A Turkish court issued a prison sentence of two years, 7 months and 15 days, with deprivation of political rights, to the mayor of Istanbul, Akram Imamoglu, on charges of insulting the judiciary, which sparked an ongoing debate about the political and legal overlap in his case.

legal path

The Supreme Electoral Commission in Turkey had canceled the results of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality elections in 2019, and decided to return them after appeals filed by the ruling Justice and Development Party, following the victory of the candidate of the opposition Republican People's Party, Ekrem Imamoglu.

The run-off resulted in Imamoglu winning the mayoralty again, with a large difference from the victory he had achieved in the first round, reaching the limits of 800,000 votes for the candidate of the ruling party, Benali Yildirim.

In October of the same year, during his participation in the Conference of European Local and Regional Administrations in Strasbourg, Imamoglu criticized the decision to re-election, saying that it came under pressure from the Justice and Development Party for not accepting the loss.

In response to these criticisms, Turkish Interior Minister Suleiman Soylu said, directing his words to Imamoglu, "I say to the idiot who went to the European Parliament and complained about Turkey, that this people will make you pay for it."

In response to this statement, Imamoglu said, "Those who canceled the elections are fools." The Republican Public Prosecutor in Istanbul opened an investigation following a complaint submitted by the Supreme Elections Authority.

Legally, the verdict is still not confirmed or final. In cases of this kind in which the sentence is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of less than 5 years, the verdict needs to be confirmed by higher courts, appeal and cassation.

Therefore, Imamoglu will not go to prison and will not be prevented from practicing politics before completing the applicable legal steps that may end after the upcoming elections, including the appeal of Imamoglu’s lawyer, as well as the appeal of the Public Prosecutor who announced that he would object to the ruling and request a reconsideration of it due to errors he encountered in the case. Recitals.

political dimensions

Of course, the issued ruling has clear political dimensions and repercussions in addition to the legal aspect, because Imamoglu is an opposition political figure, and the case was brought against him because of a statement related to the elections, and he is the mayor of the largest and most important municipality in the country, and he is one of the potential candidates to compete with Erdogan in the upcoming presidential elections. Depriving him of his political rights means his exclusion from the mayoralty and his non-candidacy in the presidential elections.

It is noteworthy that the two sides of the political equation in the country exchanged - after the verdict - accusations of politicizing the case. The opposition claimed that the government was using the judiciary as a weapon against Imamoglu in "retaliation" for his defeat of the Justice and Development candidate in the municipal elections, while those affiliated with the opposition said that the decision aims to block the way for Imamoglu ran for the presidency.

On the other hand, leaders of the ruling party - led by President Erdogan - were keen to stress that the ruling is not final and could be overturned by higher courts, appeals and cassation, accusing Imamoglu and the opposition in general of exploiting the decision to achieve political gains.

The truth is that the issue has 3 political angles that may attend together, or some attend without the other, or exchange attendance according to the circumstances, and the political angles of view can determine the political outcome of the issue and answer the question of who is the winner and who benefits from it.

In the first place, there is no doubt that the case has a direct political impact on Imamoglu, in the event that the verdict is proven against him, as he will lose his position in the mayoralty, as well as his chance to run for the presidential elections.

Therefore, the opposition - especially the Republican People's Party - considered the government "retaliation" against Erdogan and the AKP for his defeat of their candidate.

The opposition was also keen to draw a comparison between Imamoglu and Erdogan, who was imprisoned in 1997 because of the poetic verses he said, from the angle that the two were tried politically for something they said and with the aim of obstructing their political path.

What reinforces this hypothesis among its adopters is that blocking Imamoglu enhances the chances of Kilicdaroglu's candidacy, which Erdogan views as the best candidate for him, as his chances are clearly less than the chances of the first, and the possibility of attacking him and harming him politically in the electoral campaign is greater for several reasons. Foremost among them are his numerous losses to Erdogan himself.

