The Chasm Between Reality on the Ground and Calculation in the Palace
The institutionalized relations of the Republic of Turkey with the Western alliance began as a strategic necessity with its entry into NATO in 1952, and throughout the Cold War, the country functioned as an outpost on the alliance’s southern flank. However, this historical engagement has been dragged into an identity crisis and a strategic collapse with the monstrous foreign policy approach constructed by the AK Party since the early 2000s. This new vision, hidden behind pompous yet hollow concepts like “strategic depth,” is, in essence, nothing but a hypocritical pragmatism that consolidates its power domestically with a nationalist Islamist discourse while deepening its subjugation to Western power centers in foreign policy.
The crisis of trust that began with the 2003 Iraq parliamentary motion crisis, peaked with the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, the protection of the FETÖ ringleader in the US, the overt military support given to the PKK extension YPG in Syria, and the CAATSA sanctions imposed after the S 400 crisis, has led not to an awakening for the AK Party government, but to a deeper capitulation. Despite all these hostile policies, the government, far from severing its ties with the US and NATO, has entered a race to ingratiate itself with them.
The latest NATO Summit is the most concrete proof of this shameful picture. The summit has served not only as a demonstration of the decisions taken contrary to national interests but also as a declaration of how the “national and indigenous” fairy tale the AK Party government tells its own electorate has unraveled.
The NATO Summit: The Strategic Defeat Document Where the AK Party Squandered National Interests
This summit has gone down in history not as a diplomatic victory for Turkey, but as a debacle certifying how impotent and visionless the AK Party government is in foreign policy. The decisions adopted at the summit are blows struck against Turkey’s national security, and failing to object to these blows is directly equivalent to treason.
The Tyranny of Defense Spending and Economic Collapse: The 2% defense spending commitment imposed by the summit is nothing but a new penance exacted on the Turkish people, already groaning under the AK Party’s incompetent economic management. The government continues to channel this money to the US arms monopolies by cutting it from the nation’s bread and children’s education.
The Dagger Plunged into the Strategic Relationship with Russia: The relationship the government has built with Russia on sensitive balances, such as tourism, energy, and the Astana process to which it owes its presence in Syria, has been dynamited by the AK Party’s own hand with the summit declaration labeling Russia the “greatest threat.” This decision is the clearest evidence of the paralysis of reason in foreign policy and the eagerness to fall into the US’s trap.
Dangerous Tension with China: The Rejection of the Belt and Road: NATO declaring China a “systemic rival” for the first time is a bullet fired at Turkey’s Asia opening and the economic benefits it expects from the Belt and Road Initiative. By remaining silent on this decision, the government has once again sold the country’s alternative economic and political future in Eurasia for the sake of an Atlantic centered commitment.
Fake Fight Against Terror, Real Concession: Most egregiously, the PKK/YPG threat was not included in the summit declaration with the clarity Turkey demanded. The government, which shouts battle cries of “fighting terrorism” domestically, fell silent when it came to naming this organization at the NATO table. This is an overt concession given to the US on the most fundamental issue of national security. A terrorist organization that has been shedding the blood of Turkish soldiers for years and targeting our borders continued to be NATO’s indirect ally, and the AK Party government stood by and watched.
The Righteous Reaction Rising Against Failed Diplomacy
Criticisms directed at this failing record of the AK Party government are not political petulance by the opposition but a requirement of national interests.
The Squandering of Security and Hypocrisy Against Terror: The opposition’s harshest criticism is precisely at this point: In the name of currying favor with the US, the government could not even bring up a matter of survival like the fight against terrorism at NATO. This is proof that the “national and indigenous” rhetoric is an empty propaganda tool, and in reality, a political will under American patronage exists.
Silent Invasion in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean: The US’s military reinforcement of Greece, especially in Alexandroupoli, during the summit process is a direct challenge to the Blue Homeland doctrine and Turkey’s rights in the region. Not only has the AK Party government failed to resist this insidious expansion, it has not even undertaken any diplomatic initiative within NATO to block Greece’s maximalist demands. This is not protecting national interests but being complicit in their usurpation.
Discourse Action Disconnect on the Gaza Genocide: The government’s harshest “genocide” accusation and tough rhetoric used against Israel in domestic politics gave way to shameful silence at the NATO Summit. The recognition of Israel’s “right to self defense” in the declaration has shown that all of the AK Party’s stances on Palestine are merely election material and dissimulation aimed at lulling domestic public opinion.
Anti Democratic Imposition: The complete sidelining of the Turkish Grand National Assembly while all these decisions were being made is an indicator of how the one man regime has turned foreign policy into a black box. The taking of these vital decisions behind closed doors is a clear violation of the Constitution and democracy and an imposition by a government that has completely lost its legitimacy.
The Definitive Verdict of a Now Awakened Public Opinion: Unconditional Rejection of the US and NATO
Turkish public opinion, contrary to the political elites, clearly sees what is happening. All conducted research documents that the AK Party’s dance with the West has gone bankrupt in the eyes of society. An overwhelming majority of society views the US not merely as an ally but as the greatest threat to Turkey. The weapons given to the PKK/PYD, the protective attitude embracing FETÖ, and economic dependency are the main sources of this anger.
The perception of NATO is built upon a sense of having been deceived. The public does not see NATO as a framework that provides Turkey’s security, but on the contrary, as a platform where those threatening Turkey’s security gather. The increase in the proportion of those advocating for withdrawal from NATO is a reflection not of the government’s failed policies, but of society’s common sense. Society sees that what the government calls “multidirectional policy” is actually shallow balancing consisting solely of energy cooperation with Russia; it demands the construction of a genuinely multidirectional and independent foreign policy. This anti American and anti NATO sentiment, rising even within the AK Party’s own base, when combined with the document of surrender the government signed at the summit, heralds a societal anger ready to erupt.
Conclusion: Either an Independent Turkey or Atlantic Tutelage
The latest NATO Summit has been the confirmation of the AK Party government’s foreign policy bankruptcy and strategic inconsistency. The government, which tells a fairy tale of “standing firm” in domestic politics, has turned into the representative of an approach that grossly tramples on national interests in foreign policy. The choice before Turkey is clear: Either it will accept being a second class ally by fully submitting to NATO, which acts as the gendarmerie of US imperialism, or it will construct a genuinely independent, multicentric foreign policy based on national honor. The current government’s preference has, unfortunately, been for the first option. Turkey’s salvation from this quagmire will be possible only when a political will that listens to societal demands, is anti imperialist, and fully independent comes to power.
References
Allison, G. (2017). Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Aydın, M. and Dizdaroğlu, C. (2022). “The Rise of Anti Westernism in Turkish Foreign Policy: Breaks in the Perception of NATO and the US.” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 19(74), 3-25.
Balcı, A. (2017). Turkish Foreign Policy: Principles, Actors and an Accounting of the AK Party Era. Alfa Yayınları.
Çandar, C. (2016). “From Strategic Depth to Strategic Shallowness: The Bankruptcy of AK Party Foreign Policy.” Turkish Policy Quarterly, 15(3), 61-71. (With a Critical Reading)
Davutoğlu, A. (2001). Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position. Küre Yayınları. (This work has been subjected to critical analysis as the theoretical basis of the government.)
Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEİK). (2023). Transatlantic Trends Report: The Deepening of Anti Americanism in Turkey. DEİK Yayınları.
