For much of the early twenty-first century, Türkiye was often considered a successful example of democratic consolidation in a Muslim-majority country. Political scientists such as Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe Schmitter described democratic consolidation as the process through which a political system stabilizes after transitioning from authoritarian rule to democracy. During this time, Türkiye was frequently referenced as a model for combining democratic governance with economic growth and political stability. However, over the past decade, Türkiye has moved away from this case and instead become a study in democratic erosion. Rather than collapsing through a sudden military coup, democracy in Türkiye has gradually weakened through a process scholars describe as “stealth authoritarianism,” where democratic institutions are undermined by the government using legal and institutional procedures. After the failed coup attempt in 2016, the Turkish government expanded its use of emergency powers that marked a big turning point in this shift in democracy. While the government justified these measures as a necessary part for national security, they also made conditions that made increased control over political opposition, media, and civil society possible. According to Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, modern democratic backsliding often shows through gradual and legal changes rather than abrupt authoritarian shifts. Ozan Varol defines stealth authoritarianism as the use of legal mechanisms to weaken democratic institutions while maintaining the outward appearance of legitimacy as well. In Türkiye, this process is very evident through the consolidation of executive power, the strategic use of legal pressure against critics, and the growth of surveillance and information control. 

One of the most significant steps of Türkiye’s democratic decline was the constitutional reform in 2017, which transformed the country from a parliamentary system into a presidential one. These changes expanded the authority of the president and weakened institutional checks and balances greatly. The ruling party, the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP), gained increased influence over judicial appointments, making it possible to shaping the legal system in ways that align with its political interests. These reforms were carried out through legal procedures and public referendums, their impact reduced the independence of key democratic institutions. This shows a feasible feature of stealth authoritarianism: “the use of seemingly legitimate reforms to concentrate power. By maintaining the structure of democratic institutions while altering how they function, the government is able to weaken accountability without appearing openly authoritarian.”

 In addition to institutional changes, the AKP has effectively used legal tools such as libel lawsuits and defamation laws to suppress dissent. Thousands of individuals, including journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens, have been charged for “insulting the president” under Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code. These legal actions significantly increased the personal and financial risks associated with criticizing the government. As a result, many individuals chose to avoid speaking out altogether. Which led to what scholars describe as a “chilling effect.”This power balance is specifically powerful because it does not require constant enforcement, the threat of punishment alone is often enough to limit expression. For example, journalists who reported on corruption or government misconduct might choose to self-censor in order to avoid lawsuits or imprisonment. This demonstrates how legal mechanisms can be used not only to punish disagreement and critics but also to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

The use of non-political criminal charges against political opponents further reveal how stealth authoritarianism operates in real-life. A well-known example is the case of Osman Kavala, a businessman and figure who was accused of financing protests and attempting to destabilize the government. By framing that political opposition as criminal activity, the government shifted the public’s attention away from political motivations and instead presents these individuals as threats to national order. This strategy is particularly effective because it places the burden of proof on the accused, forcing them to defend themselves against complex legal charges while limiting their ability to engage in political activity. At the same time, it allows the government to maintain the lie that it is simply enforcing the law rather than suppressing dissent. 

Surveillance and control over information also play a major role in Türkiye’s democratic erosion. Laws such as Law No. 5651 and the 2022 “Disinformation Law” granted the government authority to monitor online activity and remove content deemed harmful or misleading. While these laws are often justified as necessary to punish misinformation or protect national security, their vague language allowed the government to be selective with enforcement. This created a foggy environment in which citizens are unsure about what forms of expression are permitted. As a result, individuals may limit their own speech to avoid potential consequences. This environment of uncertainty reinforces self-censorship and further reduces public criticism of the government. At the same time, officials frequently present these measures as efforts to strengthen democracy and protect public order, using the language of reform and legality to maintain international legitimacy. 

Some may argue that these legal measures are necessary to maintain stability, prevent misinformation, and protect national security, especially in a country that has experienced political unrest and attempted coups. From this perspective, laws regulating speech and increasing surveillance can be seen as reasonable responses to real threats. But, the broad and selective enforcement of these policies suggest that they are not applied equally or purely for protective purposes. Instead, they seem to target critics of the government disproportionately while leaving pro-government voices largely unaffected. This imbalance indicates that such measures function less as tools of protection and more as mechanisms of control over citizens. By ruling within a legal framework, these strategies make it more difficult to challenge the government’s actions both domestically and internationally. 

Ultimately, Türkiye’s democratic erosion demonstrates how modern authoritarianism can develop gradually from within a democratic system. Rather than relying on overt repression or military force, the government has used legal reforms, judicial influence, and information control to weaken democratic institutions. These strategies increase the cost of dissent, reduce accountability, and limit political oppositions. What makes this process particularly concerning is that it still has the outward appearance of democracy, making it harder to recognize and respond to. Türkiye’s case shows that democracy does not only collapse through sudden and dramatic events, it can also decline slowly through strategic and legal changes that harm institutions over time. This raises large concerns about the vulnerability of democratic systems worldwide, especially when those in power are able to use the tools of democracy itself to undermine its core principles.

Photo by , Tarik Haiga from Unsplash