“If Erdogan wins the elections, authoritarianism will give way to dictatorship” warns the Washington Post, in an article ahead of the crucial May 14 election in Turkey.

“A shadow of intensifying despotism looms over the elections in Turkey” is the characteristic title of the article of the American newspaper in which Erdogan is strongly criticized, after a similar article of the Economist.

The WP talks about the dangers posed by the expansion of Erdoğan’s authoritarian rule.

The word “ally” in the case of Turkey comes with an asterisk, the newspaper comments. Mr. Erdogan embraced positions that undermined Western strategy and gave Mr. Putin much more room to maneuver, he points out.

Citing the “plunge” of the Turkish economy, but also the failure to deal with February’s devastating earthquake, with buildings that did not meet regulations collapsing, WP also speaks of the corruption and mismanagement that many Turks see as a hallmark of his government.

The newspaper contrasts Erdogan Kemal Kilicdaroglu, whom he characterizes as a “colorless bureaucrat”, he nevertheless points out that “many Turks consider his lack of charisma to be less important than the promise he represents for the restoration of tolerance, pluralism, respect for human rights and economic common sense that have been so compromised by Erdoğanism”.

The article in detail

“When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power two decades ago, he seemed to many Turks and Turkey’s allies around the world like a modern leader — a moderate, pro-Western, pro-business reformer in a deeply Muslim country that will be a bulwark against Islamist extremism after the 9/11 attacks. That promise has largely been shattered.

His declining popularity ahead of Turkey’s May 14 election confirms the disenchantment of many Turks with the highly personalized authoritarianism that Mr. Erdogan has built, based on repression, the subjugation of dissenting opinions and once-independent institutions, and a deepening disdain for human rights and democratic norms. The colossal mismanagement of Turkey’s economy by Mr. Erdogan, one of the world’s 20 largest economies, it has eroded living standards, decimated the value of the Turkish lira and sent inflation skyrocketing. No wonder so many Turks are angry. his opponent a colorless ex-bureaucrat, leads the polls.

The election is also a test of the ability of democratic elections to shake off the yoke of his increasingly centralized rule in a country of 85 million people. The stakes could hardly be higher, in the first place for the Turks themselves, who may justifiably worry that authoritarianism will give way to dictatorship if Mr. Erdogan wins another term, but also for Washington and its European allies.

The word “ally” