President Erdoğan emerged victorious both in election and in media
Last weekend, Türkiye conducted a historic presidential election runoff between two candidates, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emerged victorious. During the lead-up to the election, Western media used vulgar language in its futile campaign against President Erdoğan. While some companies shifted their narrative, some still hold on to a vocabulary full of hatred.
Before the presidential election this May, most Western media outlets denounced President Erdoğan for being an autocrat who would do everything to stay in power.
The libel that was going on practically in the entirety of the Western world could not affect the Turkish voters, however.
The average voter did not give in to the defamation campaign. The ballots were cast with foreign influence in mind.
In the end, Turkish voters followed democratic principles during and after the voting processes held on the 14th and the 28th of May. Notable political figures, including President Erdoğan, congratulated the peaceful manners of the procedure.
Yet, according to the fear-mongering Western media, the elections would produce all kinds of instability in a Türkiye “under authoritarian rule.”
IMPERTINENT CLAIMS
Some media outlets still blab with a similar discourse, perpetuating ridiculous claims that democracy will die, despotism will increase, social cleavages will deepen, and so on.
Kareem Fahim from the Washington Post and Joshua Askew from Euronews constitute examples of the journalists who claim Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s victory will cause the divisions in society to grow deeper.
Considering the status quo has not changed drastically over the last 20 years, such claims prove to be nothing but ridiculous.
President Erdoğan also said, “This is the victory of 85 million,” while celebrating his four-percentage-point victory in İstanbul, meaning he seeks to unite the long-divided population.
The Economist had carried to its headlines expressions such as “Save democracy!”, “If Turkey sacks its strongman, democrats everywhere should take heart,” and “Turkey could be on the brink of dictatorship” before the election day.
After the first round, the British newspaper seemingly changed its tune slightly, predicting that contender Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s nationalist campaign was “doomed to fail” and that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was “the favorite” to win the presidential elections.
Albeit, newer articles published on the website show that the contrary is still valid. In an article written on the 28th of May, the Economist shared an article titled, “Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is re-elected as Turkey’s president: The best chance in a decade to repair its democracy is lost.”
The Economist is not the only news outlet that allocates place for such views. Ishan Tharoor from the Washington Post penned an article with the words, “[President] Erdoğan becomes an era-defining electoral autocrat” on its title.
Kamuran Samar and Joshua Askew from Euronews also argued that President Erdoğan will look to “tighten his grip on power even further.”
Even though most media outlets prefer publicizing writings that are more neutral on the topic, some, like these, choose to pick a side.
Media outlets and writers that prefer to look at the event from a more neutral standing point tend to analyze the country’s future from an economic and diplomatic perspective.
The most thought-provoking issues in these waters are the living cost crisis, inflation and interest rates, Sweden’s NATO application, and speculations on how Ankara might shape its diplomacy.
On the other hand, some outlets mounted themselves against President Erdoğan directly and applied intensive publishing strategies aimed at skewing voter choice. To their surprise, it did not work.
The libel campaigns purported by such media outlets focused on, like in the name, smearing Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Again, unforeseen by them, their intentions found no response in Turkish society.
Mansur Ali Bilgiç - 30/05/2023