Turkish Forum

Tag: Ekrem İmamoğlu

  • A Letter To the Editors of The New York Times

    A Letter To the Editors of The New York Times

    The New York Times
    Joseph Kahn – Editor-in-Chief  
    Kathleen Kingsbury – Opinion Editor
    Patrick Healy – Deputy Opinion Editor
    Thomas Feyer – Letters Editor
    Joseph Kahn – Executive Editor
    Binyamin Appelbaum – Editorial Board Member

    Opinion Department
    620 Eighth Avenue
    New York, NY 10018
    USA​

    April 30, 2025 

    To the Editors of The New York Times:

    The recent editorial targeting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Republic of Türkiye reflects a persistent and ideologically driven narrative that distorts the realities of Türkiye’s democratic evolution and its role as a pivotal regional and NATO actor. This framing, cloaked in the language of liberal internationalism, is neither objective journalism nor principled critique—it is a selective indictment that ignores both context and complexity.

    At the heart of the editorial’s mischaracterization lies an obstinate refusal to recognize Türkiye as a functioning multiparty democracy. Contrary to the New York Times’ assertions, Türkiye holds regular, competitive elections monitored by respected international institutions, including the OSCE. President Erdoğan has consistently secured electoral victories through transparent and legitimate processes. To question the validity of these results is to not only undermine the Turkish electorate’s will but to insult the foundational democratic principle of popular sovereignty. Such condescension betrays a troubling double standard when compared to how contested electoral processes in Western countries are framed.

    The editorial’s comparison of Türkiye with autocratic regimes such as Russia is both analytically flawed and geopolitically reckless. Türkiye’s political environment is not a monolith—it includes diverse and vocal opposition parties, freely elected mayors, and a parliament that has repeatedly demonstrated its autonomy. The victory of opposition candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu in Istanbul, even after a court-ordered electoral rerun, is proof of the system’s resilience and internal checks.

    Legal proceedings against political figures must be evaluated through the lens of due process, not through prejudiced assumptions. The Republic of Türkiye operates under a constitutional framework that provides judicial independence and accountability. The case of Mayor İmamoğlu, like all others, is subject to the rule of law and independent judicial review. To assume political motivations without substantive evidence mirrors the very bias the editorial purports to condemn.

    Indeed, the United States—whose own democracy has faced numerous constitutional and civil liberties challenges—would do well to avoid projecting its inconsistencies onto others. Only last week, 97-year-old Federal Circuit Court Judge Pauline Newman was forcibly removed from her chambers without full due process, raising serious concerns about judicial dignity. Immigration enforcement agents continue to detain individuals across major American cities, often without warrants. Such developments should prompt introspection, not distraction through foreign finger-pointing.

    Meanwhile, Western nations, including EU member states, have engaged in press censorship, police crackdowns on peaceful demonstrators, and judicial harassment of journalists—yet such abuses receive scant scrutiny from The New York Times. Why, then, this disproportionate focus on Türkiye? What interest does The New York Times serve in meddling with the internal affairs of a sovereign country to which it pays no taxes, whose language it barely speaks, and whose culture it has not endeavored to understand in full? How many of its editorial contributors have lived in Türkiye for two decades or more?

    The continued depiction of Turkish politics as a clash between “Islamism” and “authoritarianism” is intellectually lazy and culturally reductionist. It simplifies a complex, modern, and evolving society into a binary unworthy of serious journalism. Under President Erdoğan’s leadership, Türkiye has ended military tutelage, empowered the ballot box, and brought unprecedented stability to civilian governance. If opposition movements are to win the hearts of the electorate, they must do so through engagement, not defamation.

    Assertions suggesting a drift toward “Islamist extremism” in Türkiye are inaccurate and inciteful. Türkiye maintains its status as a secular republic dedicated to pluralism, international cooperation, and the protection of human rights.   The nation’s stances on regional conflicts, particularly within the Middle East, stem from valid strategic and humanitarian considerations, not extremist ideologies. To characterize these positions as rigid dogma undermines constructive dialogue. This issue has regrettably become a tool in an international effort to delegitimize the Turkish state and its people.  

    Mr. or Ms  Editor, it is noteworthy that the presence of more liberal social customs in Türkiye, such as women being topless on certain beaches, particularly in tourist areas, and the prevalence of modern attire in cosmopolitan districts of Istanbul like Caddebostan, Bebek, Nişantaşı, and Bağdat Caddesi, underscore the secular nature of the republic. These observations, reflecting the separation of state and religion enshrined in the constitution and the freedom of lifestyle choices within legal boundaries, directly contradict claims of a drift toward “Islamist extremism” by illustrating the diverse and secular fabric of Turkish society.

