Corruption within state institutions, the weakness of supervisory mechanisms, a lack of meritocracy and the absence of transparency have led to these institutions losing their functionality and have had devastating effects on social justice, the economy and public safety.

During times of crisis, a lack of trust in the state’s official institutions, such as the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) and the Turkish Red Crescent, has led the public to turn to alternative civil initiatives.

However, these developments have also sparked debates regarding transparency and accountability. Whilst public outrage against the Turkish Red Crescent—which was revealed to have sold emergency tents for profit during the 6 February earthquakes—surged, organisations such as the Ahbap Association came to the fore.

Most recently, the investigation launched into the Ahbap Association has sparked public debate. The fact that the political figures named by Ahbap’s founder, Haluk Levent, during his statement whilst in custody were not recorded in the minutes has further fuelled speculation.

SOCIAL STATE CANOPY NARROWED

Assessing the events for BirGün, Prof. Dr. Kurtul Gülenç, a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, stated: “The neo-liberal policies implemented on a global scale following 1980 narrowed the protective scope of the welfare state, surrendering essential services such as education, healthcare and social security to free market principles and seriously eroding the public institutions that provided these services. ‘The vacuum created by the state’s withdrawal from its areas of social responsibility began to be filled not by rights-based public safeguards, but by an ethic of individual and institutional “philanthropy”,’ he said.

“With this transformation, poverty and inequality were stripped of their status as systemic problems and reduced to a matter of moral solidarity; philanthropy, too, was transformed into a useful mechanism that made the injustice produced by the neoliberal system manageable,” said.

Gülenç continued his analysis as follows:

“In the specific case of Turkey, however, this global transformation has taken on a more distinct and profound character over the past decade, with the establishment of the presidential system and the loss of public institutions’ relative impartiality and meritocratic foundations. The centralisation of the state apparatus and institutional erosion have, in particular, reduced the opposition’s trust in official institutions and structures to a minimum, whilst driving these groups—who feel excluded from mechanisms for seeking justice and public support—towards alternative and civil mutual aid networks. These alternative networks, comprising local associations and initiatives organised via digital platforms, have not merely served as economic survival mechanisms; they have also become practical expressions of the mistrust felt towards official institutions.”

“However, these civil alternatives have not been slow to come up against their own structural limitations and a crisis of legitimacy,” said Gülenç, adding: “In particular, the managerial difficulties faced by popular civil initiatives such as ‘Ahbap’—which came to the fore following the major Maraş-Hatay earthquake—and the allegations of corruption and irregularities levelled against Haluk Levent in the last few days have created a serious wave of scepticism towards civil mutual aid networks. Citizens who have turned to such networks following the loss of trust in public institutions have faced a new sense of disillusionment due to the crises of transparency and institutional weaknesses within these networks; as a result, the individual has been drawn into a dual spiral of alienation, left without security both in the face of the state’s institutional structure and on the fragile ground of the structures emerging within civil society,” he said.

IDEOLOGICAL LEVELLING

Noting that, from the perspective of the ruling bloc, these crises have been transformed into a deliberate strategy of “ideological levelling” aimed not only at restricting the civil sphere but also at paralysing the opposition’s claims to moral and institutional superiority, Gülenç made the following remarks:

“Both the allegations and legal cases concerning the institutional opposition and the practical crises faced by civil society are being used to reinforce the narrative that ‘even those who are supposed to be alternatives are just as fragile and corrupt as the status quo’. Through this hegemonic manoeuvre, all structures in the country are portrayed as equally flawed, thereby rationalising institutional corruption; distrust of the state’s official bodies is normalised, and the production of consent is re-entrenched through this illusion of ‘no alternative’.

The sole possibility of escaping this double spiral of distrust and hegemonic ideological levelling lies in radically highlighting the ontological distinction between the vertical ‘charity’ ethic—which serves as a patchwork solution within the neoliberal system—and the constitutive, horizontal politics of ‘solidarity’. The civil fragilities evident in the ‘Ahbap’ example necessitate transcending the limits of apolitical philanthropy based on charismatic figures and establishing an organised line of struggle grounded in collective reason. However, it is only through organised solidarity networks with genuine, accountable and sustainable institutionalisation that mistrust in official institutions can be transformed not into despair, but into the construction of a new, democratic and autonomous society built from the bottom up.

