kathimerini.gr
Turkish Politics: Imprisonment, Elections, and Authoritarianism
The belief that imprisonment is a pathway to the Turkish presidency is examined against the backdrop of the current regime's authoritarian tactics, highlighting the 2015 election as a turning point, and the potential for further suppression of opposition.
- How did the Turkish regime's response to the 2015 election results shape the current political landscape?
- The current Turkish regime, unlike its predecessor, responded to its loss of numerical and social dominance in the June 2015 elections by resorting to violence to retain power. This led to a mass exodus, including the author, highlighting the regime's disregard for democratic norms and the resulting dystopian conditions.
- What are the immediate consequences of the belief that imprisonment boosts a politician's electability in Turkey?
- A widespread belief in Turkey and internationally is that imprisonment is a prerequisite for presidential election success, fueled by Imamoglu's career. However, current conditions differ significantly from those during Erdogan's imprisonment; while Turkey lacked a healthy democracy in the late 1990s, the legality of elections was unquestioned, and government disregard for Constitutional Court or ECHR rulings was unthinkable.
- What are the long-term implications of the Turkish regime's methods for suppressing dissent and maintaining power?
- The belief in a return to normalcy through elections is a misconception. The regime actively manipulates the opposition through repression, violence, and bribery, evidenced by Imamoglu's imprisonment. The post-2016 coup state restructuring has eliminated independent oversight, ensuring the regime's continued control, even with local election losses.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames Erdogan's rule as a deeply entrenched and almost insurmountable authoritarian regime. The author's use of phrases like "drowned the country in blood," "deep transformation," and descriptions of the MHP contribute to this pessimistic and arguably biased portrayal. The repeated emphasis on the regime's strength and the opposition's weakness creates a sense of inevitability regarding Erdogan's continued power.
Language Bias
The language used is strongly charged and opinionated. Terms like "fascist," "mafia-like," "drowned the country in blood," and "sadizng in prison" carry strong negative connotations and are not neutral descriptions. More neutral alternatives could include "authoritarian," "controversial," "political violence", and "imprisoned.
Bias by Omission
The analysis lacks specific examples of omitted information or alternative perspectives. While it mentions the lack of independent bodies to verify election fraud claims, it doesn't detail what specific information is missing or which perspectives are excluded. The absence of concrete examples weakens the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a false dichotomy by suggesting the only force that could stop Erdogan's regime is the MHP, a party described as fascist and mafia-like. This ignores the possibility of other actors or strategies to counter Erdogan's power. The author's pessimism presents a limited view of potential solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article describes a deterioration of democratic institutions in Turkey, including suppression of opposition, undermining of judicial independence, and allegations of election fraud. These actions directly impede the rule of law and fair governance, hindering progress towards SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).