Muslim World Report

Are Free Elections in Turkey and Hungary Truly Fair?

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 19, 2025 10:50 AM | 19 min read | 3930 words

TL;DR: The electoral integrity in Turkey and Hungary is under serious threat due to systemic inequalities, media bias, and authoritarian practices. This article explores the implications of these trends for democracy, civic engagement, and international relations, highlighting the urgent need for reforms and global awareness to foster genuine democratic practices.

The Complex Relationship Between Free and Fair Elections: A Global Perspective

In recent years, the debate surrounding the nature of electoral processes—particularly in authoritarian-leaning democracies such as Turkey and Hungary—has intensified. While the electoral systems in these nations may appear procedurally sound, marked by the ability of citizens to cast their votes, they are often marred by systemic inequities that undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process. This phenomenon echoes the adage, “Just because you can vote, doesn’t mean you have a choice.” For instance, in Hungary, the government has systematically altered electoral laws and district boundaries to favor the ruling party, creating an illusion of competition while effectively stifling genuine opposition. These tactics illustrate a broader trend observed in various global contexts, where the act of voting becomes less about empowering the electorate and more about maintaining the status quo. How can we claim to uphold democratic values when the very processes designed to empower citizens are manipulated to entrench power?

Key Issues:

  • Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s administration, especially its reaction to the shocking defeat of his party in Istanbul’s local elections in 2019, raises crucial questions about the true nature of democratic participation. One might liken this situation to a runner who, after losing a race by a hair’s breadth, claims a sprained ankle and demands a rematch on different terms—what does that reveal about their commitment to fair competition?
  • The annulment of local elections, justified by cited fraud, exposes the fragility of electoral integrity when state control distorts democratic processes (Bishop & Hoeffler, 2016).

In Turkey, the electoral system, while ostensibly safeguarded against fraud, is characterized by significant imbalances. Electorates may have the technical ability to vote, but the scales are overwhelmingly tilted in favor of the ruling party due to:

  • State resources
  • Pervasive media bias
  • Lack of an independent judiciary

The 2019 local elections serve as a poignant illustration: Erdoğan’s party lost by a mere 0.13 percentage points, yet the elections were annulled and rerun. In the subsequent election, the opposition won decisively by a 9% margin—a clear signal that voters were not convinced by the government’s claims of electoral malfeasance. This incident underscores the complexity of defining what constitutes a free election in contexts where genuine democratic engagement is suffocated by systemic inequalities (Elklit & Svensson, 1997). Just as a bird trapped in a cage may appear to have the freedom to fly, the reality of democratic voice in Turkey is confined by the very structures that should empower it.

The Global Landscape of Electoral Integrity

The erosion of electoral integrity is not confined to Turkey. Globally, the principles of free elections face unprecedented challenges, akin to a ship navigating through treacherous waters without a compass. Practices such as gerrymandering in the United States exemplify this perilous journey, where electoral maps are strategically manipulated to favor specific political parties (Hohe, 2002). Notably, in Wisconsin, electoral districting allows for a 50/50 statewide vote yet results in substantial overrepresentation of one party in the legislature. This phenomenon raises a critical question: how can a system that appears to give equal voice actually lead to such distorted outcomes? Such dynamics demonstrate that merely casting votes does not equate to fair representation—it is a reminder that the façade of democracy can obscure systemic inequities. As articulated by Fareed Zakaria (1997), the global landscape witnesses a disturbing rise of “illiberal democracies,” where democratically elected regimes routinely ignore constitutional limits on power and deprive citizens of basic rights and freedoms. Just as a well-worn path can lead us astray, so too can the structures intended to uphold democracy when they are compromised by manipulation and corruption.

Importance of Understanding Free and Fair Elections:

  • Inclusion: Understanding what constitutes a truly free and fair election becomes paramount in fostering genuinely inclusive democratic practices. Just as a well-tended garden flourishes when every plant receives the sunlight and nutrients it needs, a democracy thrives when every voice is represented and heard.
  • Global Impact: Questions regarding electoral integrity and legitimacy resonate within and beyond national borders, influencing international relations and global governance (Risse, 1995). Historically, the aftermath of elections perceived as illegitimate—such as in the case of the disputed 2000 U.S. presidential election—has shown how fragile trust in democratic processes can be. When the integrity of elections is in doubt, it can lead to instability not only within a nation but also in international alliances and partnerships. What does it say about a country’s commitment to democracy when its elections are marred by allegations of fraud and manipulation?

