Recep Tayyip’s recent decision Erdoğan, president of Turkey, to imprison Ekrem İmaMoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul and a powerful political rival, has triggered the most intense demonstrations in Türkiye in recent years. This action, carried out under accusations of corruption and terrorism, was evaluated by the observers and adversaries of Erdoğan as a point of no return for Turkish democracy and significant progression towards complete autocracy.
According to a report of foreign policy, this endeavors to disqualify ̇mamoğlu to appear in the next elections seriously limits the path of victory for the opposition parties. He demonstrates in a marked way by intolerance by Erdoğan to any credible challenge to his reign. This intolerance, associated with the erosion of judicial independence, media freedom and fair electoral processes, still compromised the ballot boxes as a reliable avenue for political change, therefore leaving the streets as the only resistance arena remaining for many.
However, while Erdoğan has taken important measures to consolidate his reign, the path of the complete autocracy in Türkiye is obstructed by fundamental structural weaknesses. Indeed, a critical absence is a fully faithful repressive apparatus capable of imposing its will, in particular concerning the army, which has always been considered as a vital element for powerful autocratic regimes. This places Turkey in a precarious state, oscillating between competitive authoritarianism, where elections and other democratic institutions exist nominally but are weakened by systematic abuses of power and a pure and simple dictatorship. This inherent instability is still amplified by the fact that in this transition phase, while the power structure will be very vulnerable to public manifestations, it still does not have the repressive capacity required to repress them permanently. Therefore, if Erdoğan persists on this course, it can ultimately be detrimental to him.
To understand the complexities underlying this fragile balance of powers, it is necessary to note the crucial role of the military. Since the 2000s, Erdoğan has endeavored to isolate the armed forces against the coups by reshaping his leadership and purging potential opponents. These efforts intensified following the failure of the 2016 coup attempt, orchestrated mainly by the followers of Fethullah Gülen, the deceased Muslim cleric. In the meantime, while Erdoğan managed to obtain obedience in the upper levels, the result is not a completely faithful force but rather a politicized military at all levels. Analysts believe that this distinction is crucial because a truly faithful army obeyed unconditionally and is ideologically aligned with the regime. On the other hand, a politicized army is often divided and subject to various political expectations, hosting internal distrust under a facade of unity and obedience.
Consequently, by politicizing the military in this way, Erdoğan also compromised the future of his regime. If he continues to increase repression, especially if he tries to deploy the military to remove the demonstrations, he can embark on a perilous course which could have destabilizing consequences not only for Turkey but for the whole region. The experience of anti-government protest movements in the 2010s in the Middle East within the framework of the Arab Spring offers instructive warnings in this regard. In these movements, the fate of authoritarian regimes largely depended on the extent to which the army was willing to remove the demonstrations.
For example, in Tunisia and Egypt, the reluctance of their respective soldiers to violently remove the demonstrations was a key factor in the fall of the rooted power structure. Conversely, in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the security forces faithful to the regime were able to preserve the monarchies by brutally canceling the demonstrations. Likewise, in Libya, Syria and Yemen, the flickering loyalty of the armies between the regime and the opposition led to bloody civil wars. Therefore, Turkey is not immune to these dynamics. Since 2017, Erdoğan has supervised the rejection of more than 125,000 civil servants, including thousands of military officers. The pro-government media proudly emphasize that the majority of those who are currently used in the judicial and security forces have been recruited by a political verification after the coup; Thus, it is clear what the Erdoğan sends a message: the State will no longer tolerate any dissent, and the security forces, including the army, will defend its power.
This account, however, hides a key reality: while Erdoğan has fulfilled state institutions with political loyalists, organizations deeply rooted like the military is not so easily reconstructed. Indeed, the armies and other hierarchical institutions, with their distinct organizational standards and structures, tend to moderate political interference. This resistance inherent in political manipulation is particularly true for Turkey, where military socialization is intense and lasting from the early stages.
Read more in -depth on international relations
