The modern state is sustained not only by laws but also by the functionality of institutions. An institution is legitimate as long as it responds to a social need. Institutions that have lost their function but continue to exist show the weakness of the state, not its strength. This is because such structures feed on habit, not need.
Public administration in Turkey has undergone a major transformation in the last fifteen years. Digitalization has radically redefined the state's relationship with citizens. Population registrations, address declarations, residence certificates, social assistance applications, health and education procedures are no longer tied to physical locations; they are now carried out through centralized databases and digital verification systems.
This transformation is not only technological. It is also a political and managerial transformation.
Because the digital state:
- Reduces intermediaries
Limits arbitrariness
Centralizes control
It places the citizen in the position of having rights, not as a “supplicant”
This is precisely why digitalization is not just a bureaucratic convenience; it is a process that transforms power relations.
However, there is a notable exception to this general picture of transformation:
Neighborhood mukhtars in urban centers.
Corporate Continuity or Corporate Freeze?
The mukhtar institution is a product of a period in Turkey when the modern state had not yet penetrated everywhere. It emerged as an intermediary mechanism based on local knowledge, functioning through face-to-face relations, and ensuring the state's contact with the neighborhood. In this context, it is historically meaningful and functional.
But one of the basic tenets of modern public administration theory is this:
The historical legitimacy of an institution does not guarantee its function today.
In the city centers today:
- The state can penetrate every household
Address information is in central databases
Population movements can be monitored instantly
Social policy is conducted through digital records
Under these conditions, the mukhtar's claim to be the “local eye of the state” has lost its objective value.
Functional Dissolution of the Mukhtar Office
The main functions performed by mukhtars' offices in urban centers in the past were as follows:
- To issue a certificate of residence
Providing a birth registration sample
Updating voter lists
Making local identification for social assistance
All of these functions today:
- Either it is fully digitized
Or it is outside the jurisdiction of the mukhtar's office
The documents issued by the mukhtar are no longer legally binding. Mukhtar
- Cannot take decisions
Cannot use budget
Cannot plan public services
No administrative responsibility
This situation transforms the mukhtar's office from an administrative actor. into a symbolic figure.
Narrowing of the Actual Function: The Institution Reduced to Notification
In urban centers, the only regular activity that the mukhtar's office actually performs today is notification.
- Mukhtar offices
Receives court and enforcement notices
Record drops when citizen cannot be found
Holds and delivers documents
This activity:
- Local government is not
Not a public decision-making process
Democratic representation is not at all
This is technically a manual clerical service.
Moreover, this service is no longer compulsory. Because the notification system is largely
- e-Notification
UYAP
PTT distribution network
is carried out through.
At this point, the following observation is inevitable:
In urban centers, the mukhtar's office is an institutional remnant outside, not inside, the digital state.
The Cost of Corporate Persistence in Figures
What needs to be discussed in Turkey today is not the historical background of the mukhtar institution.
What needs to be discussed is the clear imbalance between the current public function of the city mukhtarate and its cost to the public.
Approximately in Turkey 31,900 urban (neighborhood) mukhtars are available.
All of these mukhtars have a net 28.075 TL Assuming a minimum wage, the monthly public cost, including gross wage, SSI and employer contributions, is approximately 37.000 TL’reaches up to '000. This amount is annualized as 444.000 TL’s personnel expenses.
Mukhtars' offices do not only have salary expenses. Even at the minimum level, there are office expenses, electricity, water, internet, stationery and mandatory operating costs. When these items are added, the average annual additional cost reaches approximately 30,000 TL.
In this framework, the total annual public cost of a city mukhtar is approximately 444,000 TL for personnel costs and 30,000 TL for office and operational costs. 474.000 TL level.
This figure 31.900 multiplied by the number of urban mukhtars, the total annual public cost of urban mukhtars is approximately 15.1 billion TL as a result of the new development.
In the same period, the total monthly cost of a teacher to the state was approximately 90.000 TL’is. This amount is approximately 1 million 80 thousand TL’corresponds to the amount of the annual allocation for urban mukhtars' offices. Annual allocation for city mukhtars' offices 15.1 billion TL’with a resource of approx. 14 thousand teachers employment is possible.
