Election irregularities in Bitlis (Bedlîs), Turkey, have been labelled as a ‘judicial coup’ by a pro-Kurdish party MP, citing dismissed objections to voter manipulation as an abuse of judicial authority to alter election outcomes.
Kamuran Tanhan, a Member of Parliament for the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party, coined the term ‘judicial coup’ following the rejection of their appeals against perceived election fraud in Bitlis.
The controversy arose after military and police personnel were allegedly brought in to vote, tipping the scales in favour of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) with 8,900 votes against the DEM Party’s 8,702. A narrow margin of 198 votes separated the two parties, yet the dismissal of 2,018 votes as invalid, coupled with the refusal to recount, has sparked accusations of a manipulated outcome.
Tanhan highlighted how the AKP specifically targeted certain areas in Kurdish regions for voter manipulation, including transporting military and police personnel to the polls. This tactic, coupled with threats and intimidation on election day, was part of a broader strategy to usurp the election, according to Tanhan. He recalled a statement by AKP Chairman and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during a visit to Bitlis just after the general elections, where Erdoğan explicitly expressed his desire for control over Bitlis, which Tanhan views as a direct threat to both his party members and the general public.
Furthermore, Tanhan critiqued the legal process, noting that the Bitlis Provincial Election Board’s decision effectively acknowledges the existence of irregularities but deems them insufficient to influence the election outcome. Tanhan asserted that despite clear evidence of wrongdoing, the authorities, under higher orders, have disregarded the public’s will, effectively handing local governance over to a form of custodianship aligned with the AKP’s interests.
Despite the setbacks, Tanhan vowed to continue the legal fight, pointing out a pattern where the AKP challenges election results unfavourable to them, often in closely contested areas. He cited the example of Halfeti (Xelfetî), where despite a significant vote margin, the AKP’s objections were based on political and administrative connections rather than the legal merits.
