
I've never seen such clampdowns in Istanbul. Turkey's democracy is fighting for its life
Taksim's metro station and many of the city's other busiest stations have been closed. The regional government has restricted car and intercity bus access to Istanbul. The police are checking incoming vehicles, and anyone suspected of travelling to the city to protest is turned away. Here and all over the country, televisions are permanently switched on so people can follow the latest distressing political developments. For the past week, the Istanbul governor's office has banned public protests and political demonstrations – rights enshrined in the constitution. Yet spontaneous unauthorised protests and clashes with the police have continued unabated, even though internet access has been restricted in an attempt to prevent gatherings. The police use teargas ruthlessly and have arrested countless people.
We wonder how such outrageous things could happen in a country that is a member of Nato and angling for EU membership. While the world is preoccupied with Donald Trump, with the wars between Palestine and Israel, Ukraine and Russia, what little remains of Turkish democracy now fights for its life.
The jailing of the president's chief rival, a politician capable of gaining mass support, brings Erdoğan's strong-fisted, autocratic rule to a level we have not seen before. İmamoğlu's arrest came a mere few days before Turkey's main opposition party was expected to formally nominate him as its presidential candidate during a primary. People for or against the government now largely agree on one thing: Erdoğan sees İmamoğlu as a political threat and wants to get rid of him.
İmamoğlu has won more votes than Erdoğan's own party, the Justice and Development party, in Istanbul's last three mayoral elections. When İmamoğlu defeated the party's candidate in the April 2019 election, Erdoğan had the result annulled, citing technical irregularities. The elections were repeated two months later. İmamoğlu won again. Even more, he increased his margin. At the next round of local elections in 2024, after five years in office, İmamoğlu once again defeated Erdoğan's party candidate and was elected mayor of Istanbul for the third time. İmamoğlu's electoral track record and his growing popularity have made him the main opposition candidate who could successfully challenge Erdoğan at the next presidential election.
The flip side to all this is that Erdoğan seems to be using the same playbook on his opponent as the one used on him 27 years ago. In 1998, Erdoğan was Istanbul's elected mayor and a popular figure. The secular and military establishment deemed his brand of political Islam dangerous. He was also imprisoned and charged (in his case it was for inciting religious hatred after reciting a political poem at a rally). Erdoğan was removed as mayor and spent four months in prison.
But his imprisonment and his defiant refusal to collaborate with the establishment and bow down to the repressive demands of the army helped further raise his political profile. As some commentators have pointed out, the jailing of İmamoğlu, who has denied the charges and is also promising not 'to bow down', might actually have the same unintended outcome. It could very well be helping to make the mayor all the more popular.
Yet the situation isn't quite the same. İmamoğlu is facing a deliberate and determined attempt to remove him from the running. The day before police were dispatched to İmamoğlu's house, the pro-Erdoğan press and the Erdoğan-appointed rector of the University of Istanbul declared İmamoğlu's college degree invalid, citing alleged irregularities in his transfer from a private university. Since only university graduates are allowed to run for president in Turkey, this would disqualify İmamoğlu, who has said he planned to challenge the decision. The accusations of corruption and terrorism followed.
The labelling of political opponents as terrorists is a tendency the Erdoğan government acquired after the failed military coup of 2016, when a faction of the Turkish armed forces tried to take over. In 2019, when the Austrian author Peter Handke, who had been criticised for backing the late Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, was awarded the Nobel prize in literature, Erdoğan sternly opposed the decision. Caught unprepared and without a teleprompter, he declared that they gave the same prize to 'a terrorist from Turkey!', in apparent reference to my Nobel win in 2006. I had been due to fly back from New York to Istanbul that day, and I was just about to cancel my return when the president's spokesperson announced that it wasn't me the president had been referring to.
A court steered by Erdoğan has now jailed İmamoğlu under corruption charges, but it did not press 'terror' charges. Such a charge would have allowed President Erdoğan to install his preferred candidate in the role of mayor of Istanbul – a position his party has failed to win for three consecutive elections – and thus, some fear, he would be able to redirect some of the city's endless stream of tax income into publicity and propaganda activities for his own party.
In jailing İmamoğlu, Erdoğan doesn't just sideline a more popular political rival – he also seeks to get his hands back on a wealth of resources he hasn't been able to touch for seven years. Should he succeed, the next presidential election will feature only Erdoğan and his candidates' faces plastered over the city's walls and illuminated municipal billboards.
This is not a surprise for anybody who's following Turkish politics closely. For the past decade, Turkey hasn't been a real democracy – merely an electoral democracy, one where you can vote for your preferred candidate but have no freedom of speech or thought. Indeed, the Turkish state has strived to coerce its people into uniformity. Nobody is even talking about the many journalists and civil servants who have been arbitrarily jailed over the past few days, either in an attempt to add heft and credibility to the corruption charges against İmamoğlu or on the assumption that no one will pay attention with everything else going on.