    You motive is very clear it’s a smear campaign across the world against Turkiye.

    Similarly, Türkiye’s foreign policy is neither erratic nor destabilizing. It is independent, strategic, and often facilitative of peace—most notably in mediating grain export agreements amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Such diplomacy should be acknowledged, not ignored.

    For example, even Time Magazine noted during the Istanbul mayoral election rerun that “while Erdoğan may continue to reach for Putin-like powers, Turkey is not Russia.

    Even American voices outside the mainstream echo chamber have recognized this truth. The American Conservative, in its April 29, 2025 edition, wrote: “The Turkish question will continue to vex Europe, especially post-American retrenchment. Turkey is too big and too important geographically to keep out of European balance. It shows a growing appetite to provide order, to push for political settlements and new equilibria in the historic lands it ruled for centuries.” This recognition of Türkiye’s rising influence is conspicuously absent from The New York Times’ editorial pages.

    On national security, Türkiye has a right—indeed, an obligation—to defend its borders and citizens. Operations in Syria target the PKK and YPG, organizations internationally recognized as terrorist entities. The continued Western support for such groups undermines NATO solidarity and sows’ distrust among allies. No sovereign nation would tolerate armed threats along its frontier, and Türkiye is no exception. Furthermore, as NATO’s second-largest standing army, Türkiye anchors the alliance’s southern flank. Efforts to marginalize Türkiye through editorial campaigns weaken collective security and embolden hostile actors. Constructive engagement, not coercion, has historically yielded better results in Turkish-Western relations.

    Domestically, the critique of Türkiye’s judicial actions as politically motivated lacks introspective parity. Consider the United States’ pursuit of Edward Snowden, the decades-long detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without trial, and the charges faced by former President Donald Trump. Are these instances evidence of a failed democracy, or do they reflect a legal system grappling with complex national security and political questions? If the latter is accepted for the U.S., the same consideration must be afforded to Türkiye.

    Selective outrage betrays a larger problem the politicization of democratic values. Press freedom, civil liberties, and rule of law must be defended universally, not selectively applied to target disfavored governments. The disproportionate focus on Türkiye, to the exclusion of other countries with far more restrictive regimes, signals not principled advocacy but agenda-driven criticism.

    Even the refusal to adopt Türkiye’s official name the Republic of Türkiye is emblematic of a deeper problem. Names are not trivial; they are expressions of sovereignty and identity. Türkiye’s formal request to be called by its rightful name deserves the same respect afforded to other nations. That The New York Times resists even this basic diplomatic courtesy speaks volumes.

    In conclusion, Türkiye is not a rogue actor, a theocratic outlier, or an authoritarian state in disguise. It is a sovereign nation with a dynamic democracy, an indispensable ally, and a rising regional force. Its people deserve engagement, not derision; partnership, not paternalism.

    It is time for the West and particularly institutions like The New York Times to move beyond outdated paradigms and embrace a more honest, principled, and balanced relationship with the Republic of Türkiye. Demonization is not diplomacy, and editorial bias is not advocacy.

    Respectfully,

    Ibrahim Kurtulus 

    Community Activist 

  • The People’s Movement İn Turkey Must Besiege the Palace and Seize Power to Govern

    The People’s Movement İn Turkey Must Besiege the Palace and Seize Power to Govern

    For a long time, the people’s movement in Turkey has been expressing its reaction in squares and streets. However, these actions have only managed to warn the government rather than shake it. The uprisings in Maltepe, Saraçhane, and other cities have demonstrated strong opposition, but since they were not linked to a decisive strategy, they failed to create an impact that could truly shake the government. The main reason for this is the lack of leadership and the fact that opposition parties, especially the CHP, have not guided the process effectively but rather attempted to contain and limit these movements.

    However, a people’s movement should not only aim to warn the government but also to overthrow it and establish a new order. Walking the streets repeatedly or holding ineffective rallies will eventually exhaust and demoralize the masses. People want actions that produce results. If the current protests do not advance to the next stage, they will remain nothing more than controlled demonstrations led by the opposition, failing to bring about the desired resignation of the government.