German Marshall Fund. (2023). Transatlantic Trends 2023: The Collapse of Trust in the Turkish American Alliance. GMF Publications.
Haas, M. (2022). The New Geopolitics: NATO’s Expansionist Agenda and Its Global Fallout. Routledge.
Kardaş, S. (2020). “Turkey’s S 400 Predicament: How Strategic Autonomy Rhetoric Masks Deepening Dependence.” Insight Turkey, 22(3), 11-26.
KONDA Research. (2023). Perception of Foreign Policy and Security in Turkey: Distrust Towards the US and NATO at Its Peak. KONDA Yayınları.
Larrabee, F. S. (2010). Troubled Partnership: US Turkish Relations as a Case Study in Alliance Failure. RAND Corporation.
Metropoll Research. (2024). Turkey’s Pulse: NATO Membership Questioned, Demand for Independent Foreign Policy Rising. Metropoll Strategic and Social Research Center.
NATO. (2024). Washington Summit Declaration: A Critical Analysis of Its Implications for Turkey. NATO Public Diplomacy Division. (The document has been interpreted through critical discourse analysis.)
ORC Research. (2024). Voter Trends: The US Leads by Far in Perception of National Security Threat. ORC Yayınları.
Oğuzlu, T. (2012). “Turkey and NATO: From Reluctant Ally to Submissive Partner Under the AKP.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 14(4), 419-435. (With an Updated Perspective)
Pew Research Center. (2023). Global Attitudes Survey: Record High Anti Americanism in Turkey. Pew Research Center.
Snyder, G. H. (1997). Alliance Politics. Cornell University Press. (Used to explain the intra alliance dilemma of “abandonment” and “entrapment.”)
Ülgen, S. (2022). “Redefining the US Turkey Relationship: A Story of Broken Promises and Eroded Sovereignty.” Carnegie Europe Paper, July 2022.
Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Cornell University Press. (Used to explain why Turkey views the US as a threat within the framework of “balance of threat” theory.)
Sefa Yürükel Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA) Aarhus University, 1997 Independent Researcher Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
Mocking Çanakkale ( Gallipoli ) Türkiye and Australia. By Portraying a Soccer Match as “Revenge for Gallipoli”
Mocking Çanakkale ( Gallipoli ) for Sports Humor Dishonors the Fallen and Distorts History.
Not on my watch will I stay mute.
The article by Clancy Overell is not clever satire it is a deeply offensive attempt to trivialize one of the most tragic chapters in the shared history of Türkiye and Australia. By portraying a soccer match as “revenge for Gallipoli,” the author reduces the sacrifice of thousands of young men on both sides to a cheap sporting joke and undermines a friendship that was forged through unimaginable loss and later transformed into one of mutual respect and brotherhood.
Gallipoli was never about revenge. It became a symbol of reconciliation. The battlefield of Çanakkale produced not hatred, but a lasting bond between Australians, New Zealanders, and Turks. The men who fought there earned each other’s respect through courage and sacrifice.
In 1915, while defending his homeland, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk told his soldiers: “I am not ordering you to attack, I am ordering you to die.” He later became the founder of the modern Republic of Türkiye and emerged as a statesman dedicated to peace and reconciliation.
His immortal words to the mothers of the fallen ANZACs remain one of the greatest tributes to peace ever spoken:
“There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side in this country of ours… After having lost their lives on this land, they become our sons as well.”
These words transformed former enemies into friends and created a relationship that has endured for more than a century. Türkiye, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and many other nations continue to honor that shared history together.
To invoke Gallipoli as a vehicle for mocking Turks or celebrating “revenge” is irresponsible and disrespectful. It does nothing to strengthen understanding between peoples. More troubling, it contributes to a broader pattern of rhetoric that seeks to caricature and delegitimize the Turkish nation and its people.
No article, no headline, and no misguided attempt at humor will damage the brotherhood forged at Çanakkale. The friendship between Türkiye and Australia is built on mutual respect, remembrance, and peace and it is far stronger than the divisive words of any commentator.
Ibrahim Kurtulus
Community Activist
New York – Staten Island.
cc: Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations, New York
All The Australian Consulate-General’s in United States
As Georgia prepares to celebrate its Independence Day on May 26th, the occasion must serve not only as a national commemoration, but also as a moment of strategic reflection for its allies and partners particularly the United States and the Republic of Türkiye. At a time when nearly 20 percent of Georgia’s internationally recognized territory remains under Russian occupation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, silence and disengagement are not options. The world has already witnessed in Ukraine the devastating consequences of failing to push back firmly against Russian aggression before it escalates further.
Georgia has spent decades pursuing democratic reform, Euro-Atlantic integration, and closer cooperation with the West. American assistance played a central role in strengthening Georgia’s democratic institutions, military readiness, education system, healthcare sector, and civil society. Yet recent policy shifts from Washington risk undermining those hard-earned gains. The suspension of over $95 million in U.S. government assistance in 2024, followed by the deeper USAID cuts and restructuring in 2025–2026, has sent troubling signals throughout the region.
The sweeping dismantling of USAID programs under the Trump administration effectively halted much of the soft-power infrastructure that supported Georgia’s network of civil society organizations, educators, reform advocates, and democratic institutions. Regardless of political disagreements, abandoning Georgia at a moment of geopolitical vulnerability risks creating a dangerous vacuum that Moscow would eagarly exploit.
The Georgian people have repeatedly demonstrated their desire for a democratic and European future. Punitive disengagement from Washington weakens not only Georgia, but broader Western credibility throughout the Black Sea and Caucasus regions. Support for Georgia is not charity it is a strategic necessity tied directly to regional security, energy transit, NATO stability, and the containment of Russian expansionism. The Republic of Türkiye must also recognize the seriousness of this moment. As a NATO ally and regional super power with deep historical, economic, people to people and strategic ties to Georgia, Türkiye cannot afford passivity. Georgia remeins essential to critical energy and trade corridors, including the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline and the Southern Gas Corridor, which strengthen both European energy security and Türkiye’s role as a regional energy hub. Stability in Georgia directly impacts Artvin, my dads home State of Rize, and Trabzon, and Türkiye’s broader strategic interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
If the democratic world fails to stand firmly beside Georgia today, the consequences tomorrow may mirror what the international community failed to prevent in Ukraine. The cost of hesitation is always far greater than the cost of principled engagement.
May 26th must therefore stand as a reminder that Georgia is not alone. The United States and Türkiye must reaffirm their commitment to Georgia’s sovereignty, democracy, and territorial integrity. To stand idle now would not only abandon a loyal partner it would embolden Russian ambitions across the region and weaken the foundations of democratic security itself.
Digital currencies, especially crypto assets, are instruments that push the boundaries of modern finance and redefine the concepts of sovereignty and trust. The decentralized, distributed ledger technology (DLT) architecture of blockchain theoretically promises a value transfer that is resistant to state intervention, censorship, and geographical borders, operating as an apolitical medium. However, this structure frequently masks the vulnerabilities in the physical and digital layers upon which its very existence deeply depends. In extreme scenarios such as atomic disasters or space based satellite warfare, which are no longer merely theoretical the question of the preservation of digital currencies transcends a simple data security problem and transforms into a philosophical crisis that questions the nature of abstract value in the face of the collapse of civilization’s technological backbone.
