Turkiye has been approaching a critical juncture for over two decades under the governance of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi – AKP). A recent development has been the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a leading challenger to President Erdoğan, whose actions have provoked strong opposition from his supporters. These individuals have mobilized in mass protests against the AKP regime. Currently, there is considerable debate regarding the duration of these protests and the likelihood of their success in challenging and potentially overthrowing the entrenched, authoritarian regime.
The AKP regime assumed power in Turkiye in 2002, initially advocating for values aligned with those of the European Union. However, it later became apparent that the AKP leveraged these values as a strategy to protect the party from being disbanded, as had occurred with its predecessors due to their anti-secular activities. After being elected for two terms, President Erdoğan increasingly exhibited authoritarian tendencies. The December 17-25 corruption scandals in 2013, which investigated sanctions violations by the Tehran regime and corrupt government contracts involving Erdoğan’s son, significantly accelerated the AKP’s move towards authoritarianism. The December 17 investigation eventually extended to the United States, where the primary suspect was traced and arrested by the FBI. This ongoing case is regarded as the largest sanctions-busting investigation in the history of the FBI.
Following the corruption scandals, the AKP regime perceived a growing threat to its survival and potential investigations, prompting a shift towards reshaping the constitution. Turkiye underwent a transformation, adopting a Middle Eastern-style presidential system, which marked a departure from its fragile democracy that had aligned with democratic values since its involvement in NATO in the early 1950s. This shift was further exacerbated by the July 15, 2016, coup attempt, which raised suspicions about the regime’s role in the events. Solid evidence suggests that President Erdoğan was aware of the coup attempt beforehand but chose to wait, positioning himself strategically to exploit the situation. In the aftermath of the coup attempt, the post-coup period saw the removal of hundreds of thousands of regime opponents from government positions and the bureaucracy, further consolidating the AKP’s hold on power.
Authoritarian regimes are inherently characterized by paranoia, as their leaders fear the loss of power and the potential consequences, such as imprisonment. This constant fear fosters an environment conducive to criminal behavior, particularly corruption. Authoritarian leaders not only become active participants in this corrupt system but also encourage others from the government and business sectors to join in. The surrounding elite, recognizing that the removal of the leader would likely result in their own downfall, become complicit in maintaining this vicious cycle of corruption. In the case of President Erdoğan’s new Turkiye, the purged officials were replaced with loyalists of the AKP, solidifying the party’s grip on power. Subsequently, the AKP targeted the media, which is now firmly under the regime’s control. The opposition media faces severe restrictions, often avoiding coverage of government corruption or criticism of the AKP leadership due to the fear of retaliation.
The AKP’s paranoia extended to targeting opposition party leaders who posed a threat to its power. One notable example is Selahattin Demirtaş, the popular Kurdish leader, who publicly accused President Erdoğan of corruption and involvement in the July 15 coup attempt. His statements proved to be costly, as Demirtaş has been imprisoned since 2019, despite the lack of sufficient evidence to support the charges against him. Another opposition leader, Ümit Özdağ, was jailed in January 2025 due to his vocal criticisms of the AKP regime’s policies toward the Syrian refugees in the country. These actions exemplify how the AKP has weaponized the justice system to suppress dissent and eliminate political rivals, consolidating its hold on power through fear and intimidation.
Election polls indicate that two strong candidates, Mansur Yavaş, the mayor of Ankara, and Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul, have emerged as the primary challengers to President Erdoğan. Both are from the opposition People’s Republic Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP) and received record votes in the most recent municipal elections. Despite Erdoğan’s total control over the bureaucracy, judiciary, and media, and the widespread fear of criticizing the government, the CHP and its two mayors are the only credible political rivals who can defeat Erdoğan in the upcoming elections. Erdoğan, perceiving İmamoğlu as his biggest threat, has targeted him first.