Now, with the arrest of the country's most popular politician – the candidate who would have won a majority of votes at the next round of national elections – even this limited form of democracy is coming to an end. This is unacceptable and distressing, and that's why more and more people are joining the latest protests. For the time being, no one can foresee what will happen next.
Orhan Pamuk is a writer and winner the 2006 Nobel prize in literature

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
The UK could soon recognise the state of Palestine. What does that really mean?
Emmanuel Macron 's pledge to formally recognise the state of Palestine will make France the first G7 country and member of the UN Security Council to do so. The question is whether others will follow suit. The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, is coming under mounting pressure from many of his MPs and has recalled his cabinet from their summer recess to discuss the situation in Gaza. Starmer is expected to announce a peace plan for the Middle East this week that will include British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Downing Street sources said recognition was a matter of 'when, not if'. Recognition of statehood is not merely symbolic. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 established several criteria which must apply before an entity can be recognised as a sovereign state. These are a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government and the ability to conduct international relations. The process involves the establishment of formal diplomatic relations, including the opening of embassies, the exchange of ambassadors, and the signing of bilateral treaties. Recognition also grants the recognised state access to certain rights in international organisations. For Palestinians, such recognition will strengthen their claim to sovereignty and facilitate greater international support. Macron's announcement was met with enthusiasm in many Arab capitals, as well as among Palestinian officials and supporters of the two-state solution. It was also praised by a number of European leaders as well as several journalists and other analysts as a long-overdue step toward a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the reaction from other major powers was swift and critical. The US called it 'a reckless decision' while the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said he 'strongly condemned' it. Italy's prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, called it 'counterproductive'. Within hours, it was clear that Macron's announcement had both shifted diplomatic discourse and reignited longstanding divisions. France's decision is significant. It signals a departure from the Western consensus, long shaped by the US and the EU, that any recognition of Palestinian statehood must be deferred until after final-status negotiations. The move also highlights growing frustration in parts of Europe with the ongoing violence in Gaza and the failure of peace talks over the past two decades. Yet questions remain: what does this recognition actually entail? Will it change the conditions on the ground for Palestinians? Or is it largely symbolic? So far, the French government has offered no details on whether this recognition will be accompanied by concrete measures. There has been no mention of sanctions on Israel, no indication of halting arms exports, and no pledges of increased humanitarian aid or support for Palestinian governance institutions. France remains a key military and economic partner of Israel, and Macron's announcement does not appear to alter that relationship. Nor is this the first time a Western country has taken a symbolic stance in support of Palestinian statehood. Sweden recognised the state of Palestine in 2014, becoming the first Western European country to do so. It was followed by Spain in 2024. However, both moves were largely symbolic and did not significantly alter the political or humanitarian situation on the ground. The risk is that recognition, without action, becomes a gesture that changes little. Macron's statement also raised eyebrows for another reason: his emphasis on a 'demilitarised Palestinian state' living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. While such language is common in diplomatic discourse, it also reflects a deeper tension. Palestinians have long argued that their right to self-determination includes the right to defend themselves against occupation. Calls for demilitarisation are often seen by critics as reinforcing the status quo, where security concerns are framed almost exclusively in terms of Israeli needs. In the absence of a genuine political process, some analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only – a fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence. Without guarantees of territorial continuity, an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements and freedom of movement, statehood may remain an abstract concept. What would meaningful support look like? If France wishes to go beyond symbolism, it has options. It could suspend arms exports to Israel or call for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes. It could use its influence within the EU to push for greater accountability regarding illegal settlements and the blockade of Gaza. It could also support Palestinian institutions directly and engage with Palestinian civil society. Without such steps, recognition risks being viewed as a political message more than a policy shift. For Palestinians, the daily realities of occupation, displacement and blockade will not change with diplomatic announcements alone. What is needed, many argue, is not just recognition but support for justice, rights and meaningful sovereignty. France's recognition of Palestine marks a shift in diplomatic tone and reflects broader unease with the status quo in the Middle East. It has stirred debate at home and abroad, and raised expectations among those hoping for more robust international engagement with the conflict. Whether this recognition leads to meaningful changes in policy or conditions on the ground remains to be seen. Much will depend on the steps France takes next – both at the United Nations and through its actions on trade, security and aid. Malak Benslama-Dabdoub is a Lecturer in Law at the Royal Holloway University of London.