    Besieging the Palace and Forcing the Government to Surrender Is Essential

    Forcing the government to resign and seizing power requires the people’s movement to escalate into a more radical and decisive phase. This phase involves centralizing mass street movements, organizing them, and ultimately targeting the core of the ruling power. As long as demonstrations in various cities across Turkey remain massive but confined within a limited strategy, the system will not change, and the government will continue to stay in power.

    At this point, the people and the opposition face two choices: either remain trapped within the passive protests orchestrated by the CHP and other parties or transform the people’s movement into a political force by creating its own leadership and directly aiming for power. If the second path is not taken, the process will remain a controlled pressure valve managed by the opposition, allowing the government to absorb the unrest and maintain its position.

    A Practical Strategy for Success: Mass Encirclement and Forcing Resignation

    To ensure that the people’s movement achieves results, the following steps must be taken:

    1. Establishing Organized and Centralized Leadership: The movement must create a vanguard and leadership structure. Disorganized and leaderless protests may generate short-term pressure but cannot achieve ultimate transformation.

    2. Moving from Squares to the Palace: Protests should no longer be confined to public squares or marches but should directly target the center of power. Long-term blockades should be established at strategically determined locations.

    3. A Sustained and Expanding Action Plan: The movement should not be limited to one-day or one-week demonstrations but must establish a continuous resistance front. Throughout history, successful people’s movements have only achieved results when they sustained their momentum.

    4. Clear Demands Directly Targeting the Government: Instead of merely calling for justice or democracy, the movement must adopt a clear discourse demanding the resignation of the government.

    Today, the protests orchestrated and contained by the opposition fail to unleash the true power of the people. If the people’s movement genuinely seeks change, it must move beyond marches and rallies and adopt a strategy aimed at seizing power. When the palace is besieged and the government is forced to resign, that is when real transformation will occur.

  • I Am the Turkish President’s Main Challenger. I Was Arrested.

    I Am the Turkish President’s Main Challenger. I Was Arrested.

    By Ekrem Imamoglu 

    Mr. Imamoglu was elected mayor of Istanbul in 2019. He wrote from Silivri Prison, outside of the city. 

    Early in the morning on March 19, dozens of armed police officers showed up at my door with a detention order. The scene resembled the capture of a terrorist, not of the elected mayor of Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city. 

    The move — four days before my party, the Republican People’s Party, was to hold a primary for the next presidential race — was dramatic but hardly unexpected. It followed months of escalating legal harassment of me, culminating in the abrupt revocation of my university diploma 31 years after I had graduated. Authorities seemed to believe this would disqualify me from the race because the constitution requires the president to have a degree in higher education. 

    Realizing he cannot defeat me at the ballot box, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has resorted to other means: having his main political opponent arrested on charges of corruption, bribery, leading a criminal network and aiding the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, even though the charges lack credible evidence. I was suspended from my elected office over the financial charges. 

    For years, Mr. Erdogan’s regime has gnawed away at democratic checks and balances — silencing the media, replacing elected mayors with bureaucrats, sidelining the legislature, controlling the judiciary and manipulating elections. The large-scale arrests of protesters and journalists in recent months have sent a chilling message: No one is safe. Votes can be nullified and freedoms can be stripped away in an instant. Under Mr. Erdogan, the republic has been transformed into a republic of fear. 

    This is more than the slow erosion of democracy. It is the deliberate dismantling of our republic’s institutional foundations. My detention marked a new phase in Turkey’s slide into authoritarianism and the use of arbitrary power. A country with a long democratic tradition now faces the serious risk of passing the point of no return. 

    The crackdown extended beyond me. In a sweeping operation built on an indictment that is no more than a compilation of statements by secret witnesses, the police detained nearly 100 people, including senior municipal administrators and business figures. Disinformation and defamation campaigns in pro government media preceded the detentions. 

    Yet the people of Turkey responded with defiance. Despite a ban on protests and roadblocks on key entryways into cities, hundreds of thousands of citizens from Istanbul to the northeastern city of Rize, traditionally an Erdogan stronghold, took to the streets. Within hours and into the following days of my detention, people from all ages and backgrounds joined my party. Outside Istanbul’s municipal headquarters, people held vigils despite increasingly harsh measures and arrests. 

    Despite the crackdown, the Republican People’s Party successfully held its presidential primary on Sunday. The party’s tally showed that 15 million people, including 1.7 million registered party members, cast their votes for me as the party’s presidential candidate. 

    Since my election as mayor in 2019, I have faced nearly 100 investigations and a dozen court cases. From the implausible to the absurd, each charge has been part of a broader effort to wear me down, bar me from serving the people who elected me, remove me from office and eliminate me as a rival to Mr. Erdogan. 

