Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
For months, allegations of corruption, bribery and extortion, particularly concerning Republican People’s Party (CHP)-run metropolitan municipalities, most notably the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB), have dominated the agenda. The indictment has been released.
The CHP and the opposition groups supporting it prefer to discuss the matter on a political plane rather than address the corruption, bribery and extortion allegations contained in the indictment.
From the outset, an attempt has been made to frame the debate within a political narrative. A defensive strategy has been crafted in advance. By invoking the claim that “the judiciary has become politicized,” efforts are underway to obscure the allegations and evidence of bribery and extortion. Complaints lodged with the West, calls for Western intervention and attempts to harm the economy form the main framework of this strategy.
A concrete example of this tactic can be seen in how the opposition handles the allegations. On the one hand, they invoke the presumption of innocence by saying “these are merely allegations,” but on the other hand, businesspeople whose names appear in the indictment as complainants are presented in the opposition media as if they themselves are “under accusation.” Headlines read: “Such-and-such businessman also appears in the indictment.” Despite the contradiction, the purpose is obvious: the more businesspeople are mentioned, the more “the reliability of the economy” is undermined; this is the calculation.
With the defense line of “these things always happened before, is it only a crime when CHP municipalities do it?” very serious allegations are trivialized. In cases involving large sums of money – even though both the “giver” and the “receiver” admit to the offense – the crime of “extortion” is normalized with a “What’s the big deal?” attitude. It is almost as though the grave allegations contained in the indictment are being legitimized as an inherent right of the opposition.
The claim that “the public will not buy this; they will show their reaction to the government at the ballot box” represents yet another attempt to change the trajectory of the case.
Before the local elections, the opposition inundated the public with slogans such as “clean municipal governance,” “avoiding favoritism,” “political ethics,” “transparency,” “protecting the rights of the vulnerable” and “merit-based management.” Yet, despite the emergence of so many corruption claims, the opposition’s opinion leaders have not reminded the public of these promises even once. Meanwhile, the CHP’s new leadership projects an attitude that says, “We made those promises for when we were seeking power, not for ourselves.”
The most basic question, “Regardless of the trial’s outcome, can clean governance emerge from this many disputed transactions? What happened to your promise of clean municipal governance?” These cannot even be properly discussed.
The corruption allegations concerning municipalities are, of course, a matter for the judiciary. The courts will decide.
However, when one looks at the practices that are the subject of these allegations, it becomes clear that reform in local administrations is an urgent necessity. Especially regarding oversight mechanisms and the Public Tender Law, legal reforms addressing the deepening problem areas within municipalities must be undertaken without delay.
In the early 2000s, reforms were implemented to meet the needs of the time. But today, new needs have emerged. One should not approach these problems, and the need for reform from the standpoint of opposition or government. This is a national necessity for Türkiye.
Municipalities’ personnel structures are bloated. Legal requirements are easily bypassed through municipal companies. Some municipalities spend almost all their revenues on personnel costs. There are municipalities so deeply trapped in debt that they cannot even provide essential services. Instead of solving citizens’ problems, they have themselves become a problem.
In many major cities, not only are future-oriented investments lacking, but even the existing system cannot be operated properly. Imagine that in Istanbul, even for a few days, Marmaray, the Eurasia Tunnel, the third bridge and the Northern Marmara Highway were out of service, the city would collapse entirely. Therefore, we must fully grasp how essential it is to make investments that secure the future ahead of time.
If reforms concerning local administrations are not placed on the agenda immediately, the current crises will deepen further and become much harder to resolve in the years ahead.
