In March 2025, Turkish authorities dramatically escalated a crackdown on the political opposition by detaining Istanbul’s mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu – a popular rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – along with scores of others (time.com). Officials allege these arrests are part of a corruption and terrorism investigation, but critics argue it is the latest move in Erdoğan’s years-long campaign to stifle dissent and entrench his power.
In this report we will examine the recent arrests and their stated justifications, the reactions from Turkish opposition and international actors, and the broader context of President Erdoğan’s systematic crackdown on civil, human, and political rights. It also analyses the implications for Turkish democracy and discusses how nations with an ethical foreign policy might respond – including the possibility of economic and trade measures – to pressure Ankara towards respecting democratic norms.
Recent Arrests and Political Crackdown
In the early hours of March 19, 2025, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu was arrested in a pre-dawn raid at his home amid a heavy police presence. Turkish prosecutors issued detention warrants for Imamoğlu and roughly 100 others, including city officials, businesspeople, journalists, and even two district mayors from his Republican People’s Party (CHP). Authorities launched what they called a “large-scale anti-corruption operation” into alleged fraud in municipal tenders and claimed İmamoğlu had aided the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) by collaborating with a pro-Kurdish political group. The Istanbul public prosecutor accused İmamoğlu of extortion, bribery and being the “leader of a criminal organisation,” while also charging him and several aides with “aiding a terrorist organization” for purported ties to Kurdish militants. These sweeping allegations – linking city contracts to terrorism – were widely seen by the opposition as a thin pretext to justify eliminating one of Erdoğan’s most formidable rivals.
The crackdown extended beyond İmamoğlu. Among those rounded up were his chief press advisor Murat Ongun, the heads of a municipal construction company and sports club, other city bureaucrats, and even a well-known singer accused of involvement. Police temporarily closed metro stations and main roads in Istanbul and even canceled police leave, effectively locking down parts of the city. Notably, the operation came just a day after Istanbul University suddenly annulled İmamoğlu’s college diploma – thus disqualifying him from running for president under Turkish law – a move he denounced as baseless. The timing raised suspicions, as İmamoğlu had been poised to win the CHP’s presidential primary that weekend and emerge as the united opposition’s candidate for the next election.
İmamoğlu and his allies vehemently rejected the charges, calling the situation a politically motivated “civilian coup.” In a video message filmed as officers waited at his door, İmamoğlu vowed, “We are facing great tyranny, but I will not be discouraged… I entrust myself to the 16 million residents of Istanbul and the 86 million citizens of Turkey”.
His party leader, CHP chairman Özgür Özel, rallied thousands of supporters outside Istanbul’s city hall that evening despite a four-day protest ban, declaring, “Let’s call it what it is: a coup attempt… Today, the will of the people is being usurped through a judicial coup”. Protesters in Istanbul and Ankara chanted slogans, waved Turkish flags and portraits of İmamoğlu, and faced down riot police in defiance of the government’s ban on public gatherings.
The palpable public outrage underscored that many Turks viewed the arrests not as a genuine graft probe but as an blatant power grab against the opposition. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç insisted the judiciary was “independent and impartial,” dismissing any comparison to a coup and calling it “presumptuous” to link the prosecutions to President Erdoğan. Nevertheless, few in the opposition doubted that Erdoğan’s government was orchestrating the purge of İmamoğlu and his circle, given the pattern of politicized prosecutions in recent years.
Historical Context of Erdoğan’s Authoritarian Measures
The latest crackdown is part of a broader pattern in which President Erdoğan has progressively dismantled checks on his power, eroding Turkey’s democratic institutions over the past decade. Since Erdoğan first rose to national leadership in 2003, and especially after he became president in 2014, Turkey has experienced severe democratic backsliding. Human Rights Watch observed that Erdoğan’s government has been “dismantling human rights protections and democratic norms… on a scale unprecedented in [his] years in office,” targeting any institution or group that challenges his rule(hrw.org). This authoritarian turn accelerated after a failed military coup attempt in July 2016. In its aftermath, Erdoğan declared a state of emergency and oversaw purges of stunning scope: an estimated 150,000 civil servants, soldiers, judges, academics and others were fired, and around 70,000 people were jailed on alleged links to the coup or terrorism, with mass arrests continuing for years. Over 200 media outlets – including newspapers, TV and radio – were forcibly shut down, contributing to Turkey becoming the world’s leading jailer of journalists at the time. This purge initially had broad public support as a response to the coup plot, but that consensus faded as it became clear the government was using vague anti-terror laws to silence tens of thousands of critics who had nothing to do with the coup.