Future Implications for Turkey and Hungary

If Turkey and Hungary persist with their current electoral practices, the ramifications will resonate deeply, both domestically and globally. Much like the historical cases of Venezuela and Hungary under Viktor Orbán, where democratic backsliding led to increased authoritarianism and disillusionment among citizens, these nations could witness a similar trajectory. The erosion of electoral integrity may not only stifle political debate but also provoke widespread civil unrest, as seen in the protests that erupted in Turkey in 2013 over government policies. Additionally, the implications for international relations could mirror the isolation faced by nations that have strayed from democratic norms, resulting in sanctions or loss of investment. As we reflect on these scenarios, we might ask: are we witnessing the dawn of a new era of authoritarianism in Europe, or can these nations still pivot towards a more democratic future?

Domestic Ramifications:

  1. Entrenched Authoritarianism: The continued erosion of democratic norms could solidify authoritarianism, akin to the rise of regimes in the 20th century, where democracy’s decline often precedes widespread civil liberties violations and the suppression of dissent. Historical examples, like the establishment of totalitarian states in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, show how fragile democracies can rapidly devolve into oppressive regimes when democratic institutions are undermined (Chestnut Greitens, 2020).
  2. Manipulation of Public Discourse: Leaders like Erdoğan and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán may reshape democratic institutions to entrench their power, much like wolves in sheep’s clothing, presenting themselves as protectors of the nation while systematically marginalizing dissenting voices. This manipulation of public discourse reflects a broader trend in which authoritarian leaders exploit political crises to justify their actions and consolidate control, raising questions about the resilience of democratic foundations in the face of such tactics (Chestnut Greitens, 2020).
  • This trajectory reflects a global trend of authoritarian backsliding reminiscent of the early 20th century, when rising autocratic regimes in Europe instigated a wave of instability that ultimately led to widespread conflict. Just as the fall of democratic institutions in Germany and Italy emboldened neighboring dictatorships, today’s climate could catalyze a domino effect undermining democratic processes in surrounding countries (Dresden & Howard, 2015).
  • Authoritarianism may nurture disillusionment among citizens, creating a breeding ground for unrest and potentially escalating into civil conflict. For instance, the Arab Spring highlighted how long-simmering frustrations can ignite when repression meets a restless populace, serving as a stark reminder of the volatile consequences when democratic aspirations clash with authoritarian rule (Patel & Wahman, 2015).

International Relations:

  • Democratic nations may face difficult choices regarding engagement with Hungary and Turkey, balancing strategic interests with the promotion of human rights and democratic values. This scenario mirrors the complexities faced by Western democracies during the Cold War, when they often had to prioritize geopolitical stability over promoting liberal values in authoritarian states.
  • As Hungary and Turkey seek alliances with like-minded authoritarian regimes, diplomatic ties may fray, akin to the way a fraying rope ultimately gives way under tension. This shift could significantly undermine global efforts to uphold democratic norms and human rights, prompting us to consider: how much compromise is acceptable in the pursuit of strategic partnerships, and at what point do we abandon our foundational principles? (Foa & Mounk, 2017).

Potential for Major Power Intervention

Should major global powers—such as the United States and the European Union—decide to intervene diplomatically in the electoral processes of Turkey and Hungary, the consequences could be both advantageous and detrimental. Historically, interventions in sovereign electoral processes have had mixed results. For instance, the U.S. involvement in Latin American elections during the Cold War often aimed to curb communism but frequently led to long-term instability and distrust among local populations. This raises an important question: could similar interventions in Turkey and Hungary unintentionally sow the seeds of resentment rather than democracy? As we contemplate the potential ramifications, it’s crucial to weigh the delicate balance between promoting democratic values and respecting national sovereignty.

Advantages of Intervention:

  • Restoration of Democratic Norms: Just as the post-World War II Marshall Plan aimed to rebuild war-torn European nations and restore democratic governance, international pressure today can similarly compel nations facing authoritarianism to reinstate democratic norms. Historical examples show that targeted interventions can lead to meaningful political change, suggesting a path forward for troubled states (Cohen, 2015).
  • Support for Civil Society: Think of civil society organizations as the bedrock of democracy, where a vibrant civil society acts much like a healthy immune system—boosting resilience against authoritarianism. By implementing sanctions and diplomatic initiatives, as seen during the Arab Spring, the international community can foster this resilience, providing critical support for groups that champion democratization (Cohen, 2015).

Disadvantages of Intervention:

  • Backlash Against External Meddling: Such interventions might galvanize nationalistic sentiments, reinforcing support for authoritarian leaders who frame criticism as an affront to sovereignty. Historical examples abound; for instance, the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 led to a surge in nationalist sentiment that empowered groups opposing foreign influence (Hernández-Huerta & Cantú, 2021). This phenomenon begs the question: could the act of intervention inadvertently bolster the very regimes it seeks to undermine?
  • Increased Divisions: Competing narratives regarding democracy, sovereignty, and governance could exacerbate societal divisions, akin to throwing a lit match into a barrel of gunpowder. Just as the Civil War in the United States was fueled by deep-seated disagreements over states’ rights and federal authority, so too can intervention create rifts that fracture communities rather than unite them.

Strategic Approaches:

A nuanced approach requires engaging with the socio-political contexts of Turkey and Hungary while fostering genuine dialogue instead of coercive tactics (Cooley, 2015). Just as a skilled diplomat navigates the intricate dance of international relations, balancing interests and values without forcing the tempo, so must we approach these nations by understanding their unique histories and social fabrics. For instance, recalling the Ottoman Empire’s legacy in Turkey and the enduring influence of Hungary’s dual monarchy in the Austro-Hungarian Empire can provide invaluable insights into contemporary political dynamics. How can we cultivate genuine partnerships that honor these complex histories, rather than impose strategies that may echo past conflicts?

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

Given the complexities of electoral landscapes in Turkey and Hungary, all parties—governments, opposition factions, civil society organizations, and international stakeholders—must consider strategic maneuvers to navigate this terrain. Just as a skilled chess player anticipates their opponent’s moves and adapts their strategy accordingly, each participant in these democratic processes must evaluate the shifting dynamics and potential alliances. For instance, in the 2010 Hungarian elections, the opposition capitalized on public discontent with the ruling party’s handling of the economy, effectively shifting voter sentiment and altering the course of the election. This illustrates how understanding the larger context and public sentiment can provide critical leverage in electoral contests. How might current players apply similar lessons from historical shifts to influence the outcome of future elections?

Government Strategies:

  • Reassess Political Strategies: Governments must enhance transparency in electoral processes to rebuild trust and counter accusations of authoritarianism, much like the post-Watergate reforms in the United States, which aimed to restore public confidence after a significant breach of trust (Ambrosio, 2008). Just as those reforms sought to shine a light on political processes, contemporary governments should consider what steps can be taken to ensure that citizens feel empowered and informed. Could implementing regular audits and public disclosures become the new norm, fostering an environment where transparency is not just an obligation but a valued practice?

Opposition Strategies:

  • Foster Coalitions: Opposition groups should unify diverse political factions and advocate for a shared vision of democratic governance. Just as the disparate tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy formed a united front to enhance their political power and influence, modern opposition must seek common ground to strengthen their position against authoritarian regimes.
  • Grassroots Movements: Innovative use of social media can amplify voices that challenge state narratives, mobilizing citizens toward collective action (Duffy, 2002). Similar to the way the Arab Spring leveraged social networks to ignite widespread protests, the strategic use of digital platforms can turn individual frustrations into a powerful chorus for change. How can we ensure that these movements sustain momentum beyond initial successes?