Technological Perspective: The Revenge of the Physical Layer
The security of blockchain rests on cryptographic verification and distributed consensus mechanisms. Yet, this digital superstructure owes its existence to three fundamental physical layers: energy infrastructure, telecommunication networks (particularly fiber optic cables and satellite constellations), and data storage/server units.
One of the first targets in space based conflicts will be the Global Positioning System (GPS) and low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks such as Starlink. The accuracy of timestamps and network synchronization, which are vital for cryptocurrency transactions, depend with absolute precision on GPS signals. The crippling of a satellite network by kinetic or non kinetic (laser, high power microwave) weapons not only severs internet access; by disrupting the temporal ordering of blocks, it can lead to chain forks, double spending attacks, and the collapse of the consensus mechanism (especially in Proof of Stake).
The High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) generated by nuclear explosions magnifies this threat exponentially. A HEMP has the capacity to permanently destroy continental scale electrical grids and all unprotected semiconductor circuits. In this scenario, the distributed nature of the blockchain ceases to be an advantage; the simultaneous physical destruction of all nodes in a geographical region does not merely mean the erasure of the chain’s record in that area (even though copies theoretically exist on other continents). The real danger is global network fragmentation. When the backbone of the Internet collapses, surviving isolated node groups can continue to process transactions internally, but when connectivity is restored, deciding which of these isolated chains will be accepted as the “valid” one will lead to an unsolvable consensus crisis and immense value destruction. Cold wallets and offline backups rely on the assumption that a functioning computer can be found after a nuclear EMP a scenario highly unlikely in a technological dark age that would last for years in affected regions.
Economic and Psychological Risks: The Hyper Insecurity Cycle
In an extreme crisis, the value of digital assets becomes subject not to their underlying technology but to instantaneous fluctuations in psychological trust. The simultaneous halt of exchange operations (CEXs) alongside infrastructure collapse means the sudden evaporation of liquidity. This creates a “digital asset run” far more lethal than a classic bank run.
The psychological dynamic here is more complex than simple panic. Holders of digital assets confront the heavy burden of the “be your own bank” philosophy. Since the system has no central authority, there is no mechanism to appeal to, no fund to provide compensation, and no institution to hold accountable. This state of ontological insecurity can push users to two extremes: on one hand, those desperately and insecurely trying to get online to salvage their assets; on the other, those who experience a profound existential shock upon realizing that their digital assets have become meaningless in the face of physical destruction. The fear of missing out (FOMO) is replaced by the immediacy and certainty of absolute loss (Fear of Certain Loss). This situation demonstrates how money, as the digital manifestation of the social contract, can revert to nothingness when the underlying social consensus vanishes.
Social, Cultural, and Legal Perspectives: Fragmented Sovereignty
An atomic conflict destroys the physical infrastructure of the Westphalian sovereignty system while simultaneously exposing how fragile the “stateless” sovereignty promised by cryptocurrencies truly is. Culturally, Bitcoin and similar assets are powerful symbols of freedom and technological progress. However, when these symbols become physically inaccessible due to an electromagnetic pulse and their value approaches zero at the same time, a cultural trauma ensues.
At this point, a legal vacuum emerges. International law is almost entirely silent on the protection of digital private property in a state of war. Since “your cryptocurrency” is nothing more than a private key, there is no authority from which to claim compensation or rights if that key is directly targeted or destroyed as collateral damage in an armed conflict. As social structures destabilize, the real value for surviving communities becomes not the numbers in a digital wallet, but immediate physical resources such as canned food, clean water, and medicine. This lays bare the truth that money is a social consensus in its most naked form: when there is no society left to provide consensus, money itself ceases to exist.
Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives: The Tragedy of the Trust Machine
Blockchain was designed at its core as a “trust machine”; it takes trust away from humans and institutions and delegates it to code and mathematics. Atomic and space based conflicts reveal the tragic limits of this abstraction. The code may be perfect, but the silicon, fiber optic cables, and power lines upon which the code runs are not; on the contrary, they are extremely fragile.
Philosophically, this situation is a reflection of the mind body dualism that has persisted since Descartes, now projected onto the digital economy. Digital currency, as pure information (mind), can exist everywhere in the world, but it cannot manifest without a physical infrastructure (body). When the body dies, the existence of the mind becomes meaningless. Ethical responsibility enters at this point: those who build and use these systems bear the irresponsibility of ignoring the system’s absolute dependence on physical reality. True resilience lies not only in cryptographic security, but also in socio technical planning for how to rebuild infrastructure locally and redundantly. In the event of a catastrophe, what must be protected may not be individual wealth, but rather the community based communication and energy micro grids that will make transactions possible again.
Conclusion: The Trial of Abstract Value Against Physical Reality
Digital currencies offer robust protection against peacetime threats through cold wallets, multi signature systems, and geographically distributed backup strategies. However, a planetary scale electromagnetic pulse or the collapse of satellite communication reduces the preservability of these assets from a mere technical malfunction to the question of whether they hold any meaning at all alongside civilization’s technological backbone.
The risk cannot be entirely eliminated, but it can be managed with a layered and holistic approach. This approach relies not only on encrypting data, but also on resilient energy sources (for instance, full nodes stored in EMP shielded Faraday cages ready for operation), alternative communication protocols (such as block transmission over shortwave radio), and most importantly, the existence of trained communities who know how to manage these assets during a crisis.
In conclusion, digital currencies promise humanity an unprecedented financial autonomy. Yet this autonomy ultimately remains a slave to the physical infrastructure of the civilization humanity has built. In an extreme disaster scenario, what is truly tested is not the strength of cryptography, but the resilience of the human capacity to construct meaning, value, and community. The protection of digital assets, in this larger picture, cannot be considered separately from the responsibility of keeping the planet habitable and maintaining the fundamental communication networks of civilization.
References
Friedman, M., & Schwartz, A. J. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867 1960. Princeton University Press.
Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121 136.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage Publications.
Foster, J. S., Gjelde, E., Graham, W. R., Hermann, R. J., Kluepfel, H. M., Lawson, R. L., … Woodard, J. B. (2004). Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: Volume 1: Executive Report. National Research Council.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Melville House.
Decker, C., & Wattenhofer, R. (2013). Information propagation in the Bitcoin network. 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer to Peer Computing (P2P), 1 10.
Maurer, B., Nelms, T. C., & Swartz, L. (2013). “When perhaps the real problem is money itself!”: The practical materiality of Bitcoin. Social Semiotics, 23(2), 261 277.
Schmitt, M. N. (Ed.). (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson Freese, J. (2017). Space Warfare in the 21st Century: Arming the Heavens. Routledge.
Apostolaki, M., Zohar, A., & Vanbever, L. (2017). Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies. 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 375 392.
Whitty, M. T. (2019). The psychology of online financial decisions: The role of impulsivity, self control, and cognitive biases. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 214 224.
Krombholz, K., Judmayer, A., Gusenbauer, M., & Weippl, E. (2020). The other side of the coin: User experiences with Bitcoin security and privacy. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1 13.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Due to its influence, this work has been placed here in chronological order; the first edition was published in 2011.)
