For a long time, politics in Turkey has been discussed not on the basis of the events themselves, but on the reflexes given to the events. When an allegation comes to the agenda, a significant part of the society does not first investigate the veracity of the incident. The first question asked is no longer “What happened?” but “Who did it?”.
This mental break is a critical threshold for democratic systems. Because when ethical evaluation, legal responsibility and public conscience begin to be filtered through the filter of belonging in a society, political competition begins to be based not on programs but on tribal loyalty. The debates in Turkey in recent years provide concrete indicators of this rupture.
The allegations in the press that a child was sent inappropriate messages about the CHP municipality administration in Giresun have caused widespread public outcry. The legal dimension and veracity of the incident is a matter for the judicial authorities. However, the political reflex that emerged in the public opinion revealed a more remarkable picture than the incident itself. While the ruling circles presented this allegation as evidence of the opposition's moral weakness, opposition circles argued that the process could be a political manipulation.
In a similar period in Adapazarı, the mayor's private life and alleged ties to his municipal entourage were brought to public scrutiny. This time the political reflex was reversed. While the opposition argued that public power was intertwined with personal relationships, the ruling circles argued that the allegations were being turned into political material.
What these two events have in common is not the veracity of the allegations. The common point is the public reaction. In both cases, the debate was not based on ethical principles, but on political affiliation. This is precisely where the most fragile point of political culture in Turkey emerges. The identity of the parties has become decisive, not the events themselves.
Municipalities and Corruption Debates: A Transpartisan Problem
Municipalities in Turkey have long been at the center of debates on corruption, procurement processes and the use of public resources. These debates have never belonged to a single party or a single period. Local governments have become one of the most fragile areas of the political system due to their economic and administrative power.
For years, Court of Accounts reports have revealed various irregularities in municipalities belonging to different parties. Among these findings are illegal practices in tender processes, uncontrolled expenditures through municipal subsidiaries, transactions that lead to public loss, and close circle staffing.
In the past, AK Party metropolitan municipalities have faced intense debates over zoning decisions, allocation of public land and tender processes. In recent years, CHP municipalities have come under strong public criticism over municipal subsidiaries, organizational expenditures, tender allocations and management appointments.
Investigations have been launched against some mayors, some files have been taken to the judiciary, and some debates have remained in the realm of political polemics. However, the most striking element in all these processes is the reflex of political parties to defend their own municipalities, regardless of which party they belong to.
While the ruling party presents every allegation in opposition municipalities as systematic corruption, the opposition presents every finding in ruling municipalities as a regime problem. This culture of mutual blame prevents the emergence of discussions on structural reform in local governments. Most of the time, debates on corruption in municipalities do not turn into calls for institutional reforms, but remain stuck in the realm of political propaganda.
Political Language and the Culture of Double Standards
One of the most visible areas of political debate in Turkey is the language used by leaders. The language of political communication is not only the tone of political competition; it is also one of the main indicators of the level of democratic culture. In recent years, it is observed that political language has hardened and insulting and marginalizing discourses have become commonplace.
This hardening is not only a linguistic change. It also expresses the transformation of the understanding of political legitimacy. However, the main problem here is that political language is evaluated with partisan reflexes rather than principled ones.
CHP Chairman Özgür Özel's sometimes harsh and borderline insulting remarks sparked public debate. The ruling circles interpreted this language as an indicator of political corruption. On the other hand, in Turkish politics, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is also known to have used harsh, polemical and sometimes insulting statements against the opposition in the past years. The opposition interpreted this language as an indication of an authoritarian style of politics.
These two examples show that political language in Turkey is discussed in a tribunal rather than principled manner. The same behavior is interpreted differently when carried out by different political actors. While the harsh language of one's own political leader is presented as determination, similar discourses of the rival leader are evaluated as democratic regression.
This double standard erodes the norms of political communication. A culture of democratic debate requires criticism to be consistent and principled. In Turkey, however, criticism of political language is often tied to political identity control.
