The Palace administration, which is dragging the country towards the abyss in an attempt to prolong its own existence, is stepping up the pressure with each passing day. The regime, which is attempting on the one hand to divide and neutralise the opposition and on the other to derive ‘legitimacy’ from the imperialist centres on which it relies, is striving to build a reactionary, market-driven regime without elections or opposition. A united struggle against this regime—from which the vast sections of society who are oppressed, exploited, marginalised and subjected to repression wish to free themselves immediately—is emerging as a common objective. The need to unite the protests rising from workers, women, environmentalists, teachers, young people, pensioners – in short, from various sections of society – across the country into a joint struggle is now more urgent than ever. We are continuing the series of discussions we launched in our newspaper under the call from the country’s progressive, revolutionary and democratic forces: ‘We are standing side by side for a united opposition’. In today’s edition, Prof. Dr Selçuk Candansayar, Assoc. Prof. Dr Galip Yalman and Emin Koramaz, former Chair of the TMMOB Executive Board, have shared their assessments regarding this united front.

THE TARGET OF THE JOINT STRUGGLE: THE ONE-MAN REGIME

Former Chairman of the Board of the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB), Emin Koramaz

In this critical period that Türkiye is going through, the question of how the possibilities of a joint struggle can be developed has become the most vital topic that we must all reflect upon meticulously.

The resolution of the problems our country faces goes far beyond a simple change of administration. The one-man regime, imposed by a 24-year rule and dubbed the "Presidential System of Government", has morphed into a permanent order of oppression and malice, where the rule of law is suspended, state institutions are governed according to the will of a single person, institutional memory is erased, loyalty has replaced merit, and all the democratic, economic, and social accumulations of the century-old republic have been pillaged and liquidated. The ongoing judicial operations, threats of absolute nullity, increasing pressure on the social opposition, and finally, the events at the NATO summit are the clearest proofs that this regime recognises no democratic rules and is dragging the country step by step into a US-guided monarchy where elections are reduced to a mere facade.

In such a dark picture, how can a fragmented opposition, which is being intimidated, transform into a united social force? I see the answer to this question under three main headings:

1. AGREEING ON A COMMON DEFINITION OF A ‘TARGET’ AND AN ‘ENEMY’

The first and most crucial condition of a united struggle is to close ranks around a common target. Today, workers are fighting for their wages, pensioners for a humane life, women to defend their legal gains against violence, the youth for their future, peasants for their land, and ecologists for nature. Each of these struggles is highly justified and legitimate. However, at the point we have reached today, we must see that the greatest obstacle standing before all these struggles for rights is the same: The one-man regime.

By marketising education, this regime has become the common enemy of students and teachers; by commodifying health, of patients and doctors; by plundering nature, of peasants and environmentalists; by making labour precarious, of workers and engineers; and by liquidating secularism, of women and all intellectuals. The main problem is that these dynamics of resistance have not been brought together on the ground of a common struggle.

Recognising this reality, we must bring all these legitimate demands together under a common political target that "will put an end to this darkness". This common political objective must be the overthrow of the one-man regime and, in its stead, the construction of a new regime that is egalitarian, emancipatory, and in favour of labour, the people, independence, democracy, fair distribution, and a humane life.

2. REDEFINING THE SUBJECT AND THE SCOPE OF THE STRUGGLE

The second important step is to redefine the subject and the scope of the struggle.

A united struggle carries a much broader and deeper meaning than protocols signed at the headquarters of political parties or being left to the will of a narrow cadre of politicians. As the mainstream politics centred on a parliament that has been stripped of its substance is taken down, it is essential to create a new political framework in which the people are both the subjects and the founders.

To create this, it is essential to meet right at the heart of life itself. We can establish "Solidarity Assemblies" in neighbourhoods, and "Joint Committees of Workers, Engineers, and Civil Servants" in workplaces. These mechanisms must become permanent structures that not only amplify solidarity in times of crisis but also discuss problems and produce solutions together every day. For instance, against the grievances of urban renewal, TMMOB components can form a ground for joint struggle with the tradesmen and citizens in that neighbourhood; or against workplace murders, trade unions, professional chambers, and families can do the same. The aim is not to homogenise different segments but to connect them through networks of joint action and solidarity, propagating the consciousness that "the problem of one is the problem of all."

3. DEVELOPING A COMMON LANGUAGE AND DISCOURSE

Thirdly, it is essential to develop a common language and discourse that will nourish and expand this broad alliance.

The government is trying to keep the social opposition compartmentalised under disconnected headings with its strategy to "divide, isolate, neutralise". We must not fall into this trap. We can create a language of resistance that unites the "no to violence" in the language of women's organisations with the "no to plundering" in the language of the ecology struggle, and the "no to exploitation" in the language of the working class with the "no to one man" in the language of pro-democracy forces.

For example, we can articulate the issue of secularism not solely as a freedom of belief, but as the most fundamental guarantee of a worker's child receiving a quality education, of a woman existing in the public sphere, of a young person building their future with science—in short, of everyone living as equal citizens. In this way, different segments can view their own struggles as a part of this bigger picture and feel the legitimacy and power of acting in unison.

In conclusion, the path to liberation from this regime is too important to be abandoned to the "will of a few politicians". Today's government can only be stopped by the organised power, solidarity, and joint struggle of the people. What is needed for this is the ability to transform a fragmented opposition into a united social force. Let us not forget, history shows that authoritarian regimes have not been able to stand for long against the common and resolute will of society.

The matter now is to be able to organise that common will and to turn the slogan "Together, we will win" into a practice in every sphere of life. With this responsibility, we shall march forward on this path all together.

