Turkey’s cautionary tale: The fall of the courts is the fall of freedom 

When Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu — widely seen as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s most formidable political rival — was arrested at his home on flimsy corruption charges, Turkey entered a new and dangerous phase in its long democratic unravelling. His detention, followed by mass protests, violent crackdowns, and the arrest of demonstrators and journalists, is the natural outcome of years of democratic backsliding — which began with the dismantling of judicial independence. 

Turkey’s descent is not just Turkey’s problem, and it’s not just inconvenient because Turkey is large and important, but is a fundamental warning about political systems. The architecture of liberal democracy — checks and balances, independent courts, protected rights — doesn’t dismantle itself overnight. It is chipped away, often in full view of the public, under the pretense of “majority rule.” It happens gradually, even legally, until suddenly a country that holds elections no longer holds power to account. 

The signs of democratic backsliding, always with the freedom of the courts politicized or threatened, are visible in many countries once thought immune — most prominently at present in Israel, Hungary … and the United States. 

Once that’s successful, as it’s been in Erdogan’s Turkey, leaders feel free to arrest political rivals on trumped up charges. The next step from this stage — which we might call fake democracy — is full dictatorship. Then, as occurred in Russia, Vladimir Putin’s rival Alexei Navalny turns up dead in a gulag.

A clarification is needed, since the term liberal democracy is often misunderstood in America. “Liberal,” in this context, has nothing to do with left-wing politics or partisan ideology. It comes from the classical tradition of liberty: a system where power is restrained through law, minority rights are protected, and the elected government is not all-powerful. Even the democratically elected cannot do whatever they please. 

So courts are empowered to strike down laws, bureaucrats are protected from political purges and journalists can investigate the state. These are core when democracy is defined not merely as majority rule but constrained majority rule, in which each citizen, not just the majority, has rights that cannot be voted away.  

Obviously, there is a legitimate and complicated question about how to appoint the gatekeepers.  

It cannot be political, else judges become politicians elected by the same majority that needs constraining. But if it’s just professional elites deciding, this gives rise to criticism. Each country has different systems, and America’s is actually quite political, with politicians confirming judges and some justice system positions being directly elected; what makes it tolerable is the very robust constitution.  

I have concluded that this is a zone of life where so-called elitism is essential. 

Now the principle of constraints on power is under assault. A growing number of political leaders have recast it as illegitimate, presenting anything they do as “the will of the people.” Why should courts protect the rights of minorities the majority dislikes? Why should the media be allowed to scrutinize the elected leadership? 

This populist logic is seductive but toxic. History teaches that it’s the beginning of the end. 

Take Turkey. Erdogan was elected and did some good things, such as implementing needed economic reforms and combating corruption. But he came to see institutions as impediments and turned ever more authoritarian. After a failed military coup in 2016, he used the moment to purge the judiciary, fire thousands of judges and appoint loyalists across the system. Thousands of academics, civil servants and journalists were also jailed or exiled. 

A 2017 referendum, narrowly passed in a subtly engineered environment with the government directly or indirectly controlling major media, gave Erdogan vast new powers, consolidating executive control. Courts ceased to be a check, opponents faced politically motivated trials, and critical media was shut down or brought under state control. 

With Imamoglu’s arrest, we see the flowering of this process. The charge sheet is absurd: running a criminal organization, accepting bribes, rigging bids. It’s transparently political, and effective. The leading challenger is behind bars, his supporters are being beaten in the streets and the domesticated judiciary offers no protection. 

The costs to Turkey are immense. The economy has cratered. The lira has lost over 80 percent of its value since 2018. Inflation is rampant, foreign investment paltry and tourism declining. The dream of EU membership, once a cornerstone, has collapsed; Brussels cannot admit a country that jails mayors and crushes free expression. The machinery of elections grinds on, giving a veneer of legitimacy to an essentially despotic government. 

This should give pause to anyone who believes that voting alone is the bedrock of freedom. The Greeks knew better. Plato warned that unrestrained democracy could quickly collapse into tyranny. Aristotle argued that the best states combined democratic and elite elements — balancing popular power with the wisdom of the few. 

In the modern era, that “aristocratic” element is the judiciary. Judges must be trained, impartial and independent. That means they must not be chosen by popular vote, nor by partisan leaders seeking enforcers. Judicial independence requires distance from both the crowd and the politician. Judges’ legitimacy comes not from popularity but from principle. 

This is an uncomfortable truth in populist times. Many bristle at the idea of “unelected judges” making decisions. But the alternative is worse. If judges become politicians in robes, swayed by opinion or party loyalty, the last line of defense against tyranny disappears. 

Even in the United States — whose Constitution is stronger than most — the pressures are mounting. The Supreme Court is now perceived by many as a partisan institution, and confirmation battles have become proxy wars. That’s terrible. 

Once the courts fall, nothing stands between the ruler and the ruled. Laws become tools of power. Elections become theater. Rights become conditional. And the people find that their will no longer matters. Be careful what you wish for. 

Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.