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA) Aarhus University, 1997 Independent Researcher Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Socio
The revocation of Istanbul Bilgi University’s operating license by a Presidential decree published in the Official Gazette on May 22, 2026, constitutes one of the darkest thresholds in the despotic campaign waged by political power in Turkey against universities, scientific autonomy, and academic freedom. This decision did not merely terminate the legal existence of an educational institution; it ruthlessly destroyed a quarter-century of intellectual accumulation, the labor of over a thousand academics and tens of thousands of students, international scientific networks, and Turkey’s already fragile foundation of scientific autonomy. This measure, enacted by the political power while hiding behind the shield of “legal process,” is the most concrete declaration of a systematic hostility towards the institution of the university and an intolerance of science and free thought.
The Historical-Theoretical Foundations of University Autonomy and Academic Freedom
Since its inception, the university has been shaped around two indispensable principles: scientific autonomy and academic freedom. As early as 1978, Anıl Çeçen emphasized that university autonomy means “the university being governed by its own organs, and the limitation of state intervention,” and that it is a prerequisite for scientific production (Çeçen, 1978). The landmark 1992 decision of the Constitutional Court ruled that universities are “public legal entities possessing autonomy” and that the state’s supervisory power cannot turn into an intervention that eliminates this autonomy (Constitutional Court, E. 1991/21, K. 1992/42). Yet in Turkey, this principle has been systematically dismantled step by step by the ruling power over the last two decades.
Tokay Gedikoğlu’s comprehensive examination reveals the structural obstacles to academic freedom in Turkey and the stifling effect of the centralist character of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) on scientific production (Gedikoğlu, 2009). Bülent Bingöl, meanwhile, has determined that post-1980 legal regulations, particularly the Higher Education Law No. 2547, gradually transformed universities into extensions of the state bureaucracy, making them vulnerable to political intervention (Bingöl, 2012). This structural weakness prepared the legal ground that allows a President to close a university with a single signature today. Saniye Gül Dedeoğlu, after recalling the universal standards of academic freedom, systematically analyzed the mechanisms through which scientists are suppressed in Turkey, emphasizing that without freedom, universities are reduced to vocational schools, losing their function of research and critical thought (Dedeoğlu, 2014).
The Roots of Systematic Despotism Against Universities in Turkey
The closure of Bilgi University is not an isolated incident but the final act of a systematic despotism with much deeper roots. The mass academic dismissals during the State of Emergency (OHAL) declared after 2016 constituted the first major wave of this despotism. İlknur Özlem Taştan’s study documents, in all its nakedness, how universities were turned into an apparatus of purge during the OHAL period and how academic freedoms were trampled (Taştan, 2021). During this period, thousands of academics were dismissed on grounds with no legal basis, plunging universities into a climate of fear.
The judicial and administrative pressures faced by academics who signed the “Peace Petition” have demonstrated the ruling power’s intolerance of critical thought in the clearest way. The comprehensive legal analysis by Rıdvan Ergün and Berke Özenç reveals how concepts like freedom of expression, academic freedom, and “loyalty to the state” were distorted in this process, and how even the Constitutional Court proved inadequate in protecting academic freedoms (Ergün and Özenç, 2019). While another Constitutional Court decision in 2023 confirmed the constitutional guarantees of academic freedom in principle, it proved a serious lack of will in implementing these guarantees in practice (Constitutional Court, E. 2018/117, K. 2023/212). The ruling power used this vacuum to further deepen its despotic control over universities.
Hostility to Science Waged Through Trustees: The Process of Closing Bilgi University
The paving stones on the path to the closure of Istanbul Bilgi University began to be laid in September 2025 with the appointment of a trustee to the university under the pretext of an investigation into Can Holding. However, one of the most fundamental requirements of the rule of law, the principle of “individuality of responsibility,” clearly dictates that allegations against holding executives cannot be used to punish an entire university. As Burcu Kükner emphasizes in her discussion of “academic freedom as a right,” academic freedom is both an individual right and an institutional guarantee; an intervention against a university violates the rights not only of the individuals in that institution but of the entire scientific community (Kükner, 2019). Indeed, the unjustified dismissal of research assistants, arbitrary administrative appointments, and interventions in academic programs during the trustee process have been recorded as concrete examples of this mass rights violation. The closure decision on May 22, 2026, is the extreme endpoint of this chain of violations.
This process is the product of a “management strategy” that summarizes the ruling power’s view of science and autonomy. As Ahmet Sinan Bilgili shows in his conceptual analysis, scientific autonomy and academic freedom are two complementary principles; any attack on one directly wounds the other (Bilgili, 2022). What has been experienced in Turkey over the last twenty years consists precisely of this dual erosion process. Fatma Buğday has analyzed the historical and structural roots of this erosion in two separate studies. In her first study, Buğday (2023) addresses the course of the weakening of university autonomy in Turkey; in the second, she places the crisis of the university idea in a theoretical framework by associating it with neoliberal transformation, arguing that as universities are managed like market actors, their spheres of autonomy shrink, and academic freedom remains merely nominal (Buğday, 2026). Esra Eren supports this analysis by examining how the Bologna Process was turned into a tool of bureaucratic control in Turkey and how universities were homogenized (Eren, 2023).
Brain Drain: The Scientific Cost of Despotism
The heaviest bill for the ruling power’s hostility to science and autonomy has been the loss of the country’s trained human capital. In her study titled “Brain Drain or Brain Power?”, Füsun Tanrısevdi has demonstrated that the academic mobility from Turkey to abroad has reached dramatic dimensions, with the leading push factors being the restriction of academic freedom, non-meritocratic appointments, and political pressures (Tanrısevdi, 2019). Filiz Tufan Emini and Hatice Gürsoy, examining five-year development plans, also determined that Turkey is inadequate in addressing brain drain as a structural problem and that the outflow has gained a permanent character (Tufan Emini and Gürsoy, 2021).
The comprehensive diaspora report prepared by Ufuk Akçiğit for the Turkish Academy of Sciences, revealing the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of brain drain with striking data, has called for an urgent policy change (Akçiğit, 2024). Yet a despotic mindset that sees closing a university with a Presidential signature as a “solution” is, on the contrary, the primary actor exacerbating brain drain. The closure of Bilgi University will deepen this structural problem further, making Turkey an unlivable country for scientists.
The Collapse of International Academic Reputation and the Proliferation of a Culture of Fear
The international repercussions of the closure decision have also been devastating for Turkey’s scientific reputation. The 2025 report jointly published by the European University Association (EUA) and Scholars at Risk counts Turkey among the countries where academic freedom violations are most intense (EUA, 2025). Two independent reports published by Scholars at Risk in the same year depict the oppressive environment in Turkey using “dark” terms (Scholars at Risk, October 2025; Scholars at Risk, November 2025).
Current assessments within the country also confirm this picture. The academic freedom reports published by the Science Academy in 2023 and 2025 reveal with data that political pressure on universities is intensifying, that scientists are forced to self-censor, and that institutional autonomy has effectively disappeared (Science Academy, 2023; Science Academy, 2025). The 2026 mid-term report of the Education and Science Workers’ Union (Eğitim Sen) emphasizes that more than 251 cases of rights violations reflected in the press were identified in 2025 alone, and that universities have turned from “havens of science” into “empires of fear” (Eğitim Sen, 2026). The report of the University and Academics Association (ÜNİVDER) for the same period documents the prevalence of arbitrary dismissals, mobbing, investigation threats, and precarious working conditions (ÜNİVDER, 2026).