This is not a debate on local democracy or tradition. It is a concrete budget choice that shows where public resources are locked in the face of an education system where teacher shortages are deepening, classrooms are overcrowded, and guidance and support services are inadequate.
The problem is not with individuals or labor. The problem is the commitment of billions of liras of public resources every year for the sake of maintaining a structure whose function has become largely symbolic. This reveals a heavy and persistent public price paid for institutional inertia.
This is not just financial data. It is an indicator that compels us to ask why a defunct institution continues to be politically protected.
At this point, the technical discussion is over. The real question is this:
In a digitalized, centralized and data-driven state; Why is an institution that has no authority, does not take decisions and does not produce services persistently protected?
The answer to this question necessarily takes us into the realm of politics.
The Relationship between Muhtarlık and Power: Mediated State, Loyalty Production and Uncontrolled Space
In urban centers, the mukhtar office has largely lost its administrative and managerial function. Despite this, the institution is not only protected, it is also pushed out of the political debate and presented as a “natural” and “untouchable” element. This takes the issue out of the technical realm and moves it directly into the realm of power relations.
There is a basic principle in political science:
Dysfunctional institutions do not survive on their own; they are politically protected.
So the question is now “what is the mukhtar's office for?” It is not.
The question is this:
Who benefits from being a mukhtar?
The Discourse of Neutrality and De Facto Politicization
The institution of mukhtars is legally non-partisan. Mukhtars are not candidates for political parties and are not elected from party lists. This makes the mukhtarship “innocent” a local structure. But political theory teaches us this:
The claim of neutrality is often the strongest form of politicization.
Because they appear to be neutral:
- No accountability
Declared out of politics
Exempted from criticism
In urban centers, the mukhtar serves exactly this function. In law, it is neutral; in practice, it is the silent carrier of the relationship that the government establishes with the neighborhood.
Mediated State Logic: Personal Contact Instead of Institutionalization
The modern state operates by rules. Rights are granted to citizens, not individuals. However, the urban practice that operates through mukhtar offices reproduces an understanding of the state that is mediated rather than modern.
In this understanding:
- Citizens do not reach the state directly
Needs a “local intermediary”
Rights, claims and assistance are based on personal contact
The mukhtar does not make a legal decision at this point, but becomes a door of access. The existence of this door indicates the weakening of the institutional state and the strengthening of personal contact.
This is particularly evident in the area of social assistance.
Social Assistance From Citizenship to Loyalty
Legally, mukhtars do not distribute social assistance. This is true. But in practice the mukhtar:
- Who is it? “really in need” that there is no such thing
Suggests list
Directs, points
In this process, aid becomes dependent on local relations rather than objective criteria. Social policy ceases to be a right; it becomes a conditional relationship.
In the academic literature, this situation “clientelism” (clientism):
State resources are distributed on the basis of loyalty and affinity, not citizenship.
Mukhtarship is in this relationship:
- Legally unauthorized
Actually effective
is an actor.
This is precisely why it is useful for the government. Because:
- Does not decide but directs
Doesn't carry responsibility but generates impact
Unregulated but decisive
This is characteristic of the patrimonial political tradition, not of the modern welfare state.
Electoral Processes and Local Knowledge Monopoly
The second dimension of the relationship between mukhtars and power emerges during electoral processes. Mukhtars do not officially engage in propaganda. However, political power is not only propaganda; having information is also power.
City headman
- Knows voter lists
Recognizes the demographic structure of the neighborhood
Knows those who move, newcomers, the elderly, those who live alone
This information is more micro than parties and municipalities. Moreover:
- Far from official visibility
Out of audit
“It is considered ”natural"
The mukhtars' offices therefore function as a low-cost but widespread network of local contact and observation for the government. 31,900 neighborhood mukhtars means a silent political infrastructure scattered across the country.
Lack of Oversight An Unauthorized but Unaccountable Space
Another reason why the mukhtarate is politically functional is that it is unaccountable. Mukhtar
- Not accountable to the municipal council
Not subject to performance evaluation by the central administration
As it has no authority, its legal liability is also limited
This makes the mukhtarate a gray area within the political system. It is neither fully supervised like a public official nor accountable like an elected local administrator.
In terms of political theory, such spaces are extremely favorable for power. This is because:
- Invisible
Normalized
Discussion is made difficult
For this reason, the institution of the mukhtar is persistently preserved, even though it has lost its function in the age of digitalization.
