On the Day of the Republic, Türkiye Stands at a Crossroads

Essay by Emre Erdoğan, professor and CO3-associated researcher at İstanbul Bilgi University.

On the 29th of October, as Türkiye celebrates the 102nd day of the Republic of Türkiye, it is timelier than ever to reflect on its accomplishments and the significant challenges it faces.

Established in 1923 from the remnants of an empire, the Republic was built on a bold promise: a unified nation of citizens, equal under the law, committed to secular modernization, and bound by a shared identity. Today, this foundational promise appears increasingly fragile.

Internally, widespread economic anxieties, a growing lack of trust, and societal divisions have steadily eroded the moral foundations of civic life. Externally, a volatile global landscape—marked by conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Caucasus, alongside the weakening of international bodies like the United Nations and NATO has disrupted the global stability that once supported Türkiye's security and development.

In this critical juncture, the Republic stands at a crossroads. The question is not merely whether it can restore democracy, but whether it can re-establish its social contract in a context where solidarity, trust, and shared purpose are in decline. This essay will examine how Türkiye’s social contract evolved across its first century, how it has broken down under internal and external strain, and how a new contract—rooted in fairness, inclusion, civic participation, and renewed global anchoring—might yet be constructed.

A Century of Formation and Fracture: The Evolution of Türkiye’s Social Contract

The Republic of Türkiye's century-long history is a continuous negotiation between state authority and social inclusion. The social contract has always been dynamic, with each era balancing modernization, stability, and belonging in unique ways, often expanding some citizenship rights while restricting others.

1.     The Founding Era (1923-1950s): Republican Statism and Homogeneit

The early Republic replaced imperial pluralism with a unified civic identity. Inspired by early Ottoman reformers and guided by Kemalist reforms, the new state imposed secularism, education, and women's rights from above, while suppressing ethnic and religious diversity. This created a social contract that offered protection and progress in exchange for conformity. It achieved rapid modernization but excluded large communities such as Kurds, Alevis, and non-Muslim minorities, whose differences were perceived as threats to national unity. This paradox, proclaiming equality while denying diversity, sowed the seeds of future polarization.

2.     The Cold War Anchors (1950s-1990s): Security, Development, and Controlled Pluralism

After joining NATO in 1952 and the UN earlier, Türkiye's external alliances provided stability and economic aid that supported domestic development. The multiparty transition of 1950 expanded participation but did not fully democratize power. Military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980 institutionalized a "guarded democracy," where civilian rule was tolerated only within limits acceptable to the armed forces and bureaucracy. Civil society remained weak and subordinate to the state, operating largely as a service arm rather than an autonomous public sphere. The social contract during this era promised order and growth under tutelage—a compromise between liberal aspirations and authoritarian reflexes.

3.     The EU Conditionality Moment (1999-2013): Reform, Inclusion, and the High Tide of Hope

The Helsinki Summit of 1999 and the Copenhagen Criteria of 2004 initiated Türkiye's most transformative modernization phase. The EU accession process served as both a moral and institutional anchor, linking prosperity to rights reforms, encouraging dialogue on the Kurdish issue, and fostering civil society. For a decade, economic growth combined with political liberalization, suggesting that the old trade-off between stability and democracy could finally be overcome. However, this period of convergence also carried the seeds of its reversal. When accession stalled after 2013, and European enthusiasm waned, the external anchor that constrained executive power and legitimized reform eroded. Civil society, which had briefly expanded under EU influence, again found itself marginalized, its spaces for participation shrinking as state control intensified. Populist consolidation then filled this void.

By the time Türkiye entered its second century, the Republic's founding institutions had been hollowed out. What began as a project of disciplined modernization and Western integration has devolved into a search for new legitimacy amidst inequality, distrust, and a fragmented international order.

The following sections will explore how these forces converged to produce today’s fractured social contract and what pathways might restore it.

The Breakdown: Affective Polarisation, Antagonistic Politics, and the 2023 Elections

Over the past decade, Türkiye's social contract has fragmented due to affective polarization and antagonistic politics, turning disagreement into enmity and political competition into a zero-sum struggle for national definition. This emotional partisanship now outweighs policy differences, leading citizens to view each other through moral lenses.