THE PROBLEMS OF ABANDONING THE WELFARE STATE

Social policy expert Assoc. Prof. Dr Denizcan Kutlu notes: “The fact that organisations engaged in such activities are, on the one hand, gaining momentum whilst, on the other, seeing an increase in their social acceptance and visibility, can be explained by the emergence of opposing trends within and in relation to the public sector. A significant part of these organisations’ areas of activity concerns the state’s obligations arising from the Constitution and linked to its role as a welfare state. Various private organisations working on issues such as disasters, education, health and social and economic needs experienced at the individual or community level have existed both historically and today. However, a distinctive feature of neoliberalism is that private organisations—some of which engage exclusively in vertical and hierarchical charitable activities—have come to the fore as a substitute for public responsibilities.

As neoliberalism has eroded the social and public dimension of the state—which was already lacking in countries such as Turkey—such private organisations, which had been in the process of fading away alongside the development of social rights, have re-emerged with renewed vigour. For this reason, it is beneficial to assess such issues not as individual irregularities or acts of corruption, but as social problems arising from the abandonment of the welfare state,” he said.

WE NEED TO BUILD POLITICAL WILL

“What makes Turkey unique is that the dismantling of the state’s de-metadising social policy instruments has gone hand in hand with a loss of trust in the public sector,” said Kutlu, adding:

“The current situation presents a picture of a loss of social trust in every respect. It must be strongly emphasised that these private organisations can never serve as a substitute for the state. Such organisations are under no obligation to deliver the support they provide equally to all those in need, nor do they have a responsibility to do so on a continuous basis. Therefore, the state is the guarantor of these services. The crucial and defining aspect of these debates is the formation of a political will that rejects neoliberalism and will rebuild the welfare state and social rights.”

The names of the politicians have not been disclosed!

Twenty-three people, including Haluk Levent, who were detained as part of an investigation into the allegation that “donations collected on behalf of the Ahbap Association were transferred to the suspects’ accounts”, were taken to the Istanbul Courthouse in Çağlayan. One person was released following questioning at the police station. It was reported that proceedings against the other 14 individuals detained in the second wave of the operation are still ongoing at the police station.

In a statement issued by the public prosecutor’s office regarding the matter, it was alleged that Haluk Levent’s brother, Berkant A., had committed irregularities in a tender for a festival organised by Şile Municipality; it was claimed that false invoices had been issued for expenses such as stage, lighting and sound systems.

It was also alleged that a portion of the donations made to the Ahbap Association had been transferred to the account of Yeliz K., singer Levent’s assistant, and that this money was subsequently channelled into the accounts of Berkant A. and individuals and companies linked to him.

In his statement to the police, Haluk Levent announced that he had decided to exercise his right to remain silent because the names of politicians were not included in the record. A statement posted on Levent’s X account shared the statement transcript and the lawyers’ record.

The record shows that Levent stated: “As I was told that the politicians I had just requested be included in the record, and the matters concerning state institutions I wished to address, were not relevant to the question (for me, they are relevant—and very much so), I am unable to give my statement and I am exercising my right to remain silent in response to any further questions.”

The defence lawyer also stated: “We agree with our client’s statements. Our client intends to give a detailed statement regarding the subject of the investigation, but our right to defence has been restricted. For this reason, we are unable to provide a detailed defence.”

In the lawyers’ statement, it was noted that Levent had mentioned former Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu, but that this statement was not recorded in the minutes on the grounds that it was “irrelevant to the question”; consequently, Levent’s right to a defence was restricted, and the minutes in question were drawn up for this reason.

It was reported that Levent made the following statement: “The events we experienced during the earthquake plunged me into an inescapable situation. I already have a nasty weakness for trading on the stock market. The financial costs imposed on me during the first two years following the earthquake led me to trade more frequently on the stock market and take greater risks. I always borrowed this money. I never took money from the Ahbap Association to gamble. If they are making such an allegation, then the Chief Inspectors of the Ministry of the Interior must resign first and foremost. Because the activity reports of the Ahbap Association—to which our citizens contributed through their hard-earned money and our little children’s pocket money in 2023, 2024 and 2025—have all been audited, and no irregularities were found. This was not stated by me, but was communicated through the reports of the Ministry of the Interior’s inspectors.”

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Rejimin yarattığı çürüme ülkeyi sardı: Demokratik kamusallık şart, published in BirGün newspaper on July 16, 2026.