After this stage, it's a matter of the mukhtar:
It ceases to be a subject of administrative reform
No longer a budget debate
And it becomes a question:
Why should the government, instead of institutionalized, transparent and auditable relations at the local level;
prefers mediated, personal and non-account forms of contact?
This question leads us directly to the regime debate.
Abolition of Mukhtar Office: Preference for a Form of Power, Not Administrative Reform
It clearly shows that mukhtar offices in urban centers are no longer a technical necessity. In a digitalized, centralized and data-driven state, the mukhtar office is neither an administrative nor a service necessity. Nevertheless, protecting, excluding from discussion and even strengthening the institution inevitably leads us to the following conclusion:
- The mukhtar issue is not a matter of administrative reform.
It is a question of a form of power.
At this point, it is no longer “what happens if it is abolished?” The question is secondary. The real question is this:
Which form of political relationship collapses when the mukhtarate is abolished?
Looking from a Relationship Perspective, Not a Service Perspective
Almost all of the arguments against the abolition of mukhtar offices in urban centers “service disrupted” claim that the mukhtar's services are already carried out by other institutions. However, as shown in detail in Chapter I, all of the services that mukhtars actually carry out in the city are either carried out through digital systems or are already carried out by other institutions.
Notification, address, residence, population, voter information, social benefits...
In none of these areas does the mukhtar play a mandatory and non-substitutable role.
There is therefore no service gap.
However, with the abolition of the mukhtar office, another vacuum is created:
mediated political vacuum.
What does it mean when a vehicle disappears?
The mukhtar office enables the urban government to maintain its relationship with the neighborhood indirectly rather than directly. This indirectness produces three critical advantages for the government:
1. Avoiding responsibility
The mukhtar does not decide, but directs. In this way, the government is not held directly responsible for the results.
2. Loyalty generation
When social assistance, information, access and contact are conducted through personal relationships, the right to citizenship is replaced by a relationship of gratitude.
3. Lack of supervision
Since the mukhtar is neither a full-fledged public official nor a local administrator, he/she is excluded from oversight mechanisms.
When these three elements are considered together, the mukhtar office becomes a low-cost but highly efficient instrument of local control for the government.
What Does the Abolition of the Mukhtar Office Violate?
Abolition of mukhtar offices in urban centers:
- Does not disrupt the notification system
Does not stop social assistance
Does not eliminate the need for local representation
But it spoils this:
- The political relationship built through personal mediation
A form of local contact based on loyalty generation
Uncontrolled and invisible spheres of influence
Therefore, abolishing the mukhtar office is a technically easy but politically difficult step. The difficulty is political, not administrative.
A Question of Alternatives: Institutionalization or Mediation?
The needs that will arise with the abolition of the mukhtar office in the city can easily be met with the tools that the modern state already has:
- Notification → e-Notification + PTT
Social assistance → Municipal social service units + digital application
Local participation → Neighborhood assemblies, digital platforms
Communication → Open data, direct application channels
These alternatives have this in common:
They are based on the institution, not the individual.
Precisely for this reason, these models are less favorable for the government. “flexible”, but it is fairer and more predictable for the citizen.
This is where the real choice comes in
The maintenance of mukhtars in urban centers is not due to the state's lack of technical capacity, but to its political preference. Power at the local level:
- Rules-based
Transparent
Auditable
Corporate
instead of a relationship; - Mediated
Personal
Loyalty-based
Out of account
prefers a form of relationship.
The mukhtarate is ideal for this choice. Because
- Elected but without politics
Effective but irresponsible
Common but invisible
Conclusion: Mukhtar Office Debate is a Regime Indicator
The issue of mukhtars in urban centers is a matter of power in Turkey:
- How you run the state
How it positions the citizen
Whether it is based on rights or relationships
is a litmus paper.
Today is the mukhtar's office:
- Does not produce public services
Local government is not
It is not a mechanism of democratic representation
But it is functional for the government.
Therefore, the muhtar issue is not a matter of savings, reform or bureaucracy;
It is a mirror of the government's relationship with the local.
Abolishing mukhtar offices in urban centers does not weaken the state.
On the contrary, it disintermediates the state.
And that is precisely why this step is technically possible;
but it is politically uncomfortable