Propaganda Instrumentalization of Anti-Corruption
Corruption debates have long been one of the most powerful tools of political competition in Turkey. However, these debates often do not produce institutional reforms. The corruption discourse has become a propaganda platform rather than a platform for reform.
A tender controversy in opposition municipalities can set the political agenda for days. Likewise, the findings of the Court of Accounts or allegations of public damage in ruling municipalities are placed at the center of regime criticism by the opposition.
This mechanism of mutual blame distracts the fight against corruption from its principled basis. A significant number of political actors in Turkey focus not on eradicating corruption, but on using corruption allegations against their opponents.
However, the fight against corruption in political systems is only possible by strengthening institutional transparency and oversight mechanisms. When the corruption discourse becomes a political propaganda tool, it delays the structural solution of the problem.
Corruption has no ideological identity. Public harm does not choose political affiliation. When this fact is ignored, accountability in the political system is weakened.
Rematchist Morality and Normalizing Ethical Violations
One of the most dangerous transformations of political debate in Turkey is the proliferation of a retributive morality. When a scandal occurs, the debate is often based not on the elimination of wrongdoing, but on the comparison of wrongs.
“The ”if they did it, so did we" defense is the most powerful legitimization tool for political corruption. This approach does not eliminate ethical violations; on the contrary, it normalizes them.
The improper use of public resources in one municipality cannot be justified by the existence of similar practices in another municipality. Likewise, the unethical behavior of one political actor cannot be justified by the mistakes of rival political actors.
Comparing ethical violations weakens the culture of democratic oversight. Because this approach removes responsibility and leads the political system into a situation where individual mistakes turn into institutional defenses.
Political Legitimization and the Crisis of Collective Responsibility
Partisan political culture transforms individual responsibility into a defense of collective identity. In Turkey, the fault of a public official is often not discussed in the realm of individual responsibility. The fault is defended on the basis of political identity.
This approach contradicts the basic principles of the rule of law. Law is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Partisan defense mechanisms weaken this principle. Political legitimization mechanisms provide institutional protection for ethical violations and lead to a crisis of accountability in public administration.
Political Polarization and Social Perception
Political polarization in Turkey deeply shapes not only the competition between political parties but also public perception. The increasing polarization of the media structure leads to political events being presented through different ideological filters. This situation erodes the common ground of reality in society and causes different segments of society to reach completely opposite opinions about the same event.
Increased access to information is theoretically a development for democratic societies that should strengthen transparency. In Turkey, however, the abundance of information often does not translate into improved information quality. On the contrary, selective information flows and ideological media frames produce information asymmetry in society. This asymmetry undermines democratic decision-making processes and transforms political debates into discourse competition away from data-driven analysis.
Erosion of the Culture of Democratic Debate
The sustainability of democratic systems depends on the discussion of different views on principled and rational grounds. In Turkey, political debate is increasingly compressed into polemics. Criticism is moving away from the aim of producing solutions; it is turning into a tool to weaken the other side.
This transformation affects not only political elites but also the culture of social debate. In social media environments, political debates often cease to be a process of knowledge production and turn into a practice of identity defense. This situation reduces the capacity for political consensus and weakens the culture of democratic deliberation.
The Future of Democracy and Political Responsibility
Turkey's democratic future does not depend solely on election results. The strength of the democratic system is determined by the quality of the political culture rather than who the political actors are. If the political culture continues to favor partisan loyalty over ethical principles, changes in power will not produce lasting reforms.
Democracy is not only about the ballot box. Democracy is also a regime of accountability. The political system is strengthened when elected rulers are open to legal and ethical scrutiny. In Turkey, democratization debates are often based on the change of power. However, historical experience clearly shows that a change of power alone does not lead to institutional cleansing. Institutional cleansing is only possible through the establishment of a culture of oversight.