It is also reinforced by the statement of Interior Minister Suleiman Soylu that he will remove Imamoglu from the mayorship immediately if the Supreme Court confirms his sentence.

From a second angle, the judiciary's decision to revive the "table of six" opposition, after its presence declined over the past months due to disagreements that emerged among its members regarding the name of the consensual candidate, and other issues, in addition to the recent improvement in the popularity of Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party in opinion polls.

Therefore, the heads of the six opposition parties were keen to be present in front of the Istanbul municipality building with the protesters, and to hold a meeting of their hexagonal framework at Imamoglu's headquarters and in his presence, as a message of support, and an attempt to seize the opportunity to restore momentum to it.

The decision also revived Akram Imamoglu's chances of running for the presidency, after the head of his party, Kilicdaroglu, had completely closed the door in front of him with his desire to run and the powers he possesses within the party, despite the opposition of other parties.

It came to Imamoglu - as well as the mayor of Ankara, Mansur Yavas - to declare publicly that he supported Kilicdaroglu's candidacy for the presidency, in what was considered a final victory for the former over the latter.

As for after the decision, many believe that the popular momentum rejecting it is in favor of Imamoglu, and that the ruling party arranged for it out of fear of the possibility of his victory.

Therefore, many voices affiliated with the opposition have risen, calling for the necessity of his candidacy against Erdogan, after him being more capable than the head of his party in real competition and his chances of winning are higher, and it is expected that opinion polls will strengthen this idea in the foreseeable future.

And thirdly, the decision activated the differences and disagreements between the members of the table of six, deepening and exacerbating them, so the scene of unity and initial solidarity quickly gave way to insinuations, tacit disagreements, and direct bickering.

In his objection to the decision, the head of the Republican People's Party said that "no one can prevent Imamoglu from serving the people of Istanbul," in a clear indication of his desire to remain mayor, not to run for the presidency.

The response came from the head of the Good Party, who said that those who support Imamoglu today are not only 16 million (the population of Istanbul), but rather 85 million (the population of Turkey), in reference to her support for his candidacy for the presidency, which prompted Kilicdaroglu to warn her not to "interfere in the affairs of his inner party.

Later, Imamoglu himself entered the line of these exchanges, saying that he is "a player who can enter the match," intending to run for the elections "if the coach decides to join him," referring to his desire to run as well as his implicit retreat from the support of his party's leader, Kilicdaroglu.

Therefore, the Turkish president joked about what is happening between the three characters in particular, and the "table of six" in general, saying that they use the judicial decision in the "Game of Thrones".

Looking from this last angle, he says that if the decision was political, it may not aim at blocking Imamoglu's candidacy, but rather shuffling the cards within the opposition camp and fueling existing differences between the parties and leading figures in it, which is what its precursors seem to have started.

Accordingly, the opportunity for the mayor of Istanbul to run for the presidential elections from a legal angle is linked to the final decision of the Court of Cassation and the timing of its announcement of the ruling.

However, the political consideration seems to be more present here, in the context of the competition between the ruling party and the opposition, and in terms of differences between the opposition alike.

Perhaps the final decision of the judiciary may outweigh one political narrative over the other. If the verdict is confirmed and expedited before the election date, the idea of ​​blocking Imamoglu will be more present, while if the verdict is postponed for a long time or his innocence is declared, then the idea of ​​creating confusion and disagreements among the ranks of the opposition will be more convincing. If we accept the theory of complete politicization of the decision.

In any case, the final evaluation and the calculations of the political winner and loser from the decision will not be fully clear until the end of the electoral process, because the impact of the decision on the votes of the voters is the most important in the calculation and evaluation, regardless of whether Imamoglu or others are nominated.

This is because the “punitive vote” after a political event has been repeated many times in the modern political history of Turkey, several times in favor of Justice and Development, as in 2002 and the crisis of electing the President of the Republic in 2007 and after the failed coup in 2016, and against Justice and Development after the decision to cancel the result of the Istanbul Greater Municipality elections. in 2019.