First, since the corruption was discovered, three ministers have resigned and Erdogan has replaced a total of ten cabinet ministers. Additionally, the police chiefs investigating the corruption charges have been removed and the prosecutor who started the case pacified. According to reports, anyone in the government bureaucracy who speaks against the government is being targeted, transferred, or pacified. Erdogan has also accused the higher council of prosecutors and judges, as well as the court of appeals, of being part of the conspiracy against him.
Second, to combat these authoritarian actions which undermine checks and balances, as well as political accountability, large crowds have taken to the streets – with the support and backing of Turkish opposition groups – to protest against the Erdogan regime.
I found these protests particularly interesting because two nations were involved in this scandal: Iran and Turkey. While the Erdogan regime and the Justice and Development Party had legitimacy (since they lawfully won in the previous elections), following the discoveries, the entire government is being challenged. In contrast, despite the vast institutional corruption in Iran, both related and unrelated to this case, there has not been a strong response from the Iranian population. This is despite the fact that the Turkish people have (at least so far) had a democratic mechanism (legal elections) that permits them to replace their government in the next election cycle, while the Iranians have no innocuous instruments for change.
I am aware that unlike the Khamenei regime, the government in Turkey does not greet its citizens with bullets; however, there is more to these protests (and lack thereof) than the way a government treats its citizenry. In the various reports I have read about this topic, onesentence in particular stood out to me, which I believe will go a long way in explaining the discrepancy between the two nations: “The current unrest in Turkey … is about the judiciary, citizens and civil -society actors performing the role of checks and balances against government transgressions.” To me, the most important difference between the two countries is the presence of civil society actors in Turkey, and the absence of them in Iran.
When Khatami was president, the Iranian people illustrated their collective intelligence and their ability to create and shape civil society and civil institutions. While at that time the founders, supporters, and promoters of those institutions were imprisoned or forced into exile, and those institutions destroyed, times have changed. Today we have a president who has promised change, hope, and moderation. This same president has emphasized the importance of citizens’ rights. A popularly elected official is only as strong as the support the electorate provides. While Rouhani may be seeking to strengthen civil society inside Iran, the electorate must also pressure his administration, as well as the entire government, to provide and guarantee the Iranian people their rights.