This climate of fear also deeply affects students. Olga Selin Hünler’s recent research shows how the absence of academic freedom and self-censorship destroys students’ critical thinking skills, democratic participation habits, and intellectual identities (Hünler, 2025). As underlined in the interview with Yeşim M. Atamer, students are being raised with learned helplessness and a culture of fear, which poses a serious threat to the future of democracy (Atamer, 2024). The principles document prepared based on the Boğaziçi University experience, in fact, demonstrates how universal norms of autonomy and freedom, applicable to all Turkish universities, are being disregarded (Adaman, 2021).
Conclusion
What was closed on May 22, 2026, was not only the signboard of Istanbul Bilgi University but Turkey’s scientific accumulation, intellectual diversity, and democratic future. This administrative measure, disguised in a legal cloak, is in reality a political blow dealt to the institution of the university, to free thought, and to the common scientific heritage of humanity. This despotic campaign waged by the ruling power against universities tramples the constitution, laws, and international conventions, dragging Turkey into a darkness devoid of science, autonomy, and critical reason. Halting this course necessitates a fundamental change in mentality, legal reforms that will restore university autonomy, and the reconstruction of a democratic atmosphere where scientists can work freely. Otherwise, the political mindset that closed Bilgi today will continue to darken Turkey’s scientific and democratic future entirely tomorrow.
References
Çeçen, Anıl. “Üniversite Özerkliği” [University Autonomy]. Eğitim ve Bilim 3, no. 14 (1978): 3-12.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey. Decision E. 1991/21, K. 1992/42, June 29, 1992. Official Gazette Date: November 30, 1992.
Gedikoğlu, Tokay. “Yükseköğretimde Akademik Özgürlük” [Academic Freedom in Higher Education]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 15, no. 57 (2009): 5-34.
Bingöl, Bülent. “Üniversite Özerkliğinin Değişen Tanımı ve Üniversitelerin Yeniden Yapılandırılması” [The Changing Definition of University Autonomy and the Restructuring of Universities]. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 67, no. 1 (2012): 39-76.
Dedeoğlu, Saniye Gül. “Akademik Özgürlük ve Üniversite Özerkliği” [Academic Freedom and University Autonomy]. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 9, no. 34 (2014): 5887-5906.
Ergün, Rıdvan, and Berke Özenç. “Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Barış Bildirisi Kararı: İfade Özgürlüğü, Akademik Özgürlük ve Devlete Sadakat Kavramı Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme” [The Constitutional Court’s Peace Petition Decision: An Analysis within the Framework of Freedom of Expression, Academic Freedom, and Loyalty to the State]. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 8, no. 16 (2019): 289-332.
Kükner, Burcu. “Bir Hak Olarak Akademik Özgürlük: Sınırlar ve Tartışmalar” [Academic Freedom as a Right: Limits and Discussions]. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 10, no. 1 (2019): 177-192.
Tanrısevdi, Füsun. “Beyin Göçü mü, Beyin Gücü mü?” [Brain Drain or Brain Power?]. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 6, no. 2 (2019): 43-58.
Adaman, Fikret. “Akademik Özgürlük ve Üniversite Özerkliği İlkeleri: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Deneyimi” [Principles of Academic Freedom and University Autonomy: The Boğaziçi University Experience]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi ÜYYK Yayınları, 2021.
Taştan, İlknur Özlem. “OHAL Döneminde Türkiye‘de Akademik Özgürlükler” [Academic Freedoms in Turkey during the State of Emergency Period]. İnsan Hakları Okulu Yayınları, 2021.
Tufan Emini, Filiz, and Hatice Gürsoy. “Türkiye‘de Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planlarında Beyin Göçü Olgusu” [The Brain Drain Phenomenon in Turkey’s Five-Year Development Plans]. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research 8, no. 73 (2021): 2045-2056.
Bilgili, Ahmet Sinan. “Üniversitelerde Bilimsel/Akademik Özerklik ve Özgürlük: Kavramsal Bir Analiz” [Scientific/Academic Autonomy and Freedom in Universities: A Conceptual Analysis]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi 12, no. 1 (2022): 1-15.
Bilim Akademisi [Science Academy]. Akademik Özgürlükler Raporu 2021-2022 [Academic Freedoms Report 2021-2022]. İstanbul: Bilim Akademisi Yayınları, January 2023.
Buğday, Fatma. “Üniversite Özerkliği Üzerine Tarihsel Bir İnceleme” [A Historical Review on University Autonomy]. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi 6, no. 4 (2023): 1015-1032.
Eren, Esra. “Üniversitelerin Neoliberal Dönüşümü: Bologna Süreci ve Akademik Özgürlük” [The Neoliberal Transformation of Universities: The Bologna Process and Academic Freedom]. Eleştirel Pedagoji Dergisi, no. 67 (2023).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey. Decision E. 2018/117, K. 2023/212, December 7, 2023. Official Gazette Date: March 10, 2024.
Akçiğit, Ufuk. Türkiye Akademik Diaspora Raporu: Beyin Göçünden Beyin Gücüne [Turkey Academic Diaspora Report: From Brain Drain to Brain Power]. İstanbul: TÜBA Yayınları, 2024.
Atamer, Yeşim M. Interview. “Türkiye‘de Akademik Özgürlüklerin Hâl-i Pür Melali” [The Lamentable State of Academic Freedoms in Turkey]. Reflektif Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 3 (2024): 487-508.
Bilim Akademisi [Science Academy]. Akademik Özgürlükler Raporu 2024-2025 [Academic Freedoms Report 2024-2025]. İstanbul: Bilim Akademisi Yayınları, February 2025.
European University Association (EUA). Free to Think 2025: Report of the Scholars at Risk Academic Freedom Monitoring Project. Brussels: EUA Publications, October 2025.
Hünler, Olga Selin. “Academic Freedom and Patterns of Self-Censorship in Turkey.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 51, no. 8 (2025): 1123-1145.
Scholars at Risk. Free to Think 2025: Annual Report on Attacks on Higher Education. New York: SAR Publications, October 2025.
Scholars at Risk. SAR 2025 Annual Report. New York: SAR Publications, November 2025.
Buğday, Fatma. “Üniversite İdeasının Krizi ve Özerkliğin Aşınması: Tarihsel Kökenlerden Neoliberal Dönüşüme Kavramsal Bir Analiz” [The Crisis of the University Idea and the Erosion of Autonomy: A Conceptual Analysis from Historical Origins to Neoliberal Transformation]. Eleştirel Pedagoji Dergisi, no. 79 (March 2026).
Eğitim Sen [Education and Science Workers’ Union]. 2025-2026 Yükseköğretim Ara Dönem Raporu [2025-2026 Higher Education Mid-Term Report]. Ankara: Eğitim Sen Yayınları, February 2026.
ÜNİVDER (Üniversite ve Akademisyenler Derneği) [University and Academics Association]. Üniversitelerde Hak İhlalleri Raporu 2025 [Report on Rights Violations in Universities 2025]. İstanbul: ÜNİVDER Yayınları, 2026.
