Social Structures
Author: Gizem Yardimci, Early Career Researcher at ADVANCE CRT, PhD Student with Assisting Living and Learning Institute (ALL Institute) and School of Law and Criminology, Maynooth University
The recent Turkish elections concluded a few weeks ago, marking one of the highest electoral turnout processes in Turkish history. This blog, which draws on my PhD research, aims to critically analyse the recent intense election process in Türkiye, examining the relationship between voter participation and the role of digital platforms, to ascertain the extent to which we can actually consider these elections “fair” and “free”. According to the Supreme Election Council of Türkiye, 88.92% of voters participated in the first round, and 85.72% in the second round. However, does such high participation serve as an indicator of the elections being conducted in a democratic, free, and fair environment? According to political scientists, high participation in this instance reflects a highly polarized and intense two-round election marathon. Additionally, digital platforms played a crucial role in communication for both parliamentary candidates and the four presidential candidates just before the first and second round.
On 14 May 2023, four candidates ran for the presidency. Turkish citizens living abroad also had the right to vote, and the process for these voters had begun weeks before the electoral day. However, days before the election, one of the candidates, Muharrem İnce, withdrew, resulting in a shift in the votes of domestic electorates. However, voters living abroad had already cast their votes. This news can be interpreted as an indication that the electoral process, as carried out, was not equal in terms of timely access to information, at least for voters living abroad. In addition, it should be highlighted that there are potential risks if citizens living abroad vote in advance, especially in an election where the results are quite close.
In accordance with constitutional provisions and the decision of the Supreme Election Council of Türkiye, a second round of presidential elections took place as the winner could not be determined in the first round. One of the candidates was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been serving as President since 2014 and had previously held the position of Prime Minister for 11 years. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was the candidate of the opposition. His candidacy was criticised and caused significant political crises and debates, particularly with the dominant nationalist party, Good Party (İyi Parti), in the opposition wing. Despite close election results in the second round, Kılıçdaroğlu and the opposition block lost the presidential election. According to the Supreme Election Council (YSK), Erdoğan was re-elected as the President on 28 May 2023.
In light of the highly polarized public opinion between these two candidates, this blogs aims to reflect on how fair and equal this electoral process was and the extent to which freedom of speech and information was protected and guaranteed. Perhaps it is appropriate to begin with the closure of “ekşi sözlük”, a long-standing online forum platform website in Türkiye, following a devastating earthquake in February 2023, triggering discussions about the government’s management of the disaster and the subsequent postponement of the general elections. Access to the ekşi sözlük website, which provided alternative information without requiring registration, was blocked without even the notification of the forum management. (As of June 2, 2023, the access block still appears to be in effect.) The closure of “ekşi sözlük” holds significant importance as people sought different sources of information rather than relying on government-controlled or pro-government media outlets. In a similar story from 2014, Twitter access was blocked all over the country before the local elections, which was addressed as a violation of the fundamental rights in the constitution by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. This time, Twitter was warned by the government before the elections to restrict some contents ahead of the elections. Despite the efforts to protect society from disinformation, a balance needs to be struck between freedom of information, freedom of expression and state intervention in this digital public sphere.
In February 2023, the Directorate of Communications, which is generally known for controlling or censoring issues shared in the media and discussed in the public, reported that the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, spent approximately 188.8 million Turkish liras (equivalent to approximately 1 million euros) in the month of February alone. Following this news, the opposition block alleged that this budget was used for propaganda purposes in favour of Erdoğan, whose candidacy was viewed as highly likely. Kılıçdaroğlu, was reaching out to voters by sharing videos on Twitter before the electoral process started. He often recorded these videos in his home kitchen, which were intended as a message to potential voters about his understanding of the situation in the economic crisis.
However, these kitchen videos and other campaign footage of Kılıçdaroğlu were manipulated during the electoral process. Footage was combined with videos attributed to various terrorist groups, using deep fake techniques, and was spread on digital platforms, particularly ones such as TikTok, which are widely used by Turks. Furthermore, these visuals were shown at a public demonstration by the current President, Erdoğan, that was held just seven days before the first round of elections. The public demonstration and deepfake videos were broadcast live on television channels. Subsequently, this video was further spread through other interviews, even though it was stated that the footage was manipulated. This created significant confusion among nationalist-conservative voters who were not particularly inclined to vote for a secular or Alevi candidate. Especially after the spreading of this video, Kılıçdaroğlu shared a tweet in both Russian and Turkish, which implied that Russia was behind this defamation campaign and implicitly demanded an end to these activities. Kılıçdaroğlu also warned the Presidency’s Communication Office not to engage in efforts similar to Cambridge Analytica, and he emphasised that meetings with dubious actors in the dark web would not remain a secret.
During the election period, there were also numerous criticisms alleging that the candidates’ television appearances were unfair. Particularly, as Erdoğan was shown the most on the state channel TRT. According to electoral legislation, the state television broadcaster TRT is legally obligated to provide candidates with the opportunity to address the public. However, during his appearance on TRT, Kılıçdaroğlu chose not to discuss his promises but instead reminded TRT of its duties and responsibilities and highlighted the lack of equal and fair speaking rights for all candidates.
One day before the first round of elections, Twitter announced that they had implemented access restrictions to certain content in Türkiye based on court orders related to ‘access blocking’ with the aim of keeping Twitter generally accessible in Türkiye. This raised concerns about the possibility of access restrictions to Twitter or various other news sources on the election day. The reason was that alternative media sources are often widely preferred over mainstream media in Türkiye, with YouTube broadcasts frequently being watched.
Just two days before the second round of elections, Kılıçdaroğlu tried to reach out to voters by sending a message like “your credit card debts will be taken over by our government from the banks.” Then, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority immediately warned GSM operators that their authorization would be revoked if they allowed such SMS or other forms of communication. However, sending SMS to reach voters had been a widely used tool by also the ruling party until Kilicdaroglu’s SMS.
Overall, for the past 22 years, during Erdoğan ‘s political career in power, inequalities and unfair practices in information dissemination have occurred, seriously endangering the fairness of the electoral process.