When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Erdogan Doesn't Have The Power To Delay Turkey's Election

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is facing a tough re-election battle in May made tougher by criticism linked to the devastating earthquake. Rumors are swirling that he might delay the election, even though it's simply not in his Constitutional powers.

Photo of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan consoles families as rescue workers inspect the earthquake-hit areas in Turkey.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan consoles families as rescue workers inspect the earthquake-hit areas in Turkey.

Turkish Presidency / ZUMA
Murat Sevinç


ISTANBUL — The last thing anyone wants to do at a time of grief like the earthquake in Turkey and Syria is to discuss the constitution. Yet in this case, we are left with no choice.

We do not yet know how many people lie under the wreckage. Before the quake, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who wants to extend his rule into a third decade, was facing a tough re-election battle in elections scheduled on May 14. Opinion polls published before the earthquake suggested he could lose because of the Turkish cost of living crisis.

Unnamed Turkey officials from Erdogan's party have said there are "serious difficulties" in holding the elections. The constitution of Turkey gives no such option for delaying elections unless we are at war and the Turkish parliament votes to do so. So it can't happen even in the event of a natural disaster — at least not without altering the constitution at least.

Those are the facts as they are. Then what exactly do those who say that the elections can be delayed mean, and on which constitutional provision, law or verdict are they basing their arguments?

There is much more happening here than sympathy for the victims. So with the help of Turkish constitutional law expert Didem Yılmaz, let's go through the issues one by one:

Not at war

1. The title of the Article 87 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey reads: “Duties and powers of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.” The article lists the duties and powers of the parliament in “general”. One of these powers is to “declare war.” This is how the article ends: “and to exercise the powers and carry out the duties envisaged in the other articles of the Constitution.”

Therefore, parliamentary powers are defined in full in this article and others in the constitution. Only the constitution assigns duties and powers to the parliament.

2. The Article 78 of the Constitution is entitled: “Deferment of elections and by-elections.” The first clause of the article says: “If holding new elections is deemed impossible because of war, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey may decide to defer elections for a year.” The second clause: “If the grounds do not disappear, the deferment may be repeated in compliance with the procedure for deferment.”

Of course, the constitution may be altered. That is another subject.

As you can see, deferment or delaying the elections in Turkey is only possible “because of war.” This should be a war as it is legally defined and not just any war; the war conditions should make it impossible to hold elections in the country. The authority to judge these conditions is the parliament.

The election cannot be delayed since Turkey is not at war. Of course, the constitution may be altered. That is another subject.

3. Could an election be delayed only at wartime because the constitution says so?

As far as I understand, those who ask this question are looking at, or trying to grasp onto, a 2012 verdict by the Constitutional Court of Turkey. I do not believe it is possible to pull anything useful from this verdict, which was about some articles of the Law for the Presidential Elections being unconstitutional. I will not bore you with details, but the verdict can be read here.

Acts of God?

The parliamentary deputies who brought the matter to the attention of the court claimed the fifth article of the presidential election law, which is on deferring the elections, was unconstitutional, but the high court rejected their appeal.

In the explanation of the rejection, the high court commented that it may not be possible to hold elections “under any condition” and “acts of god” may also be grounds for delay in case they also make free elections impossible.

The Court verdict features comments such as “war,” “acts of god” and “not under any condition”, which lack the clear provisions of the constitution. However, it also underlines that it is necessary that the conditions should make it practically impossible for free elections to be held.

It's an attempt to muddy the waters.

While there are those who view this verdict as possibly giving grounds for delay, it is obvious that the conditions for not being able to hold free elections are not valid in Turkey today.

God forbid, if a hypothetical disaster would happen a few days shy of the elections, then we could say that it wouldn't be possible to hold free elections and the “acts of god” argument could be considered. That is not the case now.

So in brief, it is not possible to delay the parliamentary and the presidential elections, which are to be held on the same day. The rumblings masked as a constitutional debate are actually an attempt to muddy the waters, which should cease right away.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Milei Elected: Argentina Bets It All On "Anything Is Better Than This"

The radical libertarian Javier Milei confounded the polls to decisively win the second round of Argentina's presidential elections; now he must win over a nation that has voiced its disgust with the country's brand of politics as usual.

Photo of Javier Milei standing in front of his supporters

Javier Milei at a campaign rally

Eduardo van der Kooy


BUENOS AIRES — Two very clear messages were delivered by Argentine society with its second-round election of the libertarian politician Javier Milei as its next president.

The first was to say it was putting a definitive end to the Kirchner era, which began in 2003 with the presidency of the late Néstor Kirchner and lasted, in different forms, until last night.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

The second was to choose the possibility, if nothing else, of a future that allows Argentina to emerge from its longstanding state of prostration. It's a complicated bet, because the election of the candidate of Libertad Avanza (Liberty Advances) is so radical and may entail changes to the political system so big as to defy predictions right now.

This latter is the bigger of the two key consequences of the election, but the voters turning their back on the government of Cristina and Alberto Fernández and its putative successor, (the Economy minister) Sergio Massa, also carries historical significance. They could not have said a clearer No to that entrenched political clan. So much so that they decided to trust instead a man who emerged in 2021 as a member of parliament, with a weak party structure behind him and a territorial base no bigger than three mayors in the Argentine hinterland.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest