Pro-Kurdish mayors replaced: 'Peace process' not going so well

Over the past week, four mayors, all identified as pro-Kurdish, were removed from office. One of the removed mayors, Ahmet Özer from the main opposition party, CHP, served as the mayor of Istanbul's Esenyurt district. The other three dismissed mayors, members of the pro-Kurdish DEM Party, held office in Mardin, Batman, Sanliurfa Halfeti. All four were removed due to alleged ties with Kurdish militants, specifically the PKK.

Punchline: The timing of these decisions is notable, as just two weeks ago, President Tayyip Erdogan's key ally, ultranationalist MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, proposed ending the PKK's 40-year insurgency in the southeast. This proposal shifted the peace process from mere speculation to a formal policy move toward initiating dialogue with Kurdish leaders to end the violent conflict.

Reactions: The DEM, Turkey's third-largest parliamentary party, condemned the dismissals, highlighting the contrast with last week's peace talks: "We expected an outstretched hand for peace and a solution, yet the people's will was disregarded."

Zoom out: Following the 2016 coup attempt, when Erdoğan granted himself extraordinary powers later made permanent, the practice of appointing "kayyum" (trustees) became widespread. Since then, 160 mayors have been removed and replaced by trustees.

Important note: There are two peculiarities about Turkey's system of trustee appointments. The first concerns who replaces the dismissed mayors. In most democratic countries—including Turkey before 2016—when a public official is removed, they are typically succeeded by their deputy, a party-appointed individual, or someone chosen by a representative body, such as the local council. However, since 2016, the Turkish government appoints a replacement of its own choosing, often from the ruling AK Party or a state official.

The second issue concerns the timing of these removals. Mayors are often dismissed for alleged crimes not committed during their time in office, but sometimes dating back decades. This has led opposition members to question why these candidates were allowed to run in the first place if they were never going to be permitted to serve. The same government that approves their candidacy later blocks them from governing.