Ahead of a congressional hearing on Turkey’s democratic deterioration scheduled for Wednesday, written testimonies obtained by Kathimerini paint a bleak picture of political freedoms, judicial independence, minority rights and democratic governance under the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s leadership.

The hearing, organized by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, is titled “Can Turkey Find Its Way Back to Freedom? Authoritarian Consolidation versus the Defense of Turkish Democracy,” will feature Henri Barkey, an adjunct senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Michael Rubin, the director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Serkan Golge, a former political prisoner and NASA scientist.

Together, the testimonies depict a country that has moved beyond democratic backsliding toward consolidating a highly centralized system of rule. In this system, political opposition faces mounting judicial pressure, media freedoms continue to erode, and key state institutions have become increasingly subordinate to the presidency’s priorities.

Henri Barkey’s testimony will focus on what he describes as Turkey’s gradual transformation into a system of personalized rule.

“What has emerged in Turkey over the past decade,” he is expected to tell lawmakers, “is not merely democratic backsliding. It is a system of personal rule that is increasingly organized around the political survival, preferences, and priorities of one man: President Erdogan.”

According to Barkey, the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoglu in March 2025 is the clearest manifestation of this transformation.

Imamoglu, widely viewed as the strongest challenger to Erdogan in the opposition, was detained on the day the Republican People’s Party was set to nominate him as its presidential candidate.

Barkey argues that the multiple criminal investigations and prosecutions against the mayor constitute “the most aggressive use of prosecutorial power against electoral competition in the history of the Turkish Republic.”

The CFR scholar contends that Erdogan has concluded that he can no longer risk a genuinely competitive election. “After 23 years in power,” Barkey says, “he has exceeded his political shelf life. He cannot risk a free and fair election because he would almost certainly lose.”

Barkey also points to what he describes as judicial intervention within the CHP. He argues that court rulings challenging the legitimacy of the party’s leadership election were intended to create confusion and conflict within the opposition ahead of future elections. More broadly, he traces the consolidation of executive power back to the aftermath of the failed coup attempt in July 2016.

According to him, over 150,000 public servants were removed from their positions during the state of emergency that followed, and approximately 4,400 judges and prosecutors were dismissed from the judiciary. He argues that their replacements entered a system in which career advancement became increasingly dependent on political loyalty.

The consequences, Barkey says, are visible in several high-profile cases.

He highlights the continued imprisonment of businessman and civil society activist Osman Kavala, despite rulings by the European Court of Human Rights calling for Kavala’s release. Barkey also points to the detention of Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş despite similar rulings from Strasbourg. He also cites the case of Can Atalay, whose continued imprisonment has generated an unprecedented institutional confrontation between Turkey’s Constitutional Court and Court of Cassation.

While Barkey focuses primarily on Turkey’s internal transformation, Michael Rubin places considerable responsibility on Washington itself.

“The human rights situation in Turkey has worsened considerably over the past year,” writes Rubin, “for two interrelated reasons.” The first, he says, is Erdogan’s determination to preserve power. The second is the perception in Ankara that the United States no longer intends to impose costs for democratic abuses. Rubin is particularly critical of the Trump administration and US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack. “Tom Barrack’s see-no-evil embrace of Erdogan is giddying,” Rubin writes.

He argues that senior American officials’ failure to publicly challenge developments such as the legal campaign against CHP leader Özgür Özer or the prosecution of opposition figures sends a dangerous signal. “Washington silence,” he warns, “signals to other would-be dictators that they can act on their ambitions.” Rubin sees a direct line connecting the imprisonment of Selahattin Demirtaş in 2016 to the detention of Ekrem İmamoğlu nearly a decade later. The muted international response to Demirtaş’s arrest convinced Erdoğan that he could remove political rivals without suffering meaningful diplomatic consequences. Rubin portrays Imamoglu as a unique threat to Erdogan because Imamoglu represents a political alternative and proof that the opposition can repeatedly defeat the ruling party despite institutional obstacles.

According to Rubin, religious incitement and nationalist revisionism have reached levels unseen since the Armenian and Pontic Greek genocides. He claims that international tolerance of denialism creates the conditions for future intolerance and persecution. He praises former President Joe Biden’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide and criticizes efforts to downplay historical responsibility. He argues that the United States should play a much more active role in defending the rights of Christian minorities and safeguarding communal properties. Specifically, he calls for the return of churches, schools, and communal assets to Armenian and Greek communities. He also proposes stronger measures if Turkey continues to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. “If Turkey will not allow the Greek community to appoint its own clergy without interference,” he writes, “the United States should respond with sanctions.” Rubin suggests establishing international mechanisms to protect and manage major religious sites, including Hagia Sophia, the Monastery and Church of the Zoodochos Peghe, and the Halki Theological School.

Rubin argues that anti-Semitic rhetoric has become increasingly prevalent in Turkish political discourse and the media. He warns that normalizing such narratives could create a hostile environment for Turkey’s Jewish community, drawing parallels with historical examples of anti-Semitic incitement. “I do not say this lightly,” he writes. “The time has come for Jews to leave Turkey for the sake of their lives and safety.”

Rubin’s testimony also contains an extensive discussion of the Kurdish issue. While he acknowledges that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) engaged in violence during the height of its insurgency, Rubin argues that the organization evolved politically over time. He points to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria—often referred to as Rojava—as evidence of that evolution. According to Rubin, the PKK’s decision in May 2025 to lay down its arms and dissolve itself represented a historic opportunity for peace. Instead of responding with reforms, he argues, Ankara interpreted the move as a victory and failed to address the grievances that fueled the conflict.

Serkan Golge will bring the most human dimension to the hearing. Unlike Barkey and Rubin, Golge does not offer a geopolitical analysis. Instead, he will recount his experience as an American citizen imprisoned in Turkey after the 2016 coup attempt. A NASA scientist visiting Turkey with his family, Golge was arrested on accusations linked to alleged ties to the Gülen movement. According to his testimony, the evidence used against him included legal activities with  no connection to violence or terrorism. His lawyer summed up the situation with a phrase Golge says he has never forgotten: “Serkan, you fit the profile.” Golge argues that post-coup prosecutions often followed a pattern in which authorities first identified a suspect and then assembled evidence. In his case, prosecutors cited his university education, lawful bank account, telephone contacts, travel history, one-dollar bill, and NASA identification badge. “None of these proved violence,” he says. “None proved terrorism.” For Golge, the lesson extends beyond his personal experience. “This case is not about Serkan Golge,” he writes. “It is about what happens when fear replaces law.”

Source: Ekathimerini.com