CIVICUS speaks with Özgür Ünlühisarcıklı, regional director of the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) in Turkey, about Turkey’s recent municipal elections that saw opposition parties gain ground.
Founded in 1972, the GMF is a nonpartisan policy organisation that works on issues such as the future of democracy, security and geopolitics, the rise of China and technology and innovation. The director of its office in Ankara, Turkey’s capital, Ozgur is an expert on transatlantic relations and Turkish foreign policy, domestic politics, democratisation and civil society.
What was the significance of the 31 March municipal elections?
The municipal elections were very important, particularly in metropolitan areas. The opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), claimed victory in big cities such as Istanbul, home to 15 million people, and Ankara.
The campaign of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) emphasised the benefits of harmony between the central and local governments. It argued that the municipalities that elected President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s candidates would receive more support from central government. In contrast, the CHP focused on the fact that its candidates were often young and new figures, such as Ekrem İmamoğlu in Istanbul, or very popular ones, as in the case of the re-elected Mayor of Ankara, Mansur Yavaş.
The CHP’s strategy was a success: it prevailed in 36 out of 86 provinces. It was the AKP’s biggest defeat to date, as it failed to recover municipalities it had previously lost to the CHP and lost additional ones, notably in conservative strongholds. For the first time, it received fewer votes nationwide than the CHP.
Were the elections free and fair?
Elections in Turkey are generally free but unfair. Following the pattern, this election was unfair yet highly competitive. The country has an effective electoral system that allows for the opposition to monitor the process from beginning to end, if it can provide enough people to do so, which it sometimes fails to do.
However, well-known and documented issues with freedom of expression and the government’s control over the media and access to resources created a tilted playing field. But even in this context, elections were competitive and very consequential.
What are the implications of this unprecedented opposition victory?
The election results are significant on multiple levels. For political parties, securing control over municipalities is crucial for accessing resources, engaging with constituents through providing services and demonstrating governance competence. This last element is particularly crucial for the opposition, which has been away from central government for over two decades. Mayors can leverage their terms to bolster their leadership and popularity, paving the way for national leadership, as seen in Erdoğan’s political ascent.
Beyond local dynamics, these elections carried broader implications. Less than a year ago, the Turkish opposition alliance crumbled after an electoral defeat in the 2023 general election, which gave Erdoğan another five years in power. This prompted a leadership change in the CHP. Another electoral setback could have plunged it into internal strife, impacting on its prospects for the next national election.
However, with the recent results, the CHP’s new leader, Özgür Özel, solidified his position, and the party strengthened its standing within the political landscape. Its surpassing of the AKP holds a lot of symbolic significance.
Had Erdoğan secured victory, following his retention of the presidency and control over parliament, he might have pursued constitutional reforms to extend his tenure. The election outcomes will likely prompt a reassessment of the idea of a constitutional referendum, which would now pose significant risks to the AKP.
Despite acknowledging defeat, however, Erdoğan asserted that the party would emerge stronger. He is expected to respond to the election results by reshuffling his cabinet and party leadership. But so far he’s refrained from signalling any immediate changes to economic and monetary policies, wary of potential future challenges.
Do you think political change is on the horizon?
The recent electoral outcomes triggered a seismic shift in Turkish political dynamics, with speculation arising about potential national-level political change. However, this cannot be taken for granted due to several reasons.
One crucial aspect to consider is the difference between voter behaviour in local and national elections. While the recent results indicate a significant setback for Erdoğan’s party at the local level, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee a similar outcome in national elections.
Erdoğan was not on the ballot in municipal elections, and he’s the AKP’s strongest asset. Whether he can contest the next presidential election will depend on whether constitutional amendments are introduced to lift term limits or parliament calls for early elections, enabling him to stand for another term as he would not be able to complete the current one.
Moreover, the electoral context was heavily influenced by challenging economic conditions, which could potentially change before the next election cycle, shifting voters’ sentiments.
Looking ahead, with national elections scheduled for 2028, the political landscape remains unpredictable. Several unforeseen developments could unfold in the intervening years, shaping the trajectory of Turkish politics. While the recent local election results may indicate a shift, it’s essential to remain vigilant and consider multiple factors that could impact on future political outcomes.
Civic space in Turkey is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the GMF through its website or Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @gmfus and @OzgurHisarcikli on Twitter.