"THE ALLIANCE OF BREAD AND HONOUR"

The regime no longer needs the usual instruments for manufacturing consent; by transforming the law into an apparatus of terror, it relies directly on overt force. Today in Türkiye, environmental resistances, trade union strikes, women's street struggles, and LGBTI+ rights struggles continue as singular fronts. Demands for equal citizenship in the spheres of identity and freedom of belief remain fragmented. The connection between these centres of opposition and the struggle in the political arena, which has morphed into the dismantling of the parliamentary system based on free and fair elections, also appears to have been severed.

Overcoming this singularity requires, first and foremost, moving beyond a mere critique of the government. A joint struggle cannot be established through top-down "democracy or opposition protocols". Its source is the shared experience of precarity and shattered dignity endured by the masses. By shattered dignity, I mean the sense of helplessness the vast majority of society feels in the face of being deprived of their most fundamental human rights: the means to housing, a livelihood, education, and living in safety. Day by day, people are losing their self-confidence and their belief in their power to effect change.

The reason why individual resistance movements cannot unite is that the regime divides them into vertical identity compartments and pits them against one another through the ‘veil policy’. The glue that will bind them together, however, is ‘the people’s secularism’ and ‘class dignity’. It is necessary to equate, on a horizontal plane, the rights of mine workers and the demand for the status of a Cemevi as a place of worship, alongside the labour of Kurdish seasonal workers and women’s right to bodily integrity, on the basis of a “joint defence against the Palace’s plundering regime”. By the same logic, the demands of Alevi organisations, the Kurdish movement and other oppressed identities must be removed from being mere objects of ‘identity-based bargaining’; they must be integrated into the class struggle on the basis of ‘People’s Secularism’ and ‘Equal Citizenship’. The ruling power’s ploy to confine the Kurdish issue to the vertical blackmail axis of the Palace and Imralı can only be disrupted by this class-based horizontal alignment — “The honour of one’s mother tongue and faith is one thing, but trade unions and equal citizenship are one’s bread and butter.”

A joint line can be developed not merely from a negative focus such as ‘anti-Erdoğanism’, but from a positive line of class-based security and dignity. In response to the regime’s strategy of isolating the masses and conditioning them to accept the notion that ‘nothing will ever change’, a ‘Bread and Dignity Alliance’ must be established through concrete demands that defend shared living spaces — the right to public housing, food sovereignty and free transport.

The framework of the Joint Line, which will carry this unification into a permanent organisational form, is also clear: the centre of opposition to be established must not be the electoral apparatus of the CHP. Just like Sumar in Spain or the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in the US, it must act as an "External Conscience" that preserves its own independent ideological and organisational identity. Whenever the CHP shows a tendency to shift to the right and prune class demands in order to appeal to conservative voters, this left-wing centre must, with its power on the streets and in the trade unions, push the CHP towards the minimum wage, the right to housing, and nationalisation, blocking any rightward deviations.

The struggle against judicial assaults cannot be left to lawyers mounting technical defences at courthouse doors either; the left-wing centre must articulate this political oppression, carried out through the law, directly as a "theft committed against the people's budget and bread," and organise a social shield on the streets based on civil disobedience.

The Joint Line: a front of struggle that exposes that every singular usurpation of rights is committed to fortify the same order of exploitation, one that does not exclude identities but unites them within a class-based compass, and builds alliances while remaining independent.

"THE COALITION OF SOCIAL FORCES"

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Galip Yalman, retired faculty member of the Middle East Technical University (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi - ODTÜ)

There are serious risks for the future in reducing the struggle to bring an end to the current period of repression to nothing more than a change of regime or a change of leadership. Even if an election were held tomorrow and the opposition's candidate took that seat, they would have to act within the framework of the current regime for a while because they could not immediately change the constitutional system (due to reasons such as a two-thirds majority, etc.). For this very reason, the issue should not be seen merely as an institutional regime change; steps to shift the balance of social power in favour of the working people must begin to be taken as of today. In a time when the crisis of social reproduction is being experienced in all its dimensions, such as the food crisis, the housing crisis, and the care crisis, it is now an absolute necessity to develop a social reproduction programme/strategy that encompasses every segment, from the agricultural producer to the urban poor.

You can define this process as a "Reconstruction Project": the ability to create common grounds to consider and implement a holistic programme that will pave the way for a transition to a democratic state form; encompassing trade union rights, gender equality, environmental issues, and, most importantly, the Kurdish issue. In other words, the question of whether a common ground for a break from the authoritarian structure can be found by articulating identity-based politics and class-based politics stands before us. In the old parlance, the extra-parliamentary opposition, socialist parties, and trade unions need to raise grounded, concrete demands and create a "coalition of social forces" that meets on minimum common denominators with the opposition segments within parliament. If the core of this reconstruction programme is filled with the right policies, from agricultural producers to trade union rights, the struggle on the streets and at the ballot box can unite. Only then will the balance of social power established within the current regime shift, which in turn will bring about the democratisation of the state form.

Economy management is also a complementary element of this reconstruction. Given the Turkish economy's dependence on foreign resources, merely saying "pro-state" (kamucu) is not enough. Since you cannot nationalise everything overnight, it is inevitable to prepare a highly comprehensive package encompassing monetary policy, international financial relations, and the state's forms of intervention in the economy. This, too, is only possible through a struggle that will alter the balance of social power in your favour. When we look at the last forty years of continuous crises, crisis management has always contributed to the reproduction of neoliberal moulds. A fundamental determination here has been the principle that "the democratic management of money must end". Therefore, it is also necessary to contemplate how money can be democratically managed. If a transformation beyond this is to be envisioned, what needs to be done for a transition to different social systems must be considered, and the seeds regarding the intellectual foundation of this must be sown.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Öncelik rejimden kurtulmak, published in BirGün newspaper on July 15, 2026.