By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent Metropoll survey reveals that 66.3% of Turks oppose a constitutional amendment enabling President Erdoğan to run again in 2028, despite his previous claim that the 2023 election would be his last. Opposition is significant even within Erdoğan’s ruling AKP and its ally, the MHP. Meanwhile, Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavaş enjoys the highest approval rating among potential opposition presidential candidates. The survey also shows a near-even split in support between the ruling AKP and the main opposition CHP, highlighting the politically divided state of the nation.
Read the original article here
A significant portion of the Turkish population opposes the proposed constitutional amendment that would pave the way for President Erdoğan’s continued tenure. This opposition highlights a deep-seated concern about the implications of altering fundamental rules to enable a leader’s extended rule. The very act of changing the rules of the game to suit one individual’s ambitions raises immediate red flags about potential authoritarian tendencies. Many see this as a dangerous precedent, echoing similar power grabs witnessed in other countries.
The proposed amendment is seen by many as a blatant attempt to circumvent existing term limits. Concerns go beyond simple adherence to established legal frameworks; they encompass deeper anxieties about the implications for democratic principles and the future trajectory of Turkish governance. The fact that such a move is even being considered underscores a troubling erosion of democratic norms.
Comparisons to other leaders who have similarly manipulated their countries’ systems to extend their power are frequently drawn. These parallels serve as cautionary tales, illustrating how such actions can lead to a gradual descent into autocracy, significantly undermining the democratic process. The perceived threat to democratic institutions lies at the heart of the widespread opposition to the amendment.
While proponents of the amendment may argue for its necessity, or even present manipulated figures, a substantial portion of the populace perceives it as a power grab. The deep-seated skepticism and outright rejection of the amendment are telling. The fact that the public’s opposition is so widespread suggests that the amendment’s potential impact on Turkey’s democratic future is a major point of contention.
Even if the amendment were to pass, the opposition isn’t expected to simply vanish. The persistent dissatisfaction could lead to increased social unrest and a deepening divide within Turkish society. Such divisions could create instability and significantly hinder the country’s progress. The potential for long-term negative consequences is a major factor fueling the opposition.
The proposed amendment is not merely a technicality; it represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power. It risks concentrating power in the hands of a single individual and jeopardizing the checks and balances essential for a healthy democracy. Such a drastic change risks eroding the foundations of Turkish democracy.
The proposed amendment is met with skepticism due to its timing and the perceived self-serving nature of the proposal. This skepticism is fueled by concerns that the amendment benefits one individual over the needs of the country as a whole, creating a sense of unfairness and distrust within the population. This breeds resentment and fuels the widespread opposition.
Interestingly, even the possibility of an early election to facilitate Erdoğan’s re-election without a constitutional amendment fuels the opposition. This demonstrates the deep-seated concerns regarding his continued leadership regardless of the method employed to extend his rule. This highlights a broader concern about the leadership style and its impact on the nation.
The narrative of a leader circumventing established rules to maintain power is strikingly similar across various countries and periods in history. These historical parallels serve as stark reminders of the potential consequences of such actions and reinforce the opposition’s arguments. They point to a pattern of behavior that many find alarming.
The arguments against the constitutional amendment are not solely based on legal or procedural grounds; they also reflect broader anxieties about the political climate and the future direction of the country. These fears encompass a wide range of concerns about governance, democratic values, and the overall well-being of the nation. The concern is not merely about who holds power, but how that power is acquired and exercised.
In conclusion, the widespread opposition to the constitutional amendment enabling Erdoğan’s re-election highlights a crucial juncture in Turkish politics. It reveals deep-seated concerns about the future of democracy in the country and underscores the significance of public sentiment in safeguarding democratic principles. Whether the amendment succeeds or not, the opposition itself reflects a significant challenge to the existing power structure.