Eroding Freedoms in Turkey: The İmamoğlu Protest Context

Abstract

This paper analyzes the developments following the March 2025 arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, within the framework of the concepts “rule of law” and “rule by law.” It examines the restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly, increasing pressures on freedom of expression, and the erosion of judicial independence—offering insights into the current state of Turkey’s constitutional order.

Introduction

The rule of law is a cornerstone of modern democracies. It ensures not only the existence of legal norms but also their alignment with justice, equality, and human rights. In contrast, the concept of “rule by law” emphasizes the mere existence and enforcement of laws, regardless of their fairness or legitimacy. Recent political and legal developments in Turkey vividly illustrate how the distinction between these two concepts plays out in practice.

The Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu and Its Aftermath

In March 2025, Ekrem İmamoğlu was detained and subsequently arrested on various charges, triggering widespread public reaction. Peaceful protests erupted in several cities but were banned by local authorities and forcefully dispersed by police, resulting in numerous detentions.

However, Article 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey guarantees the right of every individual to hold peaceful assemblies and demonstrations without prior permission. Furthermore, Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognize freedom of expression and assembly as fundamental rights.

Rule of Law or Rule by Law?

Not only the arrest of İmamoğlu but also the suppression of public dissent illustrates a clear deviation from the principles of the rule of law.

In a true rule-of-law state, fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by both constitutional provisions and international agreements, and the state cannot arbitrarily interfere with them. In a rule-by-law system, however, the state acts strictly according to the written law, which—if crafted under the influence of political power—can open the door to authoritarianism.

The widely shared phrase, “We were never truly a rule-of-law state, but now we are not even a rule-by-law state,” captures this transformation starkly. The arbitrary application of laws and systematic restrictions on fundamental freedoms not only jeopardize individual liberties but also undermine the legitimacy of the entire political regime.

Conclusion

The events following İmamoğlu’s arrest point to a serious erosion of the rule of law in Turkey, raising concerns about whether even the principle of rule by law remains intact.

The systematic curtailment of fundamental freedoms—particularly freedom of expression and assembly—is incompatible with the norms of a democratic society. Therefore, what is needed is not only the revision of legal texts but also a comprehensive reconstruction of legal culture in Turkey, which has become increasingly urgent and evident.