited power over resources and institutions, while opposition forces are forced to compete on an uneven playing field. Corruption investigations are weaponized against the opposition under the authoritarian regimes of Russia, China, Nigeria and Pakistan. There are long lists of opposition politicians being tried and convicted for corruption in those countries.

On the other hand, the fact that tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Serbia and Turkey shows this: In these countries with authoritarian and populist tendencies, democracy is still alive. And the search for a democratic, not an autocratic, future continues.