Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wins third consecutive election

Oliver Lamb, News Editor, examines the consequences of the 2023 Turkish Election

IN the end, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was reelected as president of Turkey with 52 per cent of the vote, but for the first time in years, the outcome had been in doubt. Erdoğan in 2014 and 2018 secured an outright majority in the first round, without the need for a runoff between the two most popular candidates. This time, he faced a head-to-head contest with Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of a six-party opposition alliance.

ropean Union. Originally a champion of those devout Muslims left behind by Turkey’s secular laws — for example, a ban on women wearing headscarves in public-sector jobs — he spent four months of 1999 in prison for inciting religious hatred, and emerged with a new vision for Turkey.

His party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which he cofounded in 2001, stood for a kind of modern Islamism: a country in which religion and liberalism could coexist.

made his position more secure. But living standards are falling. Erdoğan’s insistence that lowering interest rates will reduce inflation (the orthodoxy is to raise rates to encourage people to save) has resulted in a current annual inflation rate of 44 per cent. Meanwhile, the president’s purges have robbed Turkey’s institutions of expertise — as exposed, critics argue, by the inadequate response to the February earthquake that killed over 50,000.

of Ukraine but has not sanctioned Russia. So long as Erdoğan is in charge, that ambiguity will continue.

For Turkey, for now, the election result means five more years of the AKP’s creaking brand of authoritarian conservatism. But if things continue as they are it is hard to see how, come the next election, Erdoğan will be able to survive the pressure for reform — by anything resembling legitimate means at least. Something has to give.

“The entire nation of 85 million won,” Erdoğan told his supporters. Kılıçdaroğlu claimed it had been “the most unfair election in recent years” and independent media outlets were fined for anti-government coverage (though there has been no suggestion that the election itself was illegitimate).

T hat such a broad coalition was required just to run Erdoğan close shows how large his personality looms in Turkish politics. By 2014, when he became the country’s first elected president, he had been prime minister for 11 years. In that time he oversaw a period of economic growth and made serious efforts to join the Eu-

But the AKP has been criticised, at home and abroad, for chipping away at secularism and for creeping authoritarianism, including restrictions on free speech. Things escalated when, in 2016, an army coup was put down and the government arrested, fired and blacklisted tens of thousands of people, many of whom had no connection to the insurrection. Taking advantage of a post-coup rally-round-the-flag effect, Erdoğan also held a referendum that changed the country’s parliamentary system to a presidential one.

Competence is an important source of legitimacy for any authoritarian leader. A continuation of his performance as prime minister — and as mayor of Istanbul from 1994 to 1998, when he confounded his secular critics by restoring the city’s infrastructure — would certainly have

Langley

Purges have robbed Turkey’’s institutions of expertise

Kılıçdaroğlu promised a return to a parliamentary system and conventional economic policies. Attempting to court nationalists, he also said he would expel the 3.6 million Syrian refugees living in Turkey. Erdoğan trumpeted family values and emphasised his tough line on Kurdish militants, drawing a contrast with his rival on both counts.

Abroad, Erdoğan has made Turkey more assertive. As a power in its own right — certainly in the Middle East, where so much geopolitics takes place — the country’s relationships with the West and Russia are complex. It condemned the invasion

Ukraine-Russia spring offensive

whether now is the ideal time for the spring offensive to take place in Ukraine

to seriously prepare for a counter-offensive when there may have been opportunity beforehand to capitalise on Russia’s low morale and compliance at its worst. Others would view the waiting to be beneficial, as it means Western powers have had time to come to terms with Zelenskyy’s calls for support, and subsequently work with him. Similarly, there has been a large rise of media coverage relating to the preparations being made, and has allowed morale in the Ukrainian army to increase to the extent it is in a confident state to tackle Russia’s defences.

ing the right calls. There is of course no question to the commitment of Ukrainians — they are devotedly protecting the freedom of their country — but at the same time will be motivated by the feeling there is progress being made. Waiting for a longer time to start has meant any immediate enthusiasm will have been lost, whilst Russia has had the advantage of physically and mentally preparing for what is set to come.

WITH Ukraine launching a counter-offensive against Russia this week, morale amongst Ukrainians and its allies has been strong. Media reporting on the case has created an effective storm of great resources and attention towards this offensive being the one that contributes towards the end of the ongoing conflict. It is worth remembering that in the build-up to this offensive there has been much support from other countries as well. Whilst Ben Wallace, the UK’s Defence Secretary, did not commit last month to providing fighter jets to Ukraine, he did promise “training and support within limits.” Links with the UK have also strengthened on a personal level between President Zelenskyy and Rishi Sunak, including regular discussions between the pair about support that can be provided to Ukraine.

A key debate to be held around the counter-offensive taking place now is how effective the timing is. A current weakness to Russian forces is their reported low morale and compliance with regime, however initial reporting on this was underway in December last year. Furthermore, talks surrounding a Ukrainian offensive have been ongoing — for such a time that Russia has had ample opportunity to expect an attack. Targeting an army when they are at their worst is always a good strategy, but some will be questioning the wait

Whilst prolonging the start to the war can help build up enthusiasm, it is worth noting that whilst there is very little coverage in our media on the number of deaths and other drawbacks to the Ukrainian army, it is those on the frontline who are fighting that feel the impact of rising death tolls. There of course will always be pushback — it would have been illogical for Zelenskyy to suggest without careful consideration to undertake a counter-offensive.

Ukrainians will be aware of this, but equally will only continue to fight for as long as they feel their president is mak-

When considering the overall impact that a delayed start of a counter-offensive will have to Ukraine, whilst it would have been wise to build up resources and support, having such a delayed start will disadvantage their efforts in other ways. This is mainly through a morale that peaked previously and is now depleting, and Russian military leaders taking the time to improve their frontline performance. Zelenskyy has achieved a well-trained army group, with Western backing, to attack Russia — but it has cost him in other ways