The Istanbul mayoral election was one of a series of upsets for the AKP, Turkey’s ruling party, with the opposition candidate winning by just 13,000 votes. The AKP decided to contest the mayoral vote, but not any of the other races in Istanbul which should have been simultaneously tampered with if the fraud is genuine. Istanbul has been considered by Erdoğan and other political leaders to be an AKP stronghold. There are a few reasons that could have led to the AKP upset, especially in Istanbul. Turkey has been facing recent economic decline and a more politically savvy opposition. This series of elections are taking place after an economic crisis, where the inflation rate rose to about 15%, which equated to almost 6.5 lira for 1 USD (compared to late January when you could get 4 lira for 1 USD). Erdoğan and other AKP spokespeople blame the economic downturn on the US and Trump’s policies, but the Turkish people do not seem to believe him this time (as he lost important elections in Istanbul, Ankara, and a few other major cities). There is also the opposition party’s new platform that captures voters from multiple key groups the AKP does not, particularly Kurdish and pro-Kurdish populations. The candidates also became more appealing. In the Istanbul election, Ekrem İmamoğlu was a joint CHP and İYİ candidate who was able to catch a majority of both voter bases in the contested election.
Less than a month after the election, the Supreme Election Council ruled that the mayoral election in Istanbul was suspicious enough to merit a revote and removed İmamoğlu from office. The AKP lodged a complaint with the court on the basis of improper record keeping and procedures were not followed. The complaint specified missing observer signatures, missing stamps, and other missing information on the ballots. Additionally, the AKP claimed that about 19,000 of the ballots were cast by people who are dead and imprisoned, which could account for the opposition’s victory. The court agreed with the AKP, citing only the improper staffing of the election and stating that 19,000 of the ballot officers were not civil servants. But what does this mean? In Turkey, a law was passed in 1965 stating that all ballot officers had to also be government employees. The AKP makes sure these civil servants support AKP policies, periodically dismissing civil servants who support opposition parties. The most recent case of this was the AKP dismissing 13,000 civil servants before Erdoğan’s newest five-year term, in April of 2018. Among those dismissed were political opponents and critics.  Packing the government with allies and discrediting the opposition could be a sign of democratic erosion. But the decision of the courts is a significant move in the direction of eroding democracy. The world was watching Turkey after the AKP upsets and this move signals their unwillingness to give up control of Istanbul. Leaders of the individual opposition parties imply this is a challenge of the democratic institutions of Turkey, but both are sure the result will come out in favor of İmamoğlu.
Erdoğan’s rhetoric has also been slightly concerning, as he has framed his demand for and subsequent receiving of a revote as the best possible step toward “strengthen[ing] our will to solve problems within the framework of democracy and law.” He frames the recount as upholding democracy, when he has appointed the members of the Supreme Election Council and also holds control of the loyalty of civil servants. For those who are monitoring the level of democratic erosion in Turkey, the next steps are to watch as the revote in Istanbul unfolds and to see how the AKP reacts to those results.