Regarding the investigation and arrests involving the mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, the Republican People's Party (CHP) is broadly pursuing its opposition strategy within the following framework: They are attempting to overshadow even the most serious allegations by politicizing the investigation and legal proceedings, labeling them as politically motivated cases.
Grave allegations of corruption are being portrayed as if they rely solely on the testimony of a “secret witness” while ignoring the existence of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) report, the Ministry of Interior’s referral report, call and message records (HTS) analyses, tender file examinations and reports by tax inspection experts.
By invoking the argument that “trust in the judiciary is already low,” they seek to discredit the trial from the outset, rendering the outcome contentious in advance. They aim to reinforce the previously cultivated perception of a distrust index toward the judiciary through similar rhetoric.
Using materials produced for foreign media, they aim to raise criticism against Türkiye abroad. From this, they build support for the argument that “investors won’t come.” Based on this claim, fluctuations in exchange rates and the stock market are framed as consequences of the ruling government – asserting that “none of this would have happened if the investigation had not taken place,” and thereby attempting to reduce judicial proceedings to a mere component of the political power-opposition equation.
Through rhetoric like “calls to the streets” and a “political coup,” they seek to influence judicial proceedings by creating a pressure atmosphere above the law via mass street demonstrations.
By consolidating long-standing anti-government sentiment and opposition energy under the banner of “reaction to the investigation,” they also attempt to use this situation as a tool to manage internal factionalism and ongoing power struggles within the CHP, including debates over presidential candidacy and party congress dynamics.
While pursuing such a strategy from a political standpoint, the CHP does not outright claim that “these things did not happen.” Nor do they declare, “We fully vouch for our mayor in every sense.”
Commentators aligned with the CHP in the media circulate arguments such as, “These things happen in municipalities run by the ruling party as well – why don’t they face the consequences?” But they do not say, “Whoever commits corruption must be held accountable.”
The presumption of innocence applies until allegations are substantiated. This is a universal principle of law. But it must not be forgotten: There are other universal principles of law as well. Pressure on the judiciary is not solely exerted by those in power.
A political party may object to investigations and legal proceedings. It may criticize judicial decisions. It can present its legal reasoning and evidence. It can communicate its views and arguments to the public, particularly its base. This is expected. Mistakes can always occur in judicial processes. That’s why higher courts exist – to correct errors made at lower levels.
When public order is undermined, the judiciary – incredibly independent – is among the most affected institutions. If a political line is pursued that opens the door to chaos through street politics, those who provoke it will be the ones most harmed.
No matter the circumstances, the opposition bears as much responsibility as the government for the peace and stability of a country. If CHP oversteps in its response to the ongoing investigations – shifting the focus away from legal assessment and dragging the proceedings into a political arena – it will be the one to suffer the most damage.
The path to power passes through political responsibility. Politics and a politician who cannot foresee the consequences of calls to the streets will not be deemed legitimate by society.