Party Affiliations and Ethical Boundaries
Party affiliations are natural and inevitable elements in democratic systems. However, when allegiance replaces ethical responsibility, political corruption accelerates. In Turkey, political debates are often based on minimizing the mistakes of one's own political party and magnifying the mistakes of the opposition.
This approach leads to the fragmentation of ethical standards. The openness of ethical values to partisan interpretations deepens the crisis of trust in public administration. The most important factor determining the limits of public power is the universality of ethical norms. Replacing universal ethical standards with partisan interpretations weakens the functioning of democratic institutions.
The Need for Structural Reform in the Fight against Corruption
In Turkey, corruption debates have long been confined to the realm of political polemics. Corruption allegations often do not translate into discussions on institutional reforms. However, the fight against corruption is not a process that can only be carried out in the realm of individual responsibility.
An effective fight is possible by strengthening oversight mechanisms, developing transparency policies and raising accountability standards in public administration. The realization of institutional reforms depends more on the establishment of systematic oversight structures than on declarations of good intentions by political actors.
Corruption has no ideological identity. Public harm does not choose political affiliation. It is not possible to produce institutional reform without recognizing this reality.
The Limits of the Politics of Opposition
Opposition is a natural element of democratic competition. Political parties compete on the basis of different ideologies and programs. However, when opposition replaces ethical scrutiny, the democratic system suffers.
In Turkey, antagonism is increasingly turning into a means of producing political legitimacy. The mistakes of one political actor are legitimized by the mistakes of a rival actor. This approach weakens the culture of responsibility and paves the way for systematic ethical violations.
Opposition can lead to political mobilization. However, when opposition becomes a means of defending ethical violations, the democratic system loses its function.
Citizen Oversight and Democratic Consciousness
The most powerful protection mechanism of democratic systems is the informed citizen. Social control is the most important factor determining the behavioral limits of political actors. The democratic system is strengthened when citizens' political loyalty is directed towards principles rather than parties.
The key to democratic transformation in Turkey is not only institutional reforms. It is also a transformation of social consciousness. To the extent that society is able to criticize the mistakes of its own political party, democratic control is strengthened. The development of a culture of criticism is vital for the sustainability of the democratic system.
Reconstruction of Political Ethics
One of Turkey's greatest needs is the construction of a new understanding of political morality. Political morality is the fundamental principle that determines the limits of public power. The transformation of public power into an area of personal interest is one of the biggest breaking points of democratic systems.
The use of public resources must be transparent and auditable. Political leadership is not only responsible for governing, but also for setting ethical standards. Political ethics is not only the responsibility of politicians, but also of society as a whole.
Protecting Democracy and Institutional Strengthening
Protecting democracy is not only possible through electoral processes. The sustainability of the democratic system depends on strengthening institutional structures. Independent oversight mechanisms, transparent public administration and the rule of law are key elements of a democratic system.
Strengthening these areas is critical for democratic stability in Turkey. The weakening of institutions leads to the personalization of the political system, and a personalized political structure weakens accountability.
Conclusion and Political Manifesto
Turkey's political crisis is not only a matter of a change of power. The real crisis is the erosion of political morality. When political culture moves away from ethical principles, the democratic system weakens.
If the allegations in Giresun are true, it is a question of public morality.
If the complaints in Adapazarı are true, this is a problem of public power.
If there is public damage in the ruling municipalities, this is an issue that must be held to account.
If there are irregularities in opposition municipalities, this is also an issue that must be held to account.
Party affiliation does not absolve crime.
Corruption knows no ideological identity.
Ethical violations do not change political color.
Opposition can increase political struggle. But opposition cannot legitimize crimes.
Turkey does not need new slogans. What Turkey needs is a strong audit culture. Turkey needs principled political competition. Turkey needs a sense of ethical responsibility.
Otherwise, political actors change. Powers change. Municipalities change hands.
But the problem does not change.
Opposition does not justify.
It never exonerates.