International Stakeholder Approaches:

  • Support Civil Society: Engaging with civil society organizations and grassroots movements in Turkey and Hungary can yield sustainable outcomes, much like the way nonviolent movements in Eastern Europe during the late 20th century led to the fall of authoritarian regimes. The solidarity and organization of civil society can serve as a persistent force for change, just as the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrated in the 1980s.
  • Promote Democratic Values: Investments in independent media and civic education can empower citizens without inflaming nationalist sentiments (Miller et al., 1994). This approach mirrors the post-World War II reconstruction period, when initiatives to foster democratic literacy in war-torn societies laid the groundwork for lasting stability. By nurturing informed citizenry, international stakeholders can help cultivate an environment where democratic values thrive rather than succumb to the allure of divisive nationalism.

The Global Context of Electoral Integrity

Understanding the electoral dynamics in Turkey and Hungary demands an examination of the broader global context. The challenges faced by these countries are indicative of a worldwide crisis of democratic legitimacy, reminiscent of the tumultuous periods in history when democracies faltered, such as during the rise of fascism in the 20th century. Today, we witness:

  • Populist Movements: Rising populism fueled by economic discontent and misinformation has strained democracies, much like the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, which gave rise to authoritarian regimes as disillusioned citizens sought simple solutions to complex problems.
  • Global Patterns: Governments worldwide consolidate power and manipulate electoral processes, employing tactics that range from overt fraud to subtle coercion. For example, in the early 2000s, Venezuela experienced significant electoral distortions under Hugo Chávez, as state resources were used to sway public opinion and undermine opposition.

As we reflect on these historical precedents, one must ask: are we witnessing a cyclical pattern in the decline of democratic integrity, or is this a uniquely modern crisis that requires a new set of solutions?

Global Case Studies:

  • Latin America: Brazil showcases how leaders exploit populism to dismantle institutions while garnering public support. This mirrors the experience of Argentina in the early 2000s, where populist leaders capitalized on economic crises, promising salvation while often eroding democratic norms.
  • Europe: The rise of far-right populist parties challenges traditional political parties and threatens liberal democracy—particularly in Hungary and Poland. This situation is reminiscent of the interwar period in Europe, where economic instability and societal discontent created fertile ground for authoritarian regimes, prompting us to ask: Are we witnessing a repeat of history, or can modern democracies withstand this rising tide?

The Interplay of Domestic and International Factors

The interplay between domestic and international factors presents a complex environment for Turkey and Hungary, much like a tightly woven tapestry where each thread influences the overall design. For instance, consider how Turkey’s internal political dynamics, such as government stability and public sentiment, can significantly affect its foreign policy. Similarly, Hungary’s approach to the European Union is deeply intertwined with its domestic politics, illustrating the delicate balance leaders must maintain. This complexity is akin to navigating a ship through turbulent waters, where the currents of domestic affairs can either propel the vessel forward or lead it astray, impacting not only the countries involved but also their relationships with global powers (Smith, 2021; Johnson, 2020). How might these intricate factors shape the future of diplomatic relations in the region?

Local Context:

  • Historical grievances and socio-economic conditions shape political landscapes, much like the roots of a tree that influence its growth and stability. For instance, the post-colonial struggles faced by many African nations have left deep scars that still affect their governance and economic policies today (Smith, 2020). Moreover, in the United States, systemic inequalities stemming from centuries of racial discrimination continue to manifest in socio-economic disparities, affecting political engagement and representation (Jones, 2019). How can societies move forward when the weight of the past is still so heavily felt?

International Influence:

  • Global tensions and shifting priorities create both opportunities and challenges for authoritarian regimes. Just as a ship navigates turbulent waters, these leaders must steer through crises to maintain their course. For instance:
    • Erdoğan has leveraged regional conflicts, much like a mariner using winds to sail more swiftly, to bolster domestic legitimacy (Güler, 2020). This strategic maneuvering demonstrates how volatile international dynamics can be harnessed to strengthen internal power.
    • Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” appeals to nationalist sentiments while aligning with non-democratic regimes, reminiscent of a chameleon adapting its colors to blend into its environment. This ability to reshape political identity in response to external pressures highlights the adaptability of authoritarian governance in times of uncertainty.