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA) Aarhus University, 1997 Independent Researcher Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
On the night of Thursday, May 22, 2026, a few lines of text published in the Official Gazette by presidential decree opened one of the darkest pages in Turkey’s academic history. The operating license of Istanbul Bilgi University—whose founding foundation had been under trustee administration since September 2025—was completely revoked, citing Article 11 of the Higher Education Law No. 2547 as justification. This decision meant the effective destruction of an institution that represented over a quarter-century of accumulated knowledge: founded in 1996 as Turkey’s fourth foundation university, with more than 20,000 students, over a thousand academics, nearly 50,000 graduates, 7 faculties, 3 institutes, and more than 150 programs.
A university in Turkey does not consist merely of classrooms, campuses, and diplomas. The university is the most fundamental institution where free thought is produced, science develops, and the future of society is shaped. Ever since Wilhelm von Humboldt built the modern university idea in Berlin at the beginning of the 19th century, universities have been recognized as structures where knowledge is not only transmitted but also produced, where research and teaching are inseparable, and where scientific autonomy forms the institutional backbone. According to Humboldt, the university must be independent of political power despite being funded by the state; academics should have complete freedom over the content, methods, and publications of their courses; the university should exist not merely as an institution that confers professions, but as an autonomous sphere where scientific thought flourishes. The experiences of every developed country today—from Europe to America, from Japan to Australia—demonstrate that the strength of universities is directly proportional to their capacity to remain outside the sphere of political power’s intervention.
The closure decision concerning Istanbul Bilgi University is the most striking example of how this universal principle has been trampled upon in Turkey. Although official statements claim that the decision is based on legal and administrative processes, it is clear that this step has triggered a much broader political and structural debate in the public sphere. This decision, taken by hiding behind the rhetoric of the rule of law, is one of the heaviest blows struck against academia by a political mentality incapable of tolerating dissident and critical thought in Turkey.
The Meaning of the University and Istanbul Bilgi University’s Place in Turkey
Although the concept of the university has taken different forms in different civilizations throughout history, it has always been shaped around the same ideal at its core: an institutional structure where knowledge is freely produced, discussed, and disseminated. The earliest universities that emerged in Medieval Europe (Bologna, Paris, Oxford) possessed partial institutional autonomy; the transition to the modern university occurred in the 19th century with the Humboldtian model, where knowledge production and academic freedom gained central importance. While American research universities carried this legacy further in the 20th century, universities became fundamental pillars of democratic societies with the massification of higher education after the Second World War.
Istanbul Bilgi University was founded in 1996 as one of the most successful carriers of this universal heritage in Turkey. With its educational model that encouraged critical thought, its emphasis on social sciences, and its international academic connections, it created a distinctive university culture in Turkey. Through its legal clinics, human rights center, migration studies, gender studies, cultural studies, and interdisciplinary programs, Bilgi was not merely an institution that trained students; it also became a structure that generated ideas, opened spaces for debate, and contributed to social transformation. Having transformed industrial heritage into a space of cultural production with its Santralistanbul campus, the university had also registered its international academic success by ranking among the top five foundation universities from Turkey in the 2024 QS rankings.
The most important characteristic that distinguished Bilgi University from its peers was its insistence on preserving the space of academic freedom despite Turkey’s authoritarian tendencies. Its defense of the peace academics, its willingness to take a stand in debates on freedom of expression, and its institutionalization of the critical social sciences tradition were the primary factors that placed it in the crosshairs of political power. The process that began with its sale to Can Holding in 2019 evolved into a new phase with the appointment of a trustee to the university following an investigation launched in September 2025 against the holding on charges of “forming a criminal organization,” “smuggling,” “fraud,” and “money laundering,” and ultimately culminated in the closure decision.
The Justifications for the Closure Decision and Debates in Terms of the Rule of Law
The technical justification given for the closure decision is the appointment of a trustee to the university’s founding foundation and the provision in Article 11 of Law No. 2547 stipulating the revocation of the operating license in such a case. However, the real issue behind this veil of “technical justification” is how the principles of individualizing responsibility and protecting the institutional structure have been brazenly violated in a state governed by the rule of law.
Why do the results of investigations carried out against a company or holding directly affect students, academics, and the entire academic institution? What causal link can be established between the alleged crimes of holding executives and the existence of a university? These questions have no answers compatible with the principle of the rule of law. Indeed, even Professor Dr. İzzet Özgenç, a criminal law scholar who once served as President Erdoğan’s legal advisor, described the closure decision as “unconstitutional” and stated, “The legal existence of a university established by law can only be terminated by law; the legal existence of a university cannot be terminated by a presidential decree.”
The fundamental approach of the rule of law principle is the individualization of responsibility and the protection of the institutional structure to the greatest extent possible. In no developed democracy in the world is a university within a holding closed by citing an investigation against that holding as justification; instead, the management structure is reorganized and the institution is enabled to continue its activities. In Turkey, however, the ruling power has chosen to use law as an instrument of instrumentalization, opting to destroy one of the bastions of critical thought on the pretext of an investigation. This demonstrates that the process that began with the trustee appointment in September 2025 was actually a series of steps leading to closure, and that the “legal process” rhetoric was nothing more than a camouflage.
The Debate on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy
This decision starkly reveals the point that the long-standing debates on academic freedom in Turkey have reached. As the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey stated in a ruling in 1975, “universities are public legal entities endowed with autonomy; they are administered by organs elected by themselves under the supervision and control of the state.” According to the same ruling, “The state’s power of supervision and control does not justify interference in the administrative actions and affairs of an institution possessing administrative autonomy.” Yet in the Turkey of 2026, not the slightest trace of these principles remains.
Over the last twenty years, the AKP government has consciously and systematically placed universities under the domination of political authority. According to reports by the Science Academy, 131 universities have been opened in Turkey in the last twenty years; however, this quantitative growth has gone hand in hand with a qualitative collapse. Rectors appointed directly by the President have become accountable solely to political power, rather than to university constituents and academic autonomy. The mass academic purges following July 15 led to the institutionalization of unmeritocratic practices and political staffing. The Education and Science Workers’ Union’s (Eğitim Sen) 2025-2026 Higher Education Midterm Report emphasizes that “the trampling of academic freedom as a result of political-ideological attacks is one of the fundamental causes of the problems experienced by universities.” The fact that at least 251 cases of rights violations were documented just from those reflected in the press in 2025 reveals the gravity of the situation.
The closure of Bilgi University is one of the pinnacles of this systematic policy of destruction. While the ruling power has for years attempted to standardize universities under the rhetoric of “national and indigenous,” it has sequentially targeted institutions that resisted this rhetoric and defended critical thought and scientific autonomy. First, a trustee rector was appointed to Boğaziçi University, then a trustee was sent to Bilgi University, and now the same university has been entirely shut down. This chronology is not a coincidence; it is the step-by-step implementation of the political power’s strategy of seizing universities and destroying dissident scientific institutions.
The process that began with TÜBA’s autonomy being stripped away by a Decree-Law in 2011 has culminated today in the closure of a university by presidential decree. The fifteen-year period between these two events is a documentary record of how academic freedom and university autonomy have been systematically dismantled in Turkey.
Consequences for Students and Academics: A Lost World
The most direct and devastating impact of the closure decision is on students and the academic staff. According to the Council of Higher Education’s (YÖK) announcement, students will be transferred to Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University (MSGSÜ), which holds the status of guarantor university. YÖK announced that “necessary measures have been taken immediately regarding ensuring that students and administrative and academic staff do not experience any grievances, and that educational activities continue without interruption.”
