On April 16, the people of Turkey voted by a 1.6 percent margin to drastically change the Turkish Constitution. Sixteen new amendments were added, mostly changing the relationship of power between the executive and legislative branches. A significantly larger degree of power has been granted to the executive branch, and many in Turkey and abroad see the change as a radical blow to democracy.

From a Western perspective, granting this kind of power to a single leader and making government so centralized seems appalling. Isn’t it self-evident that taking power away from direct representation is dangerous? Nonetheless, a substantial number of Turkish people supported it, and stand very firmly in their decision.

It’s important to recognize this isn’t the main issue. Claims of the Turkish state suppressing groups opposing it are well supported, and concerns that millions of votes could have been manipulated are not yet certain, but seem highly probable.  

It seems plausible to say that the referendum wouldn’t have passed if the campaign had been more egalitarian, but nonetheless, a large portion of the vote would have supported creating what many see as a dictatorship. Analyzing what resulted in this situation gives us an important understanding of how people can be pushed into radical decisions.

The resulting change in the Constitution gives the current president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a possibility of holding the presidency for 25 years. It seems likely that the referendum, both in its drafting by officials and support from voters, is tailored around Erdogan. Many opponents argue that the new system would be dangerous if a corrupted leader were elected, or if an elected leader were corrupted.   

The past is on Erdogan’s side. The last several decades have seen the decentralized government of Turkey unable to fight poverty, racked by a nearly successful coup. Many in rural Turkey see Erdogan as the source for Turkey’s rise out of poverty and for a restoration of Islamic values. Members of cities worry about things like alcohol-free zones and adultery laws, but rural citizens see it as a return to a truer Turkey. All of these have been proposed by the government, but success in implementing these laws has been limited.

The distinction between cultural values is understandable and reflected across many societies. However, poverty hasn’t actually dropped under the current regime. Roughly 50 percent of turkey is at the poverty line, and that number is slightly up from before he took office.

There hasn’t been strong approval on Erdogan’s efforts to remove dissidents, but the behavior of opposition groups has seemed to justify such action. The dismissal of the prime minister last year had support when he tried to increase the power of his position. Stripping 53 members of parliament of their rights to free speech seemed rational to many, after Kurdish groups that supported them committed several terrorist attacks in major cities.  

This seems to be the main driving point. While much is said by supporters about the issues of poverty and religious values, the driving issue is fear. The last few years have been very uncertain in Turkey, and this is seen as the best response by many.

What just happened in Turkey is extremely different from anything in the Western world. The implications are much more serious and the causes much more frightening. But the motives are something everyone can understand, even if we don’t agree with them. At a certain point, no matter who you are or who you are dealing with, safety becomes more appealing than freedom.