Politics and Social Expectation in Türkiye: When Power Stops Convincing

Murat Yıldız

Politics in Türkiye is no longer sustained by symbolism, repetition, or ideological loyalty alone. It is being hollowed out by something quieter but more corrosive: the collapse of meritocracy as a credible organizing principle. What once passed as temporary deviation has become structural, and society is adjusting its expectations accordingly.

Michel Foucault argued that power endures not simply through coercion, but through its ability to organize norms—what is rewarded, what is punished, and what is considered “normal.” When merit ceases to be one of those norms, authority does not fall dramatically. It slowly stops convincing.

From Loyalty to Conditional Endurance

For years, political legitimacy in Türkiye rested on identity, protection, and polarization. But that framework depended on an implicit promise: that effort would still matter, that competence would still be recognized, that institutions—however imperfect—would retain a basic logic.

That promise is now widely doubted.

Citizens increasingly ask not who governs us, but why the same profiles keep rising regardless of performance. Loyalty has replaced qualification; proximity has overtaken competence. As a result, support has shifted from commitment to endurance—people tolerate power rather than believe in it.

This is not ideological opposition. It is rational disillusionment.

Merit as the Missing Link

The erosion of meritocracy explains much of today’s political fatigue. When appointments, promotions, contracts, and opportunities appear detached from ability or effort, society internalizes a dangerous lesson: nothing improves through work; everything depends on alignment.

This perception cuts across class and ideology. Whether in public institutions, academia, media, or the private sector, the sense that “who you know matters more than what you do” corrodes motivation and trust simultaneously.

Power may remain intact—but legitimacy quietly drains away.

Governance That Explains, But Rarely Corrects

In place of reform, governance increasingly offers explanation. Economic hardship is contextualized, institutional failure externalized, and systemic problems personalized. Yet the underlying issue—why competence is not rewarded—goes largely unaddressed.

Narrative becomes a substitute for correction. Performance is defended rather than measured. And accountability becomes selective.

This is where expectation breaks: society does not demand perfection, but it does demand fairness. When effort and outcome lose their connection, cynicism becomes rational.

Everyday Encounters with Non-Merit

Politics is not experienced in speeches. It is experienced in courts, schools, hospitals, and job applications. When rules are inconsistently applied, when credentials are devalued, when advancement feels arbitrary, citizens stop investing in institutions.

What emerges is not rebellion, but resignation. A belief that systems cannot be trusted to reward excellence—or even honesty.

This is fatal to governance, because institutions do not survive on fear alone. They survive on belief.

A Generation That Refuses the Game

Younger generations have accelerated this reckoning. They are less ideologically bound, more globally aware, and less willing to accept narratives that contradict experience.

They see peers abroad advance through transparent systems. At home, they encounter blocked paths and informal hierarchies. The conclusion they draw is simple: the system does not work for those who play by the rules.

Once this belief takes hold, political patience evaporates. Not into anger—but into disengagement, emigration, or quiet withdrawal.

Visibility Without Credibility

Social media has stripped away the last buffer. In a hyper-visible environment, inconsistency is exposed instantly. Meritless elevation cannot be hidden. Failure is no longer abstract—it is documented.

In this setting, authority that lacks competence is not merely criticized; it is mocked, ignored, or bypassed. Power that cannot justify itself through results becomes performative.

And performance without substance breeds contempt.

Stability Without Merit Is Not Stability

Power continues to invoke stability as its core justification. But stability that freezes inequality, protects incompetence, and rewards loyalty over skill is not stability—it is stagnation.

Society increasingly rejects this version of order. What it demands is not chaos or upheaval, but fairness, competence, and predictable rules.

Without meritocracy, even stability loses meaning.

The Quiet Withdrawal of Consent

Foucault understood that power does not always fall through confrontation. Sometimes it simply loses its audience. Consent is not revoked loudly; it is withdrawn silently.

People comply, but they no longer care. They endure, but they stop believing. And belief—once lost—cannot be restored through rhetoric or discipline.

A Hard Conclusion

The crisis of social expectation in Türkiye is, at its core, a crisis of merit. As long as competence remains secondary to alignment, and effort remains disconnected from reward, no narrative will restore legitimacy.

Power may persist. Authority may endure.

But without meritocracy, governance loses its moral grammar.

And when society internalizes that lesson, the outcome is not immediate collapse—but irreversible erosion.