Tracing Turkey’s ongoing power struggle: From reformist aspirations to arrest politics

The recent arrest of high-profile individuals that started from the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, a key opposition figure in Turkey, continues to draw both domestic and international attention. These incidents reflect much deeper issues such as electoral dynamics, constitutional changes, and ideological shifts. Observers around the world suggest that the timing of such arrests fuels accusations of a broader effort to curb dissent and tilt the electoral playing field especially as Imamoglu was due to be announced as a candidate for the 2028 presidential election. The government has maintained its stance that such arrest is merely enforcement of law but opposition parties frequently allege that legal measures are wielded not simply to uphold the rule of law but to silence alternative voices. These concerns are rooted in Turkey’s long struggle to balance security and national unity with the protection of individual freedoms. The reverberations of high-profile detentions therefore extend beyond the individuals arrested, and reveals fault lines in Turkish society concerning the boundaries of the evolving role of governmental power. Therefore, the question today is how much the country has departed from its earlier trajectory, when reforms and broader civil liberties were upheld in Turkey so that it could be a part of European liberal democracies.

From multi-party beginnings to Erdogan’s ascendancy

Major paradigm shift in Turkey’s electoral competition was the pivotal transition from a single-party system under the Republican People’s Party (CHP) to a multi-party democracy in 1946 and it was in the 1950 elections, that the Democrat Party (DP) achieved a historic victory by defeating the CHP, bringing in democratic governance. Yet the decades that followed were marked by a series of military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980. It would not be wrong to say that each intervention attempted to recalibrate the republic according to what the military of that time perceived as the rightful path which often led to temporary suspension of civilian rule and reshaping political structures. Despite the unrest, Turkey created a system of alternating parties in power, which attempted to guarantee stability, economic growth, and allegiance. However, by the 1990s, multiple coalition governments were struggling with persistent issues including corruption and inflation. These governance failures led to the rise of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which moved Turkey into a more centralised model of leadership. After being founded in 2001, the AKP not only supported economic reforms and engagements with the EU but also propelled conservative social values. Many foreign observers praised Erdoğan for bringing in a period of remarkable economic growth and relative stability when he took over as prime minister in 2003. In its early years, the AKP championed reforms that expanded certain freedoms, curtailed military influence, and suggested a genuine alignment with the European Union accession process.

However, critics observed nuanced shifts within shifts within the judiciary, the media, and the education system which were authoritarian in nature. For instance, in 2013, the Gezi Park protests emerged in Istanbul over an urban development plan but quickly expanded into a national outcry against the government’s perceived authoritarian tendencies. Politically, Erdoğan’s move from prime minister to president in 2014 highlighted his dominance over the state apparatus, wherein he redefined the presidency which was traditionally a symbolic role to more active seat of power. This was followed by an unsuccessful 2016 coup attempt where thousands were purged or arrested on charges of complicity, journalists and academics included. Soon thereafter, the 2017 constitutional referendum replaced the parliamentary system with an executive presidency, conferring extensive powers upon Erdoğan. The AKP contended that the new system would ensure that coalition governments were not unstable, but critics worried that tearing down all those old institutional checks might give the ruling party and president way too much power. In 2018, we had the first election under this new presidential model, and Erdoğan won again, with the ruling party holding onto a majority in the parliament, thanks in part to an alliance with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). In the years since, arrests of opposition figures have continued to dominate the headlines, intensifying disputes about democratic backsliding. The government insists these arrests to be a way to preserve national security, but opposition parties see the arrests as way to silence dissent.

Contemporary ideological shifts and the road ahead

Over the past two decades, the AKP has gradually transitioned from an initially reform-minded, EU-focused posture to one that emphasises nationalism, security, and conservative cultural values. Such ideological transformations unfold in parallel with broader social changes, as educational institutions and public discourse shift to champion a specific interpretation of Turkey’s national identity. Under the influence of heightened nationalism and economic uncertainties, the government’s messages often invoke unity and invoke external threats, whether those pertain to geopolitical disputes in Syria, tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, or relationships with Western allies. In doing so, the AKP aims to justify its domestic measures, including a clampdown on critics who it argues threaten national cohesion.

Critics of this ideological shift argue that it effectively reinforces the marginalisation of secular parts of society and minority groups, rendering them as inherently antithetical to a singular national narrative. This polarisation is illustrated in the opposition parties, such as the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), who work to counter the dominant narratives concerning security and cultural values. Nonetheless, ideological repositioning is also evident in terms of foreign policy as Turkey has retreated from ambitions of full EU citizenship into a more independent ideological stance, balancing interests with both Western allies and Russia. While this may provide a stronger game plan for Turkey to leverage in local regional politics, it also invites differing tensions with the United States and Europe, which reverberates back in Turkey’s economic and diplomatic dealings.

Against this changing context, the arrests of leading figures are far more than individual legal acts; they represent a decisive challenge to Turkey’s institutional strength and democratic nature. As the nation struggles with a series of issues—ranging from coping with a large refugee population to grappling with high inflation and issues surrounding freedom of expression—the question is whether Turkey is able to balance these pressures against a commitment to pluralism. Every high-profile arrest triggers discussions on the rule of law and civil liberties, with opposition parties perceiving the state’s reaction as a sign of authoritarian drift, while government authorities insisting that they are upholding security and order. If Turkey experiences a dramatic political realignment, it could revisit the democratic reforms long advocated in the early 2000s. On the other hand, if current trends hold, the arrests of dissidents and the concentration of power could become ingrained features of Turkish politics. As the country moves through this uncertain period, the manner in which these tensions are resolved will certainly determine its political, social, and ideological character for years to come.

Arushi Anthal is a visiting faculty and doctoral scholar at Amity Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Amity University and Akriti Khajuria is an assistant professor at Amity Institute of International Studies, Amity University