Are these leaders merely reacting to global upheaval, or are they actively shaping it to fortify their regimes?

The Role of Civil Society and Grassroots Movements

One critical component in reviving democracy in Turkey and Hungary lies within civil society and grassroots movements. Historically, civil society has played an instrumental role in advocating for democratic rights and holding governments accountable. For instance, the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe during the late 20th century was largely fueled by grassroots movements that mobilized citizens to demand change, showcasing how collective action can alter the course of nations. Just as the Solidarity movement in Poland rallied workers and intellectuals alike to challenge oppressive regimes, today’s civil society organizations in Turkey and Hungary are striving to cultivate civic engagement and resist authoritarian tendencies. Can history repeat itself, and will these modern-day movements be the catalyst for a new wave of democracy in these nations?

Challenges and Adaptation:

  • Many organizations in Turkey face systematic crackdowns post-2016 coup attempt, yet vibrant pockets of resistance remain, reminiscent of the resilience seen in Eastern European nations during the fall of communism, where grassroots movements rose to challenge oppressive regimes.
  • In Hungary, civil society adapts strategies to unite against Orbán’s regime, focusing on local issues like education and healthcare (Lendvai-Bainton, 2018). This effort echoes the adage, “Think globally, act locally,” as these activists recognize the importance of addressing immediate community needs to build a broader coalition against authoritarianism. How might the lessons learned from these historical movements inform current strategies for resistance in other countries facing similar challenges?

Mobilization Strategies:

  • Grassroots movements can leverage technology and social media, providing spaces for free expression while engaging younger demographics. Just as the Civil Rights Movement used radio and television to amplify its message and mobilize support in the 1960s, today’s activists harness platforms like Twitter and Instagram to reach vast audiences instantly. This evolution in communication not only democratizes information dissemination but also encourages participation from a generation that thrives on connectivity. Are we witnessing a modern-day equivalent of the “town square,” where ideas can spread rapidly and foster collective action, or is this digital space merely a fleeting trend that lacks the permanence of historical movements?

Implications for Global Governance

The challenges faced by Turkey and Hungary echo the historical struggles of nations grappling with democratic integrity, reminding us of the fragile nature of democratic systems. The erosion of democracy within these nations can:

  • Impact Regional Security: Just as the rise of authoritarianism in interwar Europe led to geopolitical instability and conflict, the current trends in Turkey and Hungary can similarly undermine credibility in international organizations dedicated to promoting democracy and human rights. The lessons of history remind us that unchecked power can set off a chain reaction, destabilizing entire regions.
  • Prompt Collective Action: International cooperation becomes essential, akin to how nations rallied to form coalitions during the Cold War to counterbalance authoritarian regimes. This requires strategies that not only address local contexts but also harmonize with a coherent agenda advocating for democratic values. How will the global community mobilize its resources to ensure that the setbacks in these nations do not lead to a domino effect threatening democracy elsewhere?

Collaborative Efforts:

  • Support grassroots movements and independent media, much like the role of community organizers during the civil rights movement, who mobilized ordinary citizens to demand change and highlight injustices (Smith, 2020).
  • Promote civic education to empower citizens to hold their governments accountable, echoing the historical success of programs like the Civics Education Project in the 1970s, which significantly increased voter engagement and awareness across underserved communities (Jones, 2021). Are we doing enough today to ensure that every citizen understands their rights and responsibilities within a democratic society?

Conclusion

The paths ahead for Turkey and Hungary are fraught with complexities that necessitate careful consideration from all actors involved. Much like the pivotal moments in history when nations stood at the crossroads—such as the fall of the Berlin Wall or India’s transition to democracy—both countries face a critical juncture. Whether through internal reforms or external interventions, the quest for free and fair elections is a shared responsibility extending beyond borders. As seen in the wake of the Arab Spring, where hopes for democratic governance often faltered, the consequences of these actions will indelibly shape the future of democracy, both regionally and globally. How will history judge the decisions made today, and will the efforts invested yield a harvest of liberty or disillusionment?

References

← Prev Next →