Erdoğan’s administration has particularly targeted Kurdish political opposition and other dissident voices under the guise of fighting terrorism. In late 2016, authorities arrested Selahattin Demirtaş, the charismatic leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), along with numerous HDP lawmakers and mayors, accusing them of terrorism for alleged PKK links. Demirtaş remains imprisoned to this day, despite the European Court of Human Rights ruling that his detention was aimed at “silencing him and deterring other critical voices” rather than any genuine criminal wrongdoing. Dozens of elected HDP mayors in the Kurdish-majority southeast have been removed from office over the years – often replaced by government, appointed trustees, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters. Erdoğan’s government has even sought to outlaw the HDP entirely through a court case that critics say would “target the rights of millions of Kurdish voters and subvert democracy” (hrw.org). Outside the Kurdish issue, the dragnet has ensnared liberal activists, academics, and civil society leaders: for example, philanthropist Osman Kavala was jailed for years on nebulous charges related to anti-government protests, ignoring repeated international calls for his release.
These moves have been accompanied by legal and constitutional changes concentrating power in Erdoğan’s hands. In 2017, Turkey transitioned from a parliamentary system to an executive presidency after a narrowly passed referendum, eliminating the prime minister’s office and significantly weakening parliamentary oversight. Since then, Erdoğan has ruled with sweeping authority, frequently governing by decree. The judiciary’s independence has been severely compromised, as thousands of judges and prosecutors were purged and replaced with loyalists following the coup attempt. New laws have curtailed freedoms of expression and assembly – for instance, a 2022 “disinformation” law criminalized spreading false information online, viewed by rights groups as a tool to censor journalists and social media. Arrests and prosecutions for social media posts critical of the government are common. Regular public demonstrations on sensitive issues are often banned or met with heavy police force. Such measures have cumulatively closed the space for dissent. By 2024, Freedom House rated Turkey “Not Free” with a score of just 33/100 on political rights and civil liberties, a stark decline from a decade earlier.
In short, what remains of Turkey’s democratic institutions has been steadily hollowed out. As Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch summarized in 2021, “President Erdoğan is targeting any institution or part of society that stands in the way of his effort to reshape Turkey… ensuring [his] hold on power in violation of human rights and democratic safeguards.” (hrw.org)
Implications for Democracy in Turkey
The arrest of İstanbul’s opposition mayor – coming on the heels of years of such repressive tactics – represents another grievous blow to what remains of democracy in Turkey. It signals that even the most prominent elected opponents of Erdoğan are not safe from politically driven prosecution. If local election results can be effectively overturned by jailing a victorious mayor on dubious charges, the “will of the people,” as İmamoğlu put it, is being blatantly subverted.
This undermines the fundamental democratic principle that voters have the right to choose their leaders. Opposition figures warn that Turkey is sliding into open one-man rule: the European Parliament’s Turkey rapporteur, Nacho Sánchez Amor, remarked with “huge concern” that the country is moving “full speed towards a complete authoritarian state” in light of İmamoğlu’s detention and the protest bans that followed. Indeed, by using courts to eliminate rivals and suppress dissent, Erdoğan’s government is effectively achieving through repression what it might fear losing at the ballot box – a trend typical of electoral autocracies.
Turkish opposition leaders and civil society groups stress that these actions threaten the last vestiges of free politics in the country. When a leading presidential contender is jailed and potentially barred from running, the playing field for any future election becomes fundamentally unfair. “The space for opposition politicians is getting smaller and smaller,” observed German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, calling İmamoğlu’s arrest a “blow to democracy in Turkey.”