This transformation, rooted in history but newly intense, has hardened the secular-conservative divide into an existential opposition. The political discourse is dominated by national salvation rhetoric, stifling pragmatic debate and turning differences into moral contamination. Independent institutions have become extensions of this moralized conflict, losing their ability to mediate or protect pluralism.

The 2023 general elections exemplified this breakdown, widely seen as a referendum on Türkiye’s political regime. The incumbent alliance framed the vote as a defence of national unity; the opposition as a chance to restore rule of law. High voter turnout demonstrated engagement but also deep mutual suspicion.

The electorate reaffirmed the status quo, continuing the executive-centric system, but this did not signify consensus. Instead, it entrenched the perception of two irreconcilable nations within the same state: one seeing strong leadership as defense against chaos, the other seeing concentrated power as the source of decline. The elections thus highlighted a paradox: a vibrant but divided electorate, weary of polarization yet dependent on it for political meaning.Antagonistic politics has redefined citizenship's emotional economy, with fear and resentment dominating over hope. This environment rewards confrontation and punishes compromise, making a social contract based on mutual recognition difficult to sustain.This politics of enmity, combined with economic inequality, migration, and regional insecurity, forms a wider "polycrisis" where tensions reinforce each other, eroding trust and the possibility of renewal.

The Polycrises of Inequality, Migration, and Global Insecurity

Türkiye’s current predicament cannot be reduced to political polarisation alone. It is the manifestation of a polycrisis—the intertwining of economic inequality, environmental stress, migration pressures, and regional insecurity that collectively destabilise the moral and material foundations of the state. Each dimension reinforces the others, creating a feedback loop of vulnerability.

1. Economic Disparity and the Erosion of Fairness

Economic inequality is a significant driver of public discontent. Data from TÜİK reveals that the wealthiest 20% of households control nearly half of the national income, while the poorest 20% share less than 6%. Soaring inflation, which peaked at over 80% in 2022, has severely eroded real wages, pushing millions into poverty. Several surveys indicate that three-quarters of citizens perceive the economy as rigged in favor of the wealthy, fueling resentment and a desire for strong leadership to enforce fairness.

2. The Allure of Strongman Politics Amidst Discontent

This perception of an unfair system contributes to the enduring appeal of strong leaders. Over half of the respondents in the aforementioned Ipsos poll believe that "to fix the country, we need a leader willing to break the rules." This sentiment stems not purely from ideology, but from a profound sense of insecurity. For many, the procedural promises of democracy feel inadequate compared to the tangible protection a powerful state seemingly offers. The opposition's focus on institutional reform struggles to resonate with citizens seeking immediate relief from economic hardship, suggesting that the crisis of democratic legitimacy is rooted more in the absence of social and economic justice than in an inherent inclination towards authoritarianism.

3. Environmental Vulnerability and Unequal Impact

Climate change manifests through droughts in Central Anatolia, floods along the Black Sea coast, and wildfires in the Mediterranean, disproportionately affecting rural and low-income communities. These groups often lack the political influence and compensation mechanisms to address environmental degradation. The government's continued reliance on coal and large-scale infrastructure projects further intensifies ecological stress, creating a vicious cycle of environmental risk and economic dependence.

4. Migration: A Source of Both Solidarity and Division

As a host to nearly four million refugees, Türkiye embodies both humanitarian generosity and significant strain. Migration, once a symbol of solidarity, has become a focal point for populist mobilization. Parties like the Victory Party (Zafer Partisi) capitalize on anti-refugee sentiment, portraying Syrians as economic competitors and cultural threats. This narrative resonates with economically insecure citizens, transforming social anxiety into exclusionary nationalism. However, civil society initiatives, such as empathy-based dialogue programs and local participation projects, demonstrate the potential for rebuilding solidarity and fostering coexistence at the micro-level, even amidst national polarization.

5. Global Instability and the Absence of External Support

Regional conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and the South Caucasus have exacerbated domestic fragility by increasing energy costs, disrupting trade, and heightening Türkiye's strategic vulnerabilities. Concurrently, the weakening of multilateral governance, evident in the UN Security Council's paralysis, tensions within NATO, and the EU's inward focus, has deprived Ankara of the stabilizing frameworks that once anchored its foreign policy. Without credible external support, domestic politics has veered towards ad-hoc pragmatism, reinforcing the perception that Türkiye is navigating a world without established rules.

