The İmamoğlu crisis loaded new political and economic challanges to the Erdoğan government. The question is “Why now?”.
Türkiye stands at a critical juncture in its political journey. The legal actions, political pressures, and the arrest and imprisonment of İstanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu on March 23rd yesterday not only aim to block his path to the presidency but are poised to reshape the country’s political landscape in profound ways. This issue, originally confined to İstanbul, is now expanding, with implications that will reverberate across Türkiye’s future political dynamics.
It appears that neither the government is prepared to back down nor the opposition to relinquish its united front. A stalemate, where neither side emerges victorious and the country continues to suffer, seems increasingly likely. The crisis, which continues to escalate like a snowball, may, if mishandled, not only bolster İmamoğlu’s political standing in the years to come but also empower the opposition in a manner that could drastically alter the existing political order.
Beyond the issue of candidacy
The government’s greatest error has been to reduce the issue of İmamoğlu to one of merely blocking his presidential candidacy. While attempts to disqualify him on grounds ranging from corruption accusations to alleged terrorist links have dominated the headlines, the crisis is far more intricate. If mismanaged, it could have far-reaching consequences.
• Convergence of Opposition: The rifts within the CHP are slowly but steadily narrowing, and İmamoğlu is emerging not only as a figurehead of his party but as a unifying force for the entire opposition. Even Mansur Yavaş, the CHP Metropolitan Mayor of Ankara who had been cautious regarding his own presidential bid, has now firmly aligned with İmamoğlu.
• Social Mobilization: Should a trustee be appointed to İstanbul, there exists the potential for widespread social unrest reminiscent of the 2013 Gezi protests. Student-led movements and protests could swell into something larger, beyond anyone’s control. Arrests and detentions could only serve to fan the flames further.
• İstanbul’s Economic Significance: İstanbul is far more than just a city—it is the economic heartbeat of Türkiye, a center of monumental construction projects, massive financial interests, and economic power. İmamoğlu’s governance challenges the economic order established by the ruling party, threatening a significant restructuring of the political economy.
• The Kurdish Issue and the “PKK Initiative”: Key issues such as the PKK resolution, Türkiye’s approach to Syria, and its relationship with Iran require strong central governance and national unity. The current political crisis, however, risks undermining this unity and setting the stage for further fragmentation. The Kurdish-problem-focused DEM Party’s support for İmamoğlu signals a broader shift that could cause further political instability.
The government: why now?
At a time when Türkiye’s economy has slightly stabilized and global circumstances appear more favorable, the government’s decision to target İmamoğlu seems driven either by deep-seated fear or by a more complex, foreign policy related reality that has yet to fully unfold. Investigations into İmamoğlu, including reviews of hundreds of officials, corruption accusations, and political pressures, have not resonated with the public, primarily due to their perceived timing. Rather than discrediting him, these actions have only strengthened his political position, rallying the opposition around his cause.
Since the losses in İstanbul during the 2019 municipal elections, it is clear that Erdoğan’s ruling AKP has not come to terms with its defeat. Despite its control over the media and state apparatus, it has been unable to contain İmamoğlu. The 2028 elections—possibly even earlier—are fast approaching, and this issue may become an existential challenge for the government.
Could this shake the government?
Although the government is legally entitled to rule until 2028, the handling of this crisis could threaten the very foundations of its authority. This crisis extends far beyond İmamoğlu’s political future; it is a defining moment with consequences that will ripple throughout Turkish politics for years to come. There are three key developments that will shape the future:
• Heightened Social Mobilization: With opposition parties such as the CHP and DEVA rallying behind İmamoğlu, the disillusionment stemming from the 2023 elections could be reignited. Protests could escalate, further complicating the situation.
• Internal Divisions within the AKP: As the government faces mounting economic and political challenges, the internal cohesion of the AKP could unravel. The Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) has been sidelined in favor of a narrow group of decision-makers at the Presidential Palace. This could fuel dissatisfaction and trigger power struggles within the ruling party.
• Economic Risks: The political crisis is already affecting the Turkish economy, with foreign capital outflows and cosred Central Bank reserves. The ongoing uncertainty threatens to damage investor confidence and could lead to further economic instability, including fluctuations in the Turkish lira and rising borrowing costs.
Global implications of the crisis
The unfolding crisis is being observed by the international community, especially in Western capitals. The European Union and the United States are increasingly critical of developments in Türkiye, viewing them as a regression in the country’s democratic progress. Meanwhile, Russia, China, and the Middle East are taking a more cautious approach, yet the situation remains closely monitored.
Just a few weeks ago, Türkiye was positioning itself to strengthen its role in the global order and seize new opportunities. Today, however, the situation feels as though Türkiye is undermining its own future. A nation that is weak internally cannot hope to maintain its strength or credibility on the global stage.
Difficult choices ahead
There are several potential strategies that President Tayyip Erdoğan could pursue to manage this crisis. He may opt for a lenient sentence in order to calm tensions and avoid further escalation, thereby preserving public order while limiting political damage. Alternatively, the government may continue its current approach, appointing a trustee to İstanbul and escalating its judicial and political actions.
The most reasonable course of action appears to be one of reconciliation—a path that restores national unity without exacerbating the crisis. However, this option risks accelerating internal divisions within the AKP. A softer stance might pave the way for a more powerful opposition, possibly leading to an earlier election.
If the government chooses to double down on its position, it risks plunging Türkiye into a period of heightened instability, social unrest, and economic decline. Political and economic risks would intensify, potentially causing irreparable damage to the country’s future.
Ultimately, the way in which this crisis is navigated will determine Türkiye’s trajectory for years to come. More than ever, both the government and the opposition must think strategically, prioritizing the future of the nation over short-term political gains.
