Beyond Charisma: Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s Temperate Resistance in Turkey’s Presidential Race

Turkish Presidential Opposition Candidate, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Photo by Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi.

At the center of Turkey’s presidential race stands the charismatic and exuberant incumbent Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and opposite him is the modest and soft-spoken Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Kılıçdaroğlu’s demeanor has earned him the title “Turkish Gandhi,” a stark contrast to “Sultan” Erdoğan. The candidates are characteristically poles apart, and yet the race is the closest in Turkey’s history. Skeptics of Kılıçdaroğlu doubt him for lacking the political charisma and wit that Erdoğan has mastered in his hard-lined, one-man approach to leadership. While facing criticisms that he is short of strength, courage, “political savvy,” and “oratory skills,” Kılıçdaroğlu has also been called selfish for taking the spot of someone who is more competitive against the persona of Erdoğan. Though Kılıçdaroğlu is seemingly paradoxical in the archetype of a leader, he embodies a tranquility and rationality that has too often been amiss in politics. Amidst polarity, dogmatism, and the normalization of ad hominem attacks in urgent political debate, Kılıçdaroğlu’s strength lies in his temperate resistance. More complex than a mere simple man, Kılıçdaroğlu offers an alternative to the chaotic festering of partisan polarity internationally, an alternative that the world ought to closely watch. 

Political polarization has become a recent buzzword in outlining the deterioration of effective democracy. From India’s Narenda Modi and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to Donald Trump in the U.S. and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself, it is more than evident that charisma and wit do little to rectify the partisan divisions inflamed by political leaders at the expense of good governance. Charismatic leaders have arisen regardless of geographic location, political history, and regime type. The glorification of charisma belittles what ought to be at the heart of elections: policy. Rather than a fleeting anomaly, personalist leaders inspire personalist candidates. An unforeseeable cycle of repetition, it is time to reconsider the image of “strong” leadership. Resistance and strength are often conflated with bravado and aggression—the root of the symptomatic polarization the world has seemingly plunged into. While charisma has its universal appeal in the early stages of a candidate’s campaign, offering a means of collective defiance against an unpopular system, it often results in democratic backsliding. 

A gifted political orator as a teenager, Erdoğan was arrested in the nineties for his religious speeches by secular authorities, dragged away in his workman jacket while crowds in the rally cheered for him. Once hailed a symbol of resistance against the oppressive Turkish establishment, Erdoğan now is more aptly described as an authoritative symbol of the same oppression he fought against. In his past eighteen years of political service, he declared that “nobody should try to shape society from the head of the table” while also rewriting the Turkish Constitution to expand his executive powers in the face of swelling opposition. Despite being renowned as “a champion of the people,” Erdoğan is responsible for the arrests of Turkish civilians who have shared dissent of him in any form online—a criminal offense in Turkey. 

Erdoğan is no exception to the trend of charismatic candidates turning into personalist leaders in office, which ultimately coincides with the decay of democracy and liberal principles of freedom. In the case of Brazil, Bolsonaro promised to crackdown on crime and prop up Brazil’s economy to serve the underprivileged, gathering some fifty-eight million voters across stretches of race, sexuality, and socio-economics to unite in support. Brazilians believed in his verbose and stubborn personality. When he had lost his election in 2022, he refused to concede on ungrounded accusations of voter fraud—a much too familiar story. Voters must ask if democratic stability is a risk worth taking in exchange for charismatic, “strong” leadership, or perhaps it is charisma that blinds voters from holding officials for ill-conceived policy. 

Charisma may not be Kılıçdaroğlu’s strength, but it is not the only determining merit of a suitable political leader. Despite being a member of the marginalized Aveli Kurd community who suffered under Turkey’s genocide in 1931, Kılıçdaroğlu is now the leader of the Republican People’s Party—a party that once ordered the massacre of Kurds and now has chosen to follow one. While his leadership style is modest, the feats that he has accomplished are anything but. A “bookish” rebel, Kılıçdaroğlu took a job as the general manager of the Social Insurances Institution after graduating with a finance degree. Shortly after, he wrote an article on combating public sector corruption that immediately attracted the attention of the Republican People’s Party. Three years later, in 2002, he ran for office in the party and won. Using rhetoric grounded in logic, Kılıçdaroğlu’s strength lies in his ability to realize political visions through clemency and diligence. When cornered by his political opposition within his own party, Kılıçdaroğlu built coalitions with others to overcome his rivals. 

While Erdoğan has ostracized his dissenters, Kılıçdaroğlu's strategic circumvention of those who threaten his stagnation suggests he is “politically savvy,” perhaps to a greater extent than Erdoğan. Kılıçdaroğlu pushed his party toward moderation, reason, and mercy by  suggesting that a woman’s right to wear hijab be codified in law and pacifying religious tensions to open the political arena to disenfranchised groups. While Erdoğan and Kılıçdaroğlu both seek a restructuring of Turkey, it is clear that cooperation and compromise are only valued by the latter. Angering political opponents, alienating allies, and outlawing criticism only fulfills an illusory form of leadership, one that is temporary and subversive. 

Kılıçdaroğlu represents a departure from the recent manifestation of major world players, but also marks a shift from the futile political dirt-slinging and international isolationism. On May 14th, Turkish voters will decide between political decency and honest policy or bombastic charisma and illusive strength. In a political climate adulated by competition over geopolitical influence, engrossed by displays of military power, and enthralled with engaging in zero-sum games, moral integrity is erroneously reduced to political weakness and humility to submission. While the choice lingers for Turkish citizens and the rest of the world awaits in anticipation, every nation will inevitably be dealt the same choice.

Fiza Rizvi (CC ‘24) is a Staff Writer for CPR and is studying computer science. She is primarily interested in international affairs and national security.