In conclusion, these interconnected crises have eroded trust and solidarity within Turkish society. Economic inequality undermines the promise of fairness, environmental degradation and migration pressures strain empathy, and global disorder removes the external scaffolding that once supported national stability. The result is a society caught between resentment and resignation, yearning for both protection and justice—a delicate balance that defines Türkiye's second century.

Competing Hegemonies: Two Social Contracts in Contest

Türkiye's current crisis stems from a clash between two competing visions for its social contract, rather than just a governance issue. Both the ruling coalition and the opposition offer distinct models of legitimacy, each attempting to address national insecurities with different moral frameworks.

1. The Incumbent Vision: Security and Unity

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its allies prioritize protection through strength. They believe the state's legitimacy comes from its ability to ensure security, defend sovereignty, and uphold moral order. The 2018 presidential system is presented as the institutional embodiment of this contract, enabling decisive action in a volatile world. This approach, which links foreign policy independence with domestic moral conservatism, promises stability amidst global uncertainty. However, it relies on coercive consensus, fostering loyalty through fear of disorder rather than trust. By equating loyalty with patriotism, it restricts dissent while claiming to represent the entire nation.

2. The Opposition Vision: Pluralism and Institutional Renewal

In contrast, the opposition proposes a social contract built on the rule of law, parliamentary oversight, and civic equality. Their call for a return to a strengthened parliamentary system aims to redistribute power from the executive to institutions. They seek to replace vertical loyalty with horizontal accountability, transforming subjects back into citizens. Yet, the opposition's focus on proceduralism has failed to resonate with voters primarily concerned with economic security and dignity. Many citizens find the language of constitutional design abstract when faced with the immediate realities of inflation, unemployment, and daily injustices.

3. The Legitimacy Gap and the Need for New Foundations

A growing legitimacy gap exists between these two poles. The governing bloc offers security without fairness, while the opposition promises fairness without security. Neither model fully satisfies a population that desires both. The challenge extends beyond institutional reform to moral reconstruction, requiring a reconnection of freedom with protection, and democracy with competence. Crucially, this renewal must include a revitalised role for civil society—long weakened and excluded from decision-making—as both a watchdog and co-architect of reform. Civil society and the public must move from the margins to the centre of governance, ensuring that democratic restoration is not merely procedural but participatory. Internationally, this necessitates re-anchoring Türkiye's domestic legitimacy within a framework of cooperative governance, including restoring ties with the European Union, reaffirming commitment to NATO, and constructively engaging with the United Nations.

Only by addressing both material inequality and moral fragmentation, and by empowering civil society as an equal actor in governance, can Türkiye forge a renewed social contract for its second century—one that balances strength with justice, sovereignty with solidarity, and national pride with democratic humility.

Conclusion: From Republic to Re-Public – Consent as the Core of Renewal

The Republic of Türkiye enters its second century at a moment of exhaustion and opportunity. The last decade’s crises have revealed that neither centralised authority nor procedural reform alone can sustain legitimacy. What is needed is a re-public in the literal sense: a renewal of the civic bond between the state and its citizens based on fairness, dignity, and shared responsibility.

Re-founding this contract requires rebuilding trust as a social and political resource. Economic justice must accompany democratic reform, ensuring that participation delivers tangible benefits. A credible commitment to rule of law must be paired with empathy in governance, replacing the politics of resentment with a politics of care. Central to this transformation is the empowerment of civil society and the broader public sphere, which must reclaim their role as co-creators of democratic life rather than passive observers. A participatory, inclusive civic sphere can serve as the foundation for rebuilding solidarity and collective agency.

Internationally, Türkiye’s renewed democratic credibility can re-anchor its diplomacy within a cooperative world order—where alignment with NATO, the EU, and the UN is not a constraint on sovereignty but an extension of it through shared norms.

The 102nd anniversary thus invites neither nostalgia nor denial, but reflection and reinvention. The Republic that once sought to create citizens from subjects must now create solidarity among citizens. Only by transforming fear into trust, and inequality into inclusion, and by restoring civil society as a bridge between the state and its people, can Türkiye reclaim the promise of 1923 for a new century: a Republic sustained not by coercion or charisma, but by consent.