However, this rhetoric falls short of concealing the trauma created by the closure. Following the trustee appointment in September 2025, students had said, “We are worried that our school’s reputation and the value of our diploma will decline, and that our space of freedom will be restricted.” Today, the accuracy of these concerns has been painfully confirmed. A university is not merely a diploma-granting institution; it is a living space that shapes students’ intellectual development, social environment, academic belonging, and future plans. The overnight destruction of this space is such a profound devastation that it cannot be compensated for merely by a technical “transfer” process.
The situation is even graver for academics. Having already witnessed the groundless dismissal of research assistants, arbitrary appointments, and precarious working conditions during the trustee process, Bilgi University academics today face a completely uncertain future. Research projects, academic networks, international collaborations, and institutional memory built over many years have been nullified by a single presidential signature. Some of these academics will be forced to go abroad, while others will try to hold on in Turkey’s increasingly shrinking space of academic freedom. In either case, the loser will be Turkey’s scientific and intellectual accumulation.
International Academic Reputation and Brain Drain: Global Consequences
Universities are not only national but also part of the international world of science. The fact that Humboldt University has produced 29 Nobel laureate scientists strikingly demonstrates the role of universities in the global scientific ecosystem. The world’s leading universities—such as Berlin’s Humboldt, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Tokyo—are recognized as institutions that contribute to the scientific capital not only of their own countries but of all humanity.
The closure of a university in Turkey by presidential decree constitutes a heavy blow to the country’s academic credibility and predictability. International academic circles will read this decision as an indicator of how much the rule of law, academic freedom, and scientific autonomy have weakened in Turkey. Erasmus programs, research partnerships, joint degree projects, and academic exchange programs will be directly affected by this erosion of trust.
Data from the Academic Freedom Index reveal a strong relationship between the decline in academic freedom and the drop in democracy levels. In recent years, Turkey has continuously regressed in this index, becoming categorized alongside authoritarian regimes. The closure of Bilgi University is a new and far more visible stage of this regression.
More importantly, this decision will further trigger Turkey’s already accelerated brain drain. Trained academics, researchers, and the brightest students will not want to stay in a country where scientific freedom is absent and universities can be shut down overnight. Every departing scientist represents not only an individual loss but also the loss of the students they would have trained, the research they would have conducted, the laboratories they would have established, and the knowledge they would have produced. With this decision, Turkey faces the risk of losing not merely one university, but a significant portion of its future scientific potential.
The University in the World: Models, Principles, and a Comparative Perspective
Historically, the concept of the university has been shaped around three main models: the Humboldtian German model, the American research university model, and the British collegiate model. The common denominator of all three models is the indispensability of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
The Humboldtian model defines the university as a scientific institution independent of the state. Founded in Berlin in 1810, Humboldt University made the principle of “the unity of research and teaching” the founding philosophy of the university. German universities were able to preserve their institutional autonomy to a great extent even during the dark period of the Second World War; if Germany today possesses one of the world’s most powerful scientific research infrastructures, it owes this largely to the Humboldtian tradition.
American research universities, on the other hand, carried the Humboldtian model into a more competitive and entrepreneurial framework. Institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley have seen academic freedom and institutional autonomy not merely as principles but as necessary conditions for scientific success. It is no coincidence that the world’s most important scientific discoveries throughout the 20th century emerged from these universities. No American president can revoke a university’s operating license with a single signature; such a power does not even exist in the American legal system.
In the British model as well, universities like Oxford and Cambridge, with their centuries-old traditions, have preserved their autonomy in the face of political power. Founded in 1209, Cambridge University has maintained its existence for eight centuries as an academic structure independent of the British monarchy, parliament, and governments.
Turkey, meanwhile, adopted the Humboldtian model with the 1933 University Reform; however, it has never been able to fully implement the autonomy required by this model. The establishment of YÖK following the 1980 coup placed universities under centralized bureaucratic control; during the AKP government, this centralizing tendency reached its peak, transforming universities into apparatuses of political power. The elimination of TÜBA’s autonomy in 2011, the post-2016 dismissals, the appointment of a trustee rector to Boğaziçi, and now the closure of Bilgi University are all different manifestations of the same political will.
Today, in developed countries, the closure of a university is an extraordinary and almost unprecedented occurrence. In Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands, political powers do not have the authority to close universities they disapprove of because the constitutions and laws of these countries safeguard university autonomy. In Turkey, however, the President can terminate the existence of a university where 20,000 students are receiving education with a single signature. This situation is one of the most striking indicators of the gulf between the official rhetoric about how advanced a democracy Turkey is and the reality.
Conclusion
The closure of Istanbul Bilgi University will go down in history not merely as an administrative act but as a critical rupture that reopens the discussion on the relationship between the university, freedom, and science in Turkey.
Responsibility for this decision lies primarily and essentially with the current political power. Over their more than twenty years in office, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the AKP government have institutionalized a mentality that sees universities as “service institutions,” cannot tolerate critical thought, and attempts to substitute scientific autonomy with political loyalty. At the point reached today, universities in Turkey have ceased to be universities in the sense described by Humboldt, Einstein, Russell, and Gramsci; they have become obedient bureaucratic structures integrated into the chain of command of the political power.
The closure of Bilgi University is the most dangerous stage this process has reached. Because this time, the issue is not merely the appointment of a trustee to a university, the removal of a rector, or the dismissal of academics; the issue is the complete destruction of an entire academic institution. This demonstrates that the ruling power has reached the point of “I will close the university I dislike.” There is no guarantee that another university will not suffer the same fate tomorrow on some other pretext.
Universities are the institutions that build the intellectual future of societies. The elimination or incapacitation of these institutions irreversibly damages not only the present but also the country’s scientific and cultural capacity in the long term. Turkey will feel the consequences of this decision for decades to come: the acceleration of brain drain, the weakening of international academic collaborations, the decline in scientific production, and, most importantly, the shrinking of the institutional foundation of free thought.
At the center of the debate is not merely one institution, but fundamental questions such as what the university is, how it should be protected, and the place of science within society. The answers given to these questions will determine not only Turkey’s academic future but also its democratic future.
Today, the political will that closed Istanbul Bilgi University has, in fact, closed Turkey’s future. The issue is not the existence or non-existence of a university; it is whether science, free thought, and the common intellectual heritage of humanity will survive on this soil. The closure of Bilgi is a dark answer given to this question. However, history has shown that no darkness lasts forever; sooner or later, the light of science and free thought pierces through even the thickest walls.
Recommendations
In the face of the closure of Istanbul Bilgi University, the responsibilities incumbent upon the academic community, civil society, and the democratic public are as follows:
Initiating a legal struggle: The closure decision is clearly contrary to the constitution and universal legal principles. Legal processes should be initiated before national and international judicial bodies, and all legal avenues—including application to the European Court of Human Rights—should be used effectively.
Mobilizing international academic solidarity: International organizations such as Scholars at Risk, the European University Association, and the Magna Charta Observatory should be involved in the process; it should be emphasized that the closure of Bilgi University is a threat to global academic freedom.
Establishing independent monitoring mechanisms to protect the rights of students and academics: YÖK’s rhetoric of “there will be no grievances” should be audited by independent observers; the problems experienced by students and academics should be systematically documented.
