Türkiye, de-election and our duty

Gül ÇİFTCİ - CHP Deputy Chairman

Political science literature classifies regimes that formally maintain free competition but systematically tilt the “field of play” in favor of the ruling power through the law, media, administration, and judiciary as “competitive authoritarianism.”

These regimes do not abolish elections; on the contrary, they hold them to generate legitimacy but institutionalize tools to distort their results. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way's diagram and Andreas Schedler's "manipulation menu" describe the cycles of interference, from campaign conditions through the counting and objections phase to post-election judicial decisions.

Turkey 's last decade is in almost perfect harmony with the findings of this literature.

We can observe the concept of competitive authoritarianism, particularly in the long periods in power of counter-revolutionary governments following historical victories. It's important to emphasize that the fundamental point here is counter-revolution and victory. An attack on the right to vote, a democratic achievement, presents itself as an example of competitive authoritarianism, leading to "de-electoralization."

In this context, the conceptualization of "de-election" refers not to the abolition of the ballot box itself, but rather to the elimination of the meaning of the election for the voter and its capacity to produce results. In this process, the ballot box exists, but the will of the voter is neutralized by mechanisms before, during, and after the election. The fundamental aim here is to sever the link between the continuation of the act of "voting" and the "transfer of power to govern."

In such regimes, "de-election" is generally directed at the most prominent opponent. In multi-party systems, simultaneously oppressing multiple or all opponents constitutes a counter-axis to totalitarianism, and thus, the process of "de-election" is driven by oppression of the most prominent opponent.

To illustrate with a current example, Hürriyet Newspaper columnist Abdulkadir Selvi's statement, "Erdoğan will strive to isolate the CHP in the new term. He will be careful to drive a wedge between the CHP and other opposition parties," is one of the statements that most clearly summarizes the situation.

From here, we can start looking for answers to two questions, one basic and the other current.

1- What are the stages of deselection?

To answer this question briefly but clearly, the first set we encounter consists of judicial-administrative tutelage and media-perception synchrony.

Criminal investigations and arrest-trial processes limit the executive capacity of elected local officials, instilling in the public the perception of "government under criminal pretense." Since 2019, the outcome of electoral processes, particularly in Istanbul, has been transformed into a "regime of perpetual uncertainty" through a cycle of objections, lawsuits, and arrests.

The fundamental concept here is a regime of permanent uncertainty. When we consider the issue of de-election, two important issues emerge for the government.

They have to make choices because they want to generate legitimacy.

But he cannot afford to actually lose the elections, because that would end his rule.

To resolve this paradox, power manages uncertainty rather than “eliminating it.”

In other words, the aim is not to establish a predictable legal order; on the contrary, it is to create a constant sense of uncertainty about the future of political actors, the opposition, and even the electorate.

To summarize, the survival of authoritarianism depends on maintaining uncertainty. The regime creates a space where no one can ever fully know what is or isn't possible.

Media campaigns, running concurrently with judicial and administrative measures, frame elected officials as "potential criminals," casting doubt on the "devolution of governing power" that voters expect from elections. This aligns with the logic of using elections as a tool for generating legitimacy while voiding the results within a "menu of manipulation."

2- Did the attack on the Republican People's Party take place in the last year?

No. To understand this process, we need to go back to 2019.

The Supreme Election Council's (YSK) annulment of the Istanbul elections on May 6, 2019, without any concrete justification, was a turning point in the relationship between elections and the judiciary. Ekrem İmamoğlu's re-election with 54.22 percent on June 23rd was the voters' response to the annulment at the ballot box. This wasn't just an election; it was the first time the government's capacity to interfere with election results through the judiciary was "tested."

On March 31, 2024, the CHP's victory in first place with 37.8 percent of the vote and its victory in most metropolitan municipalities confirmed the government's defeat at the ballot box. This was followed by the arrests of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and numerous mayors, lawsuits filed against the party, and pressure on the party congress.

The chronology of judicial operations targeting the Republican People's Party (CHP) is, in fact, a mirror reflecting the phases of democracy in Türkiye. In this mirror, the "CHP's internal strife" is invisible. The only visible element is the effort to "de-electoralize."

The point now is to look at the function of operations rather than their content.

Because it is not just individuals who are on trial; it is the meaning of the ballot box, the will of the voters and democracy itself.

The target is not the Republican People's Party, but the political order of the Republic based on popular sovereignty.

This process, which began in 2019, was institutionalized after 2024; it became a "regime with elections but without elections" that allowed the ballot box to be established but did not allow its outcome.

The aim is to normalize interference with the will of the voters and to imprison democracy in a state of fatigue and despair.

However, in Türkiye, the ballot box carries much greater meaning than in European countries.

What we are experiencing today is a society's effort to re-embrace democracy. The Republican People's Party is the institutional memory of this effort.

The system of elimination of elections, woven through a triangle of judicial pressure, administrative tutelage, and media manipulation, is a counter-revolutionary attack in our political history. It is a historic process that all segments of society that defend the republic, the right to vote, and national sovereignty will stand against and ultimately win. Because there is no power that can permanently silence the will of the people.

The attempt to de-electoralize will ultimately collide with the people's insistence on democracy and those who stand with them. And this is precisely what will determine the fate of our country.