The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European pharmaceutical firms criticise Trump tariffs on medicines as ‘blunt instrument'
European pharmaceutical firms have condemned the US move to put 15% tariffs on medicines imported from the EU, calling the taxes a 'blunt instrument' that would harm patients on both sides of the Atlantic. They were responding to a White House text of the deal that inferred the 15% baseline rate on imports from the EU would also apply to drugs if the agreement is implemented on the US side on Friday as expected. 'As part of President Trump's strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors,' the text said. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries (EFPIA) said: 'Tariffs on medicines are a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact on investment in research and development, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic.' The trade organisation represents drug companies across the bloc including Bayer in Germany, Novo Nordisk in Denmark, and US multinationals with operations in Ireland such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. The US move to impose import duties on pharma is a breach of a 1995 World Trade Organization agreement that medicines and the active ingredients in them are rated at zero tariff. An EU trade spokesperson said pharma imports from the US to the EU would remain duty free. Washington's text also indicated that the EU had confirmed it would not introduce a tech tax. An EU spokesperson said this was not the case and the bloc retained the 'sovereign right to legislate' in the digital space. Trump declared war on US pharmaceutical companies who were manufacturing medicines for US patients, and booking profits on those sales abroad. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion In March, he repeatedly took aim at Ireland's historical low-tax policies, which helped lure US multinationals including Pfizer, Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly to its shores, claiming the country had looted US businesses. On Monday, Ireland's prime minister, Micheál Martin, said tariffs in general were not ideal but a trade war would have been 'ruinous'. The EFPIA said it strove to 'ensure a fairer distribution of how global pharmaceutical innovation is financed' but there were 'more effective ways' to achieve this that would 'help rather than hinder global advances in patient care and economic growth'. The White House text of the deal has added to existing confusion over the position of pharmaceuticals in the trade deal, given that EU officials said on Monday that pharma exports to the US would remain duty free until the US had completed its section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. The text also raises questions over standards of US foods exported to the EU. The EU said the US's reference to commitments to 'address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products including streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates for US pork and dairy products' did not amount to any lowering of its red-line rules on food standards. It is known that the European Commission has also made a commitment to the UK to streamline veterinary certification processes applying to British food exports post-Brexit. This could include a reduction in the paperwork needed to export products.


The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
IMF upgrades global growth forecast as Trump tariffs ease, but warns on risks
Global growth will be stronger than previously expected this year after Donald Trump scaled back his most extreme tariff threats, the International Monetary Fund said as it upgraded the economic outlook for 2025. The Washington-based organisation said a 'de-escalation in tariffs' by the White House spurred a recovery in global trade and a broader economic expansion, though US policies remain 'highly uncertain' and risks to growth remain 'firmly on the downside'. The IMF chief economist, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, upgraded a forecast for global growth in 2025 to 3% from an estimate in April of 2.8%. The outlook for 2026 was upgraded from 3% to 3.1%. The global economy grew by 3.3% in 2024. Most regions benefited from the more benign economic outlook, including the UK, which is expected to grow by 1.2% this year – 0.1 percentage points higher than in the IMF's April outlook. In April, Donald Trump threatened to impose severe import tariffs on the world's biggest exporters of goods, including the UK, EU, China and South Korea, to combat what the US president believed was unfair competition. Stock markets dived and the US dollar fell as investors, spooked by the potential hit to world trade, bought safe havenassets. The US later delayed or reduced tariffs in return for commitments to buy US-made goods, reversing market falls as investors concluded 'Trump always chickens out' – or Taco for short. At the weekend Trump agreed to end months of speculation over whether he would impose 30% tariffs on EU goods imports, saying he would limit the rise to 15% in exchange for concessions from the EU, including the purchase of almost £600bn worth of US oil and gas. The French prime minister described the US-EU trade deal as a 'dark day' for Europe. Japan recently agreed to buy Boeing planes as part of a deal to limit tariffs on its exports to the US to 15%. And Trump has also scaled back tariffs on Chinese goods, though only after Beijing retaliated by imposing punitive tariffs on rare earth metals needed by defence industry manufacturers. Gourinchas said the US had 'partly reversed course', reducing the US effective tariff rate from 24% to about 17%. But he added: 'Despite these welcome developments, tariffs remain historically high, and global policy remains highly uncertain, with only a few countries having reached fully fleshed-out trade agreements.' The White House has set a deadline of 1 August for several countries, including Vietnam and South Korea, to sign deals with the US. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion 'Without comprehensive agreements, the ongoing trade uncertainty could increasingly weigh on investment and activity,' Gourinchas said. He said the situation could also worsen should attacks on central banks intensify, undermining their authority. Trump has repeatedly called on Jerome Powell, the chair of the US Federal Reserve, to cut interest rates, calling him a 'numbskull' for failing to do so. 'It is important to reaffirm and preserve the principle of central bank independence. The evidence is overwhelming that independent central banks, with a narrow mandate to pursue price and economic stability, are essential to anchoring inflation expectations,' he added. 'That central banks around the world achieved a successful 'soft landing' despite the recent surge in inflation owes a great deal to their independence and hard-earned credibility.' Trade data released on Tuesday showed that imports of goods into the US fell by $11.5bn (£8.6bn) in June, to $264.2bn, after a rise in imports earlier this year as companies tried to beat Donald Trump's tariffs. This narrowed the US trade deficit to $86.0bn in June, down from $96.4bn in May.