Even within Turkey, there is a growing climate of fear and self-censorship – opposition lawmakers face constant legal harassment, media outlets critical of the government have been muzzled or co-opted, and citizens can face arrest for merely tweeting criticism of officials. Amnesty International warned that İmamoğlu’s jailing marks an “alarming intensification” of the abuse of vague anti-terror laws to persecute government critics. The cumulative effect is a chilling message to all Turks: any challenge to those in power can be met with crushing force, whether through imprisonment, career destruction, or other reprisals. Such conditions are antithetical to pluralistic democracy.
Yet, the public outcry over this incident also shows that many Turkish citizens have not given up on their democratic rights. Large crowds took to the streets in Istanbul, Ankara, and other cities to demand İmamoğlu’s release and decry what they called a “judicial coup,” even at personal risk. Opposition mayors in other cities, like Ankara’s CHP Mayor Mansur Yavaş, openly questioned the rule of law in Turkey after seeing their Istanbul colleague led away in handcuffs. This resilience suggests that while Erdoğan’s government can violate rights and concentrate power, it has not entirely extinguished the societal aspiration for democracy. However, unless there is a course correction, Turkey’s trajectory points toward entrenched authoritarianism, with elections that are increasingly nominal. The implications are dire: what was once a budding democracy and EU candidate country is now frequently mentioned alongside the world’s authoritarian regimes. Turkey’s own history, and Erdoğan’s own words from decades ago that “he who wins Istanbul wins Turkey”, underline the significance of the current moment: losing the democratic voice of Istanbul through forceful means could symbolize the loss of democracy in Turkey as a whole.
International Reactions and Ethical Foreign Policy Considerations
The sweeping arrests in Turkey have sparked widespread condemnation abroad, reflecting deep concern over Erdoğan’s authoritarian tactics. European leaders were among the most vocal. The EU’s top executive, Ursula von der Leyen, described İmamoğlu’s arrest as “deeply concerning,” stressing that “Turkey must uphold democratic values, especially the rights of elected officials.”
Germany’s government called the detentions a “serious setback for democracy” in Turkey, and France’s Foreign Ministry warned that “the arrests today could have heavy consequences on Turkish democracy.”
The Party of European Socialists (which includes many EU governing parties) condemned Erdoğan’s actions as “a full-scale attack on the democratic opposition and civil society in Turkey.”
Across the political spectrum in Europe, there is alarm that a NATO ally and EU applicant country is jailing its opposition en masse. Even the United Nations offered a cautious rebuke: the UN Secretary-General’s spokesperson urged Turkey to follow the “normal rules for due process” and Turkish law, implicitly questioning whether the judiciary was being misused for political ends.
Human rights organizations and democracy watchdogs have also sounded the alarm. Amnesty International demanded İmamoğlu’s immediate release and castigated Ankara for “weaponizing” anti-terror laws against political opponents. Human Rights Watch bluntly labeled the charges against İmamoğlu “politically motivated and bogus.”
Such groups note that this episode fits a longstanding pattern of repression in Turkey, and they have urged stronger international action in response. Prominent figures familiar with Turkey in the international community are calling this a breaking point. Nacho Sánchez Amor, the European Parliament’s rapporteur on Turkey, tweeted that he is following developments with “huge concern,” and warned that Turkey is headed toward “complete authoritarian state” status. His predecessor, former EP rapporteur Kati Piri, went further – calling İmamoğlu’s detention “a major leap towards full autocracy by Erdoğan’s regime” and urging the EU to impose “serious consequences” on Ankara for this breach. These voices reflect a growing sentiment in Europe that the usual statements of concern may no longer be sufficient, and that a tougher stance is required to defend democracy in Turkey.
An ethical foreign policy stance – one that prioritizes human rights and democratic principles – would push the international response beyond mere words. It would treat the crackdown in Turkey as unacceptable behavior that cannot be met with business as usual. For example, Malik Azmani, a Dutch MEP, stated that “these anti-democratic acts are absolutely unacceptable, especially for an EU candidate country,” underscoring that continued repression “erodes trust and creates obstacles for a stronger EU-Turkiye relationship.”
In practice, this could mean tying Turkey’s relationship with democratic nations to improvements in its political freedoms. Already, Turkey’s EU accession talks have been frozen for years over such concerns, and the European Parliament has even debated whether to formally suspend or end the process due to Turkey’s democratic backsliding. Beyond multilateral settings, individual countries with a values-driven foreign policy might respond to Erdoğan’s actions by downgrading diplomatic engagements, postponing high-level visits, or linking any future cooperation to the release of political prisoners and the reversal of authoritarian measures. The ethical argument is that NATO allies and trade partners should not turn a blind eye when a government systematically jails opponents and undermines the rule of law. As Amnesty’s deputy Europe director, Dinushika Dissanayake, noted, such crackdowns represent an “alarming intensification” of repression that the international community should not tolerate. At the same time, an ethical approach must grapple with realpolitik considerations. Turkey is strategically significant – a key NATO member, a partner in managing Middle East conflicts and migration flows – which has often led Western governments to temper their responses to Ankara’s rights abuses. Nonetheless, a truly principles-first foreign policy would argue that enduring partnerships can only be built on shared respect for basic democratic norms. Thus, international actors face a test of consistency: whether to prioritize strategic interests or stand firm on the democratic values they espouse. The chorus of condemnation from Europe and human rights groups suggests a growing willingness to at least consider more concrete action if Erdoğan continues on this path.
Potential Economic and Trade Responses by Other Nations
One potent set of tools available to nations with an ethical foreign policy is the use of economic and trade leverage to pressure Turkey. Erdoğan’s government is highly sensitive to Turkey’s economic stability – and the market turmoil that followed İmamoğlu’s arrest illustrates this vulnerability. In the immediate aftermath of the detentions, the Turkish lira’s value plunged by over 10% to record lows and Istanbul’s stock index dropped around 7-8%, triggering temporary trading halts. Investors clearly perceived the arrests as a sign of growing political risk and a potential return to unorthodox economic policies, undoing recent efforts to stabilize the economy. This market reaction hints at how international economic pressure could influence Ankara’s calculations. Friendly nations could capitalize on this by making clear that continued crackdowns will carry a financial price.
Potential economic and trade responses include
- Targeted Sanctions on Officials
Countries could impose travel bans and asset freezes on Turkish officials, judges, or security chiefs deemed responsible for human rights violations. For instance, sanctioning those involved in İmamoğlu’s prosecution or in past abuses (like the prolonged detention of Demirtaş and Kavala) would signal that there are personal consequences for undermining democratic rights. Such Magnitsky-style sanctions have been used by the EU, US, and UK against other authoritarian actors and would be a direct, ethical response to the crackdown.
- Suspension of Arms Sales and Security Cooperation
Several European states have in the past halted arms exports to Turkey over concerns such as its military operations in Syria. A nation committed to an ethical policy could similarly pause defense sales or joint exercises, on the grounds that Turkey’s internal repression violates the values of the alliance. This would put tangible pressure on Ankara by affecting a realm it cares about deeply (national defense), while also ensuring that foreign weaponry is not used to further oppress Turkish citizens.
- Trade and Investment Restrictions
Perhaps most significantly, countries (or blocs like the EU) could reconsider trade privileges. The EU, Turkey’s largest trading partner, might formally freeze the upgrade of the EU-Turkey Customs Union or even suspend certain preferential trade arrangements until democratic norms are restored. Similarly, individual nations could limit export credits, investment guarantees, or development loans to Turkey. Reducing tourism promotion or advising businesses to exercise caution in Turkey could also exert economic influence. The Renew Europe group in the European Parliament explicitly warned that systematic targeting of the opposition “creates obstacles for a stronger EU–Türkiye relation”, hinting that economic integration will not deepen under authoritarian conditions. In an extreme scenario, some have floated implementing tariffs or import restrictions on Turkish goods if crackdowns continue, though such measures would be unprecedented against a NATO ally.
