After Turkey's elections: A change of direction or more of the same?

On 28 June 2023, the Global Strategy Forum hosted, together with SEESOX, a seminar in London on the theme After Turkey’s Elections: a change of direction or more of the same? Speakers were Mehmet Karli (SEESOX), Bașak Kale (Middle East Technical University, Ankara) and Othon Anastasakis (SEESOX). The seminar was chaired by Lord Lothian (GSF Chairman) and David Madden (SEESOX).

Mehmet Karli highlighted the favourable circumstances in which the opposition had entered the campaign. Rampant inflation, creating a cost-of-living crisis, alongside a failed government response to the earthquake, and popular fatigue at the long rule of the AKP made the election look impossible to lose. But Erdogan had succeeded in consolidating his longstanding 52/48 majority: how?

Principally, the elections were simply not fair, with state control of the media, foreign aid allowing voter friendly offers despite the economic crisis, and the progressive elimination of opposition figures. The opposition had also selected a poor candidate, losing it support from the centre right nationalists. The immediate impact of the economic crisis had been overestimated, and the opposition only really campaigned during the election period.

For now, there were no signs of democratic reform, but rather entrenchment of strongman politics in Turkey. The opposition alliance had fractured, with the Kurds split, all creating a risk of loss of opposition control of the cities at the local elections in 2024.Bașak Kale focused on the impact of migration politics on domestic elections, and the effects of the election on Turkey’s relations with the EU. With 4-5 million foreign refugees on Turkish soil, the growing economic crisis has created anti-refugee sentiments among normally middle ground voters.

The 2016 EU-Turkey deal provided funding for refugees and for Turkish border controls; an effective wall had been built along the 900km border with Syria, and internal security policy had been strengthened. In the aftermath of the 2016 coup, EU visa liberalisation had been put on the back burner, creating resentment among Turkish elites, who accuse the EU of not delivering on its promises. EU calls on those same elites to deliver on democracy thus lack legitimacy.

The refugee issue had swung right wing voters towards the AKP and, with $100 billion losses as a result of the earthquake, there are no jobs for refugees; with millions of Turks displaced elsewhere in Turkey, there is talk of returning refugees unwillingly to northern Syria.

From the EU point of view, there is understandably some relief that the devil they know is back. But Turkey has not gone away, and the EU still needs to cooperate with it.

Othon Anastasakis saw Turkey as polarised, with the EU divided on how to engage. Should it stick to its declared values or soften its position to keep Turkey out of Russia’s orbit? And how should it engage with the Turkish opposition?

He characterised the EU’s approach to Turkey as transactionalism, hypocrisy and short termism. Pragmatism suggested focusing on areas where something workable could be achieved on a win-win basis, while accepting a degree of closeness with Russia. FTA expansion, human rights and conditionality would be ignored in favour of energy issues, including the link to Asia, and migration – the pivotal issue. Hypocrisy was necessary for the conduct of such realpolitik. While accession remains frozen, neither the EU nor Turkey wants to end it formally; the EU because it fears alienating Turkish elites and the Turkish diaspora in the EU. Ad hoc decisions prevail, allowing Erdogan to criticise the EU’s lack of visa liberalisation, not to mention his policy on Swedish accession to NATO and his relationship with Putin.


An extensive Q & A touched on a range of issues, including US and EU attitudes to Erdogan’s re-election; Greek-Turkish relations; North Cyprus; Turkey and NATO; and Erdogan’s succession.