This is not an exception. This is not a mistake. This is a systematic choice.
Local democracy in Turkey is no longer only established at the ballot box and left at the ballot box; it is reshaped through judicial processes. Municipalities that are voted into office by the people are put under pressure by different means in areas where the political power cannot compete directly. The processes unfolding around Uşak Municipality and Bursa Metropolitan Municipality are not new examples of this picture - it is now the rule.
Today, the issue is not the status of a few mayors. The issue is whether the will of the ballot box is recognized. If those who are elected can only serve within the limits set by the judicial process and not by the electorate, then it becomes increasingly difficult to talk about a functioning democracy.
Judiciary or politics?
The essence of the rule of law is the impartiality of the judiciary. However, the picture that emerges today leads to the perception of the judiciary not only as a legal mechanism but also as an instrument that has political consequences. This is precisely where the problem starts.
If investigations are concentrated mainly in opposition municipalities and similar processes are not publicized in municipalities belonging to the ruling party, this situation goes beyond a legal debate and turns directly into a political one. Because justice must not only be practiced, it must also generate confidence that it is applied equally.
When this trust is undermined, judicial decisions, no matter how technically correct, are not seen as legitimate by large segments of society.
System problem: Local governance or centralized tutelage?
Local governments in Turkey are autonomous on paper, but in practice under the strong control of the central administration. Internal affairs mechanisms, dismissal powers and administrative intervention tools make local democracy fragile.
Today's crises are no coincidence. Because the system is already set up to be open to such interventions.
The solution is therefore not to discuss individual cases, but to talk about a structural reform:
- The dismissal of mayors should be based on clear and objective criteria
- Judicial processes should be accelerated and free from political influence
- Financial and administrative autonomy of local governments should be strengthened
- The sphere of intervention of the central administration should be clearly demarcated
Otherwise, each new event will be a repetition of the same debate.
Early local elections: solution or escape?
The proposal to bring forward the local elections is being put forward as an attempt to regenerate democratic legitimacy. However, this step alone is not a solution.
If the system does not change, elections will only renew the actors, not the problem. The source of today's crises is not the ballot box, but how the result of the ballot box is received.
Therefore, early elections can only make sense in conjunction with a comprehensive local government reform. Otherwise, it would be postponing the problem, not solving it.
Who is responsible?
The most dangerous approach is to leave the whole process to the judiciary. Because this is not only a legal issue, but also a political and institutional one.
The political power, the opposition and all democratic actors have to face this question:
Will local governments in Turkey really be governed by the will of the people, or will this will be constantly reshaped in different ways?
Conclusion A fork in the road
Turkey is today at a clear crossroads.
Either an order based on the supremacy of the ballot box and a truly independent and impartial judiciary will be established...
Or the meaning of elections will gradually erode, and local democracy will become merely formal.
This is no longer a debate that can be postponed.
This is a question of the future of direct democracy.