- International Financial Leverage
Given Turkey’s need for foreign capital, ethical foreign policymakers could also work through international financial institutions. They might oppose new loans to Turkey from bodies like the World Bank or European Investment Bank on the basis of governance concerns. Private investors often take cues from political risk signals, so coordinated warnings or downgrades related to Turkey’s rule of law could prompt capital outflows that pressure Erdoğan to reconsider his approach.
Any move to curtail trade or apply sanctions must weigh potential drawbacks. Turkey’s leadership could respond defiantly, using external criticism to stoke nationalist sentiment. Erdoğan has in the past doubled down when facing foreign pressure, and he could seek alternative partners (like Russia or China) if Western nations isolate him. There is also the risk of harming ordinary Turks through broad economic measures. For these reasons, many allies have so far confined themselves to rhetoric over punishment. However, an ethical foreign policy argument holds that failing to act also has a cost – it emboldens Erdoğan’s government to continue eroding rights, and it betrays Turkish democrats who have looked to the outside world for solidarity. Stricter measures, especially if carefully targeted at the regime and its interests, could alter the cost-benefit calculation for Ankara. For example, when the United States previously imposed brief sanctions and tariffs in 2018 over the detention of an American pastor, it contributed to a sharp economic downturn that pressured Turkey to release him. Likewise, the sharp sell-off after İmamoğlu’s arrest shows that economic consequences can bite quickly. If key trading partners signaled willingness to reduce business ties unless political prisoners are freed and opposition rights respected, it could force Ankara to at least pause its repression to avoid further damage. In essence, countries that center ethics in foreign policy have an array of financial and commercial sticks at their disposal – and using them may be the strongest message they can send that democracy and human rights are non-negotiable.
The arrest of Istanbul’s mayor and dozens of opposition figures marks a culmination of President Erdoğan’s relentless crackdown on political dissent, pushing Turkey’s democracy to the brink. Under the guise of combating corruption and terrorism, Erdoğan’s government has progressively removed opposition voices from elected office, silenced independent media, and intimidated civil society. The pattern of purges, prosecutions, and legal manipulations – from jailing Kurdish leaders to annulling the candidacies of popular rivals – illustrates a systematic campaign to concentrate power. The implications for Turkey are profound: a country that once strived to join the European Union and uphold democratic standards is now characterized by growing authoritarianism, where elections risk becoming a formality without genuine competition or freedom.
Yet the massive public protests and the outrage expressed by opposition leaders show that many Turks are unwilling to surrender their democratic rights without a fight. Whether this domestic resistance can prevail is uncertain, especially under an environment of fear and repression. The trajectory of Turkey’s political system will depend in part on the resolve of its citizens to demand change, but also significantly on the stance of the international community. The strong condemnations from European and global figures are a welcome affirmation of democratic principles, but the coming months will test whether words are matched by deeds. Nations espousing an ethical foreign policy may need to move from statements of concern to concrete actions – leveraging diplomatic, economic, and legal tools – to support the Turkish people’s quest to preserve their democracy.
Turkey’s modern history has seen swings between authoritarian tendencies and democratic hope. The current crisis, triggered by Erdoğan’s most audacious power grab yet, is a decisive moment. If left unchecked, it will further entrench one-man rule and extinguish pluralism in a country of 85 million people. However, with sustained internal pressure and principled external engagement, there remains a possibility to reverse course. Ultimately, the fate of democracy in Turkey will send ripples beyond its borders – testing the international community’s commitment to uphold democratic values and challenging whether ethical considerations can prevail over strategic convenience. The arrest of Istanbul’s mayor is both a sobering lesson in how fragile democracy can be, and a rallying call to defend it before it’s too late.
Sources: Recent news reports, human rights analyses, and official statements have been used to compile this report.