Strengthening legal guarantees for academic freedom and university autonomy: The higher education legislation, particularly the existing Higher Education Law No. 2547, should be reformed to protect university autonomy and academic freedom; Article 11, which grants the President the authority to close universities, should be repealed.
Developing policies against brain drain: In order to halt the academic brain drain that will accelerate with the closure of Bilgi University, academics should be provided with free and secure working conditions; mechanisms should be created that allow scientists forced to go abroad to maintain their ties with Turkey.
Supporting alternative academic structures: In order to keep the intellectual heritage of the closed Bilgi University alive, independent research institutes, open academy programs, and alternative education platforms should be established.
Raising social awareness: It should be communicated that the closure of a university is not only a problem for the academic community but a democracy problem that concerns the entire society; the public should be made aware of the social value of science, free thought, and the university.
The closure of Istanbul Bilgi University by presidential decree is the latest link in the systematic dismantling of academic freedom and university autonomy in Turkey. This decision has turned the lives of 20,000 students and over a thousand academics upside down overnight; it has nullified a quarter-century of scientific accumulation, international academic networks, and a tradition of critical thought.
The principles of individualizing responsibility and protecting the institutional structure, which are fundamental requirements of the rule of law, have been explicitly violated; an investigation targeting a holding has been turned into a pretext to punish an entire university. This is the most concrete manifestation of the political power’s intolerance of critical thought and its project of standardizing universities.
The closure of Bilgi University has dealt a heavy blow to Turkey’s international academic reputation; it has created a rupture that will further trigger the already accelerated brain drain. What is actually closed is not so much a university as Turkey’s scientific and intellectual future. However, history shows that the light of science and free thought never succumbs to any darkness.
References
Çeçen, Anıl. “Üniversite Özerkliği” [University Autonomy]. Eğitim ve Bilim 3, no. 14 (1978): 3-12.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey. Decision E. 1991/21, K. 1992/42, June 29, 1992. Official Gazette Date: November 30, 1992.
Gedikoğlu, Tokay. “Yükseköğretimde Akademik Özgürlük” [Academic Freedom in Higher Education]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 15, no. 57 (2009): 5-34.
Bingöl, Bülent. “Üniversite Özerkliğinin Değişen Tanımı ve Üniversitelerin Yeniden Yapılandırılması” [The Changing Definition of University Autonomy and the Restructuring of Universities]. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 67, no. 1 (2012): 39-76.
Dedeoğlu, Saniye Gül. “Akademik Özgürlük ve Üniversite Özerkliği” [Academic Freedom and University Autonomy]. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 9, no. 34 (2014): 5887-5906.
Ergün, Rıdvan, and Berke Özenç. “Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Barış Bildirisi Kararı: İfade Özgürlüğü, Akademik Özgürlük ve Devlete Sadakat Kavramı Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme” [The Constitutional Court’s Peace Petition Decision: An Analysis within the Framework of Freedom of Expression, Academic Freedom, and Loyalty to the State]. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 8, no. 16 (2019): 289-332.
Kükner, Burcu. “Bir Hak Olarak Akademik Özgürlük: Sınırlar ve Tartışmalar” [Academic Freedom as a Right: Limits and Discussions]. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 10, no. 1 (2019): 177-192.
Tanrısevdi, Füsun. “Beyin Göçü mü, Beyin Gücü mü?” [Brain Drain or Brain Power?]. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 6, no. 2 (2019): 43-58.
Adaman, Fikret. “Akademik Özgürlük ve Üniversite Özerkliği İlkeleri: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Deneyimi” [Principles of Academic Freedom and University Autonomy: The Boğaziçi University Experience]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi ÜYYK Yayınları, 2021.
Taştan, İlknur Özlem. “OHAL Döneminde Türkiye‘de Akademik Özgürlükler” [Academic Freedoms in Turkey during the State of Emergency Period]. İnsan Hakları Okulu Yayınları, 2021.
Tufan Emini, Filiz, and Hatice Gürsoy. “Türkiye‘de Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planlarında Beyin Göçü Olgusu” [The Brain Drain Phenomenon in Turkey’s Five-Year Development Plans]. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research 8, no. 73 (2021): 2045-2056.
Bilgili, Ahmet Sinan. “Üniversitelerde Bilimsel/Akademik Özerklik ve Özgürlük: Kavramsal Bir Analiz” [Scientific/Academic Autonomy and Freedom in Universities: A Conceptual Analysis]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi 12, no. 1 (2022): 1-15.
Bilim Akademisi [Science Academy]. Akademik Özgürlükler Raporu 2021-2022 [Academic Freedoms Report 2021-2022]. İstanbul: Bilim Akademisi Yayınları, January 2023.
Buğday, Fatma. “Üniversite Özerkliği Üzerine Tarihsel Bir İnceleme” [A Historical Review on University Autonomy]. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi 6, no. 4 (2023): 1015-1032.
Eren, Esra. “Üniversitelerin Neoliberal Dönüşümü: Bologna Süreci ve Akademik Özgürlük” [The Neoliberal Transformation of Universities: The Bologna Process and Academic Freedom]. Eleştirel Pedagoji Dergisi, no. 67 (2023).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey. Decision E. 2018/117, K. 2023/212, December 7, 2023. Official Gazette Date: March 10, 2024.
Akçiğit, Ufuk. Türkiye Akademik Diaspora Raporu: Beyin Göçünden Beyin Gücüne [Turkey Academic Diaspora Report: From Brain Drain to Brain Power]. İstanbul: TÜBA Yayınları, 2024.
Atamer, Yeşim M. Interview. “Türkiye‘de Akademik Özgürlüklerin Hâl-i Pür Melali” [The Lamentable State of Academic Freedoms in Turkey]. Reflektif Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 3 (2024): 487-508.
Bilim Akademisi [Science Academy]. Akademik Özgürlükler Raporu 2024-2025 [Academic Freedoms Report 2024-2025]. İstanbul: Bilim Akademisi Yayınları, February 2025.
European University Association (EUA). Free to Think 2025: Report of the Scholars at Risk Academic Freedom Monitoring Project. Brussels: EUA Publications, October 2025.
Hünler, Olga Selin. “Academic Freedom and Patterns of Self-Censorship in Turkey.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 51, no. 8 (2025): 1123-1145.
Scholars at Risk. Free to Think 2025: Annual Report on Attacks on Higher Education. New York: SAR Publications, October 2025.
Scholars at Risk. SAR 2025 Annual Report. New York: SAR Publications, November 2025.
Buğday, Fatma. “Üniversite İdeasının Krizi ve Özerkliğin Aşınması: Tarihsel Kökenlerden Neoliberal Dönüşüme Kavramsal Bir Analiz” [The Crisis of the University Idea and the Erosion of Autonomy: A Conceptual Analysis from Historical Origins to Neoliberal Transformation]. Eleştirel Pedagoji Dergisi, no. 79 (March 2026).
Eğitim Sen [Education and Science Workers’ Union]. 2025-2026 Yükseköğretim Ara Dönem Raporu [2025-2026 Higher Education Midterm Report]. Ankara: Eğitim Sen Yayınları, February 2026.
ÜNİVDER (Üniversite ve Akademisyenler Derneği) [University and Academics Association]. Üniversitelerde Hak İhlalleri Raporu 2025 [Report on Rights Violations in Universities 2025]. İstanbul: ÜNİVDER Yayınları, 2026.
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA) Aarhus University, 1997 Independent Researcher Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