İmamoğlu has been accused of corruption, and his bachelor’s degree even was annulled by the AKP government. Interestingly, Erdoğan himself has failed to declare his own bachelor’s degree, a requirement for the presidency, and is widely regarded as one of the most corrupt politicians in Turkiye. İmamoğlu was detained on March 19 on charges of bribery and aiding a terrorist organization. It is important to note that authoritarian leaders often use terrorism allegations to label opposition figures as terrorists, a tactic Erdoğan has repeatedly employed. He has labeled members of the Gülen movement, student protesters, secular individuals, Kurds, and anti-AKP demonstrators as terrorists. İmamoğlu is another example of this tactic, with the judiciary rejecting terrorism charges against him, but proceeding with his arrest on corruption allegations. The indictment lacked solid evidence, relying on unreliable secret witness testimony. İmamoğlu resisted the AKP’s pressure and was subsequently imprisoned, highlighting the ongoing suppression of opposition in Turkiye.
CHP leader, Özgür Özel, has called on his supporters to take to the streets in response to İmamoğlu’s arrest. The protests have spread to college campuses and Turkish communities in Europe and the United States. The AKP appears to have underestimated the public’s reaction to this move. While it is uncertain how long these protests will last or whether they will escalate to the scale of the 2013 Gezi protests, the longer they continue, the more likely they are to turn violent. Protesters and the CHP are acutely aware that if they return to their homes, they risk being detained by the police. The AKP has strengthened its control over law enforcement by purging and reshaping the police force, filling positions with loyalists, particularly after the 2016 coup attempt. This provides the regime with significant leverage over security forces. As a result, it is crucial for the protesters to maintain momentum if they wish to pressure Erdoğan into resigning. However, this remains an unrealistic expectation, as Erdoğan holds several powerful tools at his disposal. He can deploy the police and military to violently suppress the protests, mobilize his loyal supporters to target demonstrators, or even use Syrian refugees to undermine the opposition.
Western governments have had conflicting approaches toward authoritarian regimes, balancing their promotion of democracy and human rights with broader strategic interests. For many of these governments, the rational choice has been to prioritize these more significant interests, even when faced with non-democratic actions or human rights violations. The European Union, in particular, has been criticized for its silence during Turkiye’s swift transformation into an authoritarian state, primarily due to the refugee crisis. President Erdoğan strategically opened Turkiye’s doors to millions of Syrians and Afghans, leveraging this as a bargaining chip to pressure European governments, blackmailing them into opening Turkiye’s borders during times of tension or criticism of the AKP government. Meanwhile, for the United States, the primary concern was counterterrorism in Syria, particularly regarding ISIS and Al-Qaeda. However, the AKP’s military incursions into northern Syria, where Kurdish forces—U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS—were based, have caused significant tensions between Turkiye and the United States. The geopolitical chess game in the region has continued to unfold, with the ongoing Ukraine crisis presenting new opportunities for Turkiye. This broader context of international politics may have influenced Erdoğan’s calculations, particularly in his targeting of İmamoğlu. Critics argue that the AKP anticipated the silence of the EU and the U.S. as it planned its political moves, including the arrest of the opposition mayor.
To conclude, the AKP regime’s targeting of Ekrem İmamoğlu, a leading opposition candidate whose popularity in the polls surpasses that of President Erdoğan, represents an inevitable consequence of the regime’s efforts to maintain control. This mirrors the actions of other authoritarian regimes, such as Vladimir Putin’s targeting of Alexei Navalny in Russia, who was labeled a terrorist, imprisoned, and later lost his life under suspicious circumstances. Similarly, Turkiye is witnessing a parallel narrative unfold, with İmamoğlu imprisoned and his supporters taking to the streets in protest. The AKP regime has clearly miscalculated the public’s reaction, as citizens flood the streets to protest against the government. Erdoğan’s longstanding fear of mass demonstrations stems from the belief that they can quickly gain momentum and spread to more people. The slogans of the demonstrators—”Thief Erdoğan,” “Dictator Erdoğan,” and “The AKP will pay a cost”—indicate that the fear threshold has been surpassed. The longer the protests continue, the more likely the government will resort to violent and repressive measures to quell dissent. Protesters now face the difficult choice of whether to continue their resistance or risk detention in the coming days. This moment represents Turkiye’s fragile democracy’s last chance to return to its foundational values through support for the opposition. If the AKP successfully represses the protests, Turkiye’s already fragile democracy could further collapse. Western governments must remain consistent with their historical commitment to promoting democracy and must unequivocally support democratic movements in Turkiye. While short-term interests may lead to pragmatic relations with the AKP regime, a long-term embrace of authoritarianism in Turkiye would pose a continued threat to regional and global security.