    I have already run against candidates backed by Mr. Erdogan three times — twice in local elections for Istanbul in 2019 and once again last year — where he personally campaigned against me. I won every time. Now unable to defeat me in elections, he is using his grip on the judiciary to sideline a challenger who, according to recent polls, could win if the elections were held today. 

    So why did so many people take to the streets in the largest demonstrations since the Gezi Park protests in 2013? 

    Amid mounting injustice and a troubled economy, public frustration in Turkey has reached a boiling point. People are speaking out and rallying around me, a candidate who promises inclusion, justice and the hope of a better future. They 

    will not be silenced. But the public also recognized my arrest as an attempt to push Turkey further down the path of autocracy. 

    Even in repression, signs of solidarity endure. Social democratic leaders and mayors across Turkey and beyond, from Amsterdam to Zagreb, demonstrated their support, with courage and principle, after my arrest. Civil society, too, has not wavered. But central governments around the world? Their silence is deafening. Washington merely expressed “concerns regarding recent arrests and protests” in Turkey. With few exceptions, European leaders have failed to offer a strong response. 

    What is happening in Turkey and many other parts of the world demonstrates that democracy, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms cannot survive in silence, nor be sacrificed for diplomatic convenience disguised as “realpolitik.” 

    Undeniably, recent events — Russia’s war in Ukraine, the overthrow of the al Assad regime in our neighbor Syria and the devastation in Gaza — have enhanced Turkey’s strategic importance, not least given its critical capacity to help with European security. However, geopolitics should not blind us to the erosion of values, particularly human rights violations. Otherwise, we legitimize those who are dismantling the global rules-based order piece by piece. 

    The survival of democracy in Turkey is crucial not just for its people but also for the future of democracy worldwide. The age of the unchecked strongmen demands that those who believe in democracy be just as vocal, forceful and unrelenting as their opponents. Democracy’s fate depends on the courage of students, workers, other citizens, unions and elected officials — those who refuse to remain silent when institutions crumble. I have faith in the people of Turkey and beyond who fight for justice and democracy. 

    Ekrem Imamoglu letter to the NewYork Times

  • Massive Protests in Turkiye

    Massive Protests in Turkiye

    Massive Protests in Turkiye Threaten Erdogan’s Grip on Power

    Massive Protests in Turkiye Threaten Erdogan’s Grip on Power | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G

    Protests continued across Turkiye against the government of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The unrest, which was triggered by the arrest of Erdogan’s rival, has now expanded to other concerns around the economy and civil liberties. What does this mean for Erdogan’s political future? Is this the end of the road for the Turkish president? Palki Sharma tells you.

  • Istanbul’s Voters Deal Erdogan a Major Blow – STRATFOR

    Istanbul’s Voters Deal Erdogan a Major Blow – STRATFOR

     
    (BURAK KARA/Getty Images)
    Stratfor’s geopolitical guidance provides insight on what we’re watching out for in the week ahead.

    President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s gamble to retain political control of Istanbul has failed. On June 23, the Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) Ekrem Imamoglu soundly defeated former Prime Minister Binali Yildirim of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) in a rerun of the election to decide the Istanbul mayoralty. Imamoglu captured 54 percent of the vote, 9 percent more than Yildirim. The comfortable margin of more than 800,000 votes out of the 8.7 million cast in the election rerun dwarfed the 13,000-vote margin that separated the two candidates in the initial vote on March 31. Yildrim’s victory in that initial contest had led the AKP to browbeat the country’s electoral board into invalidating the election on the basis of vaguely defined electoral irregularities.

    The Big Picture

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party has lost Istanbul to the opposition Republican People’s Party — depriving the governing party of an important source of prestige and patronage. Beyond denting its image, however, the loss won’t likely sound the death knell for the AKP, which remains the country’s dominant political force. Nevertheless, the reverse could well initiate a round of soul-searching within the AKP — and ignite political and economic battles behind the scenes.

    At the outset, Imamoglu’s victory is a testament to the strength of the Turkish democratic system. In the wake of the March 31 vote, the AKP opened itself to accusations of authoritarianism by forcing through a rerun based on what it said were unlawful appointments to some ballot box boards. By conceding the June 23 election as quickly as it did, the party has signaled that it is prepared to accept the vote instead of pushing for yet another poll to retain its hold on the city that is Turkey’s economic and cultural heart and a major source of funds for the AKP. After all, Erdogan — who once famously said democracy was a means to an end, rather than the end itself — could have found reasons to justify seeking another election until he secured his desired result, especially considering his philosophy that, as he once said, he who loses Istanbul loses Turkey. In refusing to dispute the clear victory by Imamoglu, Erdogan will improve Turkey’s image in the eyes of foreign partners like the European Union, which has chided the AKP for manipulating elections.

    Imamoglu finds himself in a hole before he has even taken office — a fact that will complicate his efforts to fulfill campaign promises to economically rejuvenate the city.

    Nevertheless, the AKP remains Turkey’s strongest political power, exerting influence in institutions and among all branches of government throughout the country. AKP-led institutions, including the presidency (which acquired sweeping powers when the country switched to an executive presidential system last year), can obstruct the work of Imamoglu’s administration if they wish. In short, the election hardly means that the fight for political control over Turkey is over; in fact, it could grow even more intense as the AKP fights to retain its domestic strength against the secular opposition and as the country confronts several pressing issues, including:

    Debt and Municipal Finances

    During the 17 days that Imamoglu occupied the mayor’s post between the March 31 elections and their cancellation ahead of the June 23 rerun, he glimpsed the severity of Istanbul’s debt: The city has a budget of 20 billion liras ($3.4 billion) but annual debts of 26 billion liras ($4.5 billion). In essence, Imamoglu finds himself in a hole before he has even taken office — a fact that will complicate his efforts to fulfill campaign promises to economically rejuvenate the city. The AKP-controlled national government could interfere in the municipality’s operations in other ways. In other municipalities in which opposition parties have taken control, the AKP has transferred ownership of municipal buildings, vehicles and administrative funds to other institutions. Only time will tell if Imamoglu is inheriting a mess that limits his ability to lead — and thus build his appeal.

    The Broader Appeal of New Political Blood

    Imamoglu’s appeal as an alternative to Erdogan reverberated well beyond Istanbul (it was even reported that some Turks from outside of Istanbul showed up to vote in the mayoral contest, only to learn the election was only for those who lived in Istanbul). His victory catapults him to the front of the race to challenge Erdogan in 2023, when Turkey will conduct presidential and general elections. The June 23 result, therefore, could prompt the AKP to moderate its policies to retain legitimacy and popularity as Turkish voters are showing a willingness to vote for opposition candidates, even in former AKP strongholds.

    In recent years, the AKP has depicted itself as the sole guardian of Turkish stability, pursuing nationalist and pro-security policies as part of an alliance with the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). While the AKP is unlikely to abandon that rhetoric anytime soon — particularly as it continues military operations against Kurdish militants at home and abroad in Iraq and Syria — the election results could convince the party that it must shake up how it relates to the populace, perhaps by making overtures to groups such as the Kurds, who voted for Imamoglu en masse in a rebuke to the AKP-MHP alliance. Accordingly, the government could engage in more pragmatic outreach to Kurdish leaders, including imprisoned Kurdistan Workers’ Party leader Abdullah Ocalan, as well as the main legal Kurdish party in the country, the Peoples’ Democratic Party.

    Managing the Overall Turkish Economy

    One of the reasons Imamoglu’s campaign attracted broad appeal is Turkey’s fragile economy. Among other economic promises, Imamoglu promised to create 200,000 jobs for Istanbulites in the coming years (a more realistic promise than Yildirim’s pre-election promise of 500,000). Turks, who face significant inflation and a volatile currency, are hungry for economic stability, while foreign and domestic businesses are desperate for signs of regulatory continuity.

    The Turkish lira rallied on the news of Imamoglu’s victory as foreign and domestic investors saw the electoral system work as intended. But there are bumps in the road ahead that will test the staying power of the rally. If the United States decides to move forward with sanctions linked to Turkey’s impending purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense missile system, it could deal a blow to the Turkish economy, which is rife with structural and systemic weaknesses. A key meeting this week will come between U.S. President Donald Trump and Erdogan on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Japan. While Erdogan has expressed confidence that he and Trump can come to an agreement over the issue, U.S. congressional opinion is another matter.

    The AKP has promised populist policies for years, while Imamoglu and the CHP have espoused a more pragmatic policy course. The national government is now caught between a rock and a hard place, as it must embark on painful structural economic reforms — even though the accompanying austerity measures could cause voters to abandon the AKP to the degree that the party’s loss on June 23 would pale in comparison to a potential reverse in 2023.

    Connected Content

    Turkey
    Turkey’s Resurgence