The security infrastructure of the state, the personal data of citizens and the strategic systems of the country cannot be the material of any political debate. If the allegations are true, this is a national security crisis; if not, it is a gross irresponsibility that undermines the seriousness of the state. What Turkey needs is not shouting politics, but law and state wisdom that reveals the truth.
State sovereignty is no longer measured solely in terms of border lines.
In the 21st century, state sovereignty is not only defined by territorial integrity.
Today, sovereignty is also protected in data centers, digital infrastructures, communication networks and the technological systems of cities.
Data on a country's citizens, transportation systems of cities, cameras, sensors and data networks are not just technical tools. They are part of the security architecture of the modern state.
This is why in developed countries, public data is not just an administrative matter, but is treated directly as a matter of national security.
Because in the age of data, sovereignty is no longer protected only on maps, but on servers and networks.
This is precisely why this is not a personal issue, but a state issue.
The recent debates over the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and its mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu should be considered within this framework.
The traffic control systems, city cameras and data infrastructure of one of the world's largest metropolises like Istanbul are not just municipal services.
These systems are also critical infrastructures, handling the movement data of millions of people, city security and public order.
If the control of such systems or their data is made accessible to foreign actors, this is not a political polemic but a matter of national security.
But by the same token, if these allegations do not reflect the truth and were made in political competition, this is also a serious irresponsibility that undermines the credibility of state institutions.
Therefore, it is not a matter of a person, but a matter of principle.
History shows us that the greatest risk comes from within
States are often weakened not by external aggression but by internal fractures.
The foreign networks that infiltrated the state mechanism in the last period of the Ottoman Empire are one of the historical examples of this.
In the Republican era, Turkey experienced similar risks in different ways.
The Susurluk scandal in 1996 revealed how dirty dealings within the state had led to a major crisis of trust in society.
The July 15 coup attempt in 2016 clearly demonstrated how infiltration of state institutions can bring a country to the brink of the abyss.
This is why Turkey's state reflex is now very clear:
No one's political identity provides immunity when it comes to state security.
In the data age, the form of betrayal has changed:
In the past, states tried to protect their military secrets.
Today, governments have to protect their data infrastructure.
NSA surveillance scandal in the US,
Cambridge Analytica crisis in Europe,
China's data security laws...
All these developments point to the same reality:
Data is no longer just a matter of technology, it is a matter of sovereignty.
Therefore, even the smallest doubt about the security of public data must be seriously investigated.
For Turkey, the principle is very simple;
When it comes to state security, the debate should not be reduced to individuals.
If there has been negligence, error or betrayal, it must be held to account.
But if there are only political polemics, the reputation of state institutions should not be the object of these polemics.
Because the most important characteristic of strong states is this:
They do not reveal the truth by shouting, but by the operation of the law.
The last word
The Republic of Turkey is not the property of any political cadre.
This is the state;
Those who resisted at Gallipoli,
Those who did not back down in Sakarya,
It is entrusted to the founders of the Republic.
The measure is therefore clear when it comes to the security of the state:
No matter who it is,
no matter what office he holds,
No behavior that puts the security of the state at risk can be justified.
But by the same token, no one can be convicted on evidence-free accusations.