Results of Sunday’s elections in Turkey were astonishing, celebrated by hundreds of thousands of Turkish nationals as a victory for secularism, and by Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu as a revival of liberal democracy that offers hope not just to his country, but across the world. Eventually, perhaps. This marks the beginning of a fight by opponents of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, not its triumph.
Let us start with the reasons for hope, because for anyone who has believed in the extraordinary promise of a democratic and open Turkey, the last decade has been unremittingly dark. What the municipal elections have proved is that even for the most successful populist leaders, the power of identity politics can be insufficient if they destroy the economy.
The mismanagement was especially clear in Erdogan’s case, because he wore his personal responsibility for disastrous monetary policies as a badge of honor. His belief — against all advice and evidence — that cutting interest rates would reduce, rather than increase, inflation proved catastrophic.
Meanwhile, Imamoglu’s Republican People’s Party polled better than even its leaders expected. Known as the CHP, the party of Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, amassed more votes nationwide than the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, for the first time since Erdogan took power more than 20 years ago. The CHP also secured control over many more towns and cities. Even Turkey’s president seemed humbled by the rout.
The CHP achieved this despite abandoning efforts to field joint candidates with other opposition parties. The elections were only municipal, but in Turkey — where power is by now hyper-concentrated in the hands of the president — cities offer vital resources and patronage for any attempt to regain political power. And for the first time in a generation, the opposition now has in Imamoglu a credible challenger for the presidency.
Yet none of this brings the Erdogan era to an end. Nor does it mark the arrival of a healthy, secular democracy for Turkey. Not by some distance.
First, like municipal elections everywhere, those in Turkey are not always reliable indicators of how people would vote for a central executive.
Second, there are no national elections scheduled until 2028, giving Erdogan time to recover from his mistake on the economy. Indeed, he secured re-election only last year by continuing to pump enough money into the system to soften the impact of runaway inflation. Turkish nationals have been paying the full price of this ideologically driven folly only since he secured another term, when he switched to a more orthodox monetary and fiscal policy team.
In other words, Erdogan knew that some kind of political reckoning was coming and he planned for it. Foreign investors have begun to return, and Erdogan can — as he has said — expect for the harsh medicine of fiscal tightening to bear results and enable a rebound well before the next elections. It is not impossible that he might be forced to call an early vote, but it is hard now to foresee how that might happen.
As the president put it in his speech accepting defeat: “We will stand tall, we will stand upright. March 31 is not the end for us, it is actually a turning point.”
Which way Erdogan now turns is critical and remains unclear. It looks as though he would hold fast to more responsible economic policies, but he would at the same time remain in control of most media and all critical institutions, giving him wide powers to shape events. He also would still have all the tools he needs to marginalize political rivals, should he decide to use them.
Selahattin Demirtas, co-leader of the People’s Democratic Party or HDP, was jailed on trumped-up charges in 2016, a year after leading his party into parliament with a bumper vote that cost the AKP its majority. He remains in prison despite renouncing politics and rulings from the European Court of Human Rights that found his detention politically motivated.
Imamoglu himself has been accused of insulting members of Turkey’s election commission, a charge under which he could be prevented from serving as mayor of Istanbul.
All previous false dawns in Turkey, when Erdogan’s critics also thought he had finally made too big a mistake from which to recover, have been followed instead by him doubling down and re-slicing the electorate to his benefit. While this time does feel different, it is wise to recall the full meaning of the near-absolute power that he wields and just how much harder it is to establish independent institutions than to destroy them.
This weekend’s result could conceivably see Erdogan shift toward moderation, but that seems like wishful thinking. For one thing, the share of votes won by Turkey’s Kurdish minority was again large enough to secure an influential block of legislators hostile to the president in a parliamentary election, which may not bode well for their treatment. Erdogan may respond by targeting ethnic Kurds to court votes from Turkish nationalists.
Equally important is that while the CHP did win the most votes nationwide, at roughly 38 percent to 35.5 percent for the AKP, that margin was smaller than the likely defection of Islamist AKP voters to the New Welfare Party, which won just more than 6 percent in its first outing. Erdogan might decide he has more chances of getting these hardline religious voters to back him or his successor in a future presidential runoff, than those who went to the CHP.
Erdogan has been a trailblazer for other populist strongmen who have bet on culture wars to bring them to power. His spectacular missteps on the economy should have cost him his position last year, but they did not, and he is probably safe for now. That means his political opponents and Turkey’s democratic institutions probably are not.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS