TÜRKİYE ORTA ASYA HABER KKUORDİNATÖRÜ

IFJ-INTENATIONAL FEDERATION OF JOURNALİST E-INTERNATIONALRELATIONS Protests in Turkey Amid a Global Shift to the Right As we enter the third decade of the twenty-first century, our world finds itself caught between the introspective old hegemonic powers, namely the US and European states, and the hesitant new emergent ones, such as China and other rising powers. This situation creates systemic chaos and uncertainty, one result of which is the surge of right-wing authoritarianism in world politics. This authoritarian outbreak is not rooted in the personalities or psychologies of Trump, Putin Modi, Erdogan or Orban, but in underlying conditions, long-term historical factors that affect the world economic system and the changing power balance. Trump, Erdogan and others in the ‘ring of autocrats’ are less the creators than the outcome of protracted economic, social and political processes. Of course, in all these countries, there are local and/or national conditions that prepare the ground for such right-wing authoritarian surges. However, in the final analysis, all these right-wing shifts are the results of an increasingly more volatile and chaotic international situation, which is the direct consequence of a process of what Giovanni Arrighi called ‘hegemonic transition’ within a period of systemic chaos, where ‘the incumbent hegemonic state (or group of states) lacks the means or the will to continue leading the system of states’. Turkey’s Erdoğan is the only far-right leader within a competitive electoral landscape who has maintained an unbroken 23-year tenure rule. He has faced several electoral victories, uprisings, and coup attempts against him, all of which failed to unroot his regime. He annulled Popular mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu, Erdoğan’s most likely rival, was imprisoned over unproven corruption allegations linked to the running of mayor’s office in Istanbul, and the government’s aim remains to prevent him from participating in the upcoming presidential elections in 2028. This would spell disaster for Turkey, not due to İmamoğlu radically altering everything if elected to be the next president, but because it would indicate the cessation of all avenues to contest Erdoğan via electoral means. The Turkish population understands the importance of electoral competition, so they are protesting to protect this critical aspect of formal democracy. Similar to the Taksim Gezi protests, which began as an environmental movement and evolved into a broader nationwide uprising, the current situation holds significant potential. Currently, university students lead the protests, and the pressure from students and the general public compelled the normally quite cautious opposition party to agree to organise public demonstrations on the streets. While there is currently no unified agenda, the activists who disrupt orchestrated speeches and advocate for a general strike, along with their lengthy and well-crafted social media posts and press interviews, suggest aspirations that exceed merely ensuring electoral competitiveness. İmamoğlu and other current opposition leaders lack a clear vision to steer the country away from the disastrous course it has been on for 45 years, characterised by profoundly unfair neoliberal development. Erdoğan’s regime did not deviate from the policies that aggressively promoted neoliberalism in Turkey since 1980; instead, he intensified them. Neoliberal restructuring in Turkey began in 1980 with an economic stabilisation package, commonly known as the ‘January 24 decisions. ‘ This package, created by Turgut Özal in consultation with the IMF, marked a significant turning point in Turkey’s economic history, and Turkey’s economy was opening up to global influences with this package. Consequently, Turkey adopted neoliberal restructuring with export-focused, growth-oriented strategies and external borrowing. These policies aimed to shift state revenues away from public services benefiting working people and redirect them towards international creditors, transnational corporations operating in the area, and local allies within the ruling elite. As expected, popular protests and widespread unrest arose against these policies, leading to violent suppression by the state. Eight months following the introduction of the reform package on January 24, 1980, a military coup eliminated the democratic process, dissolved all political parties and unions, and seized complete control on September 12 to facilitate the rapid execution of neoliberal reforms by quelling all dissent. The military’s rule from 1980 to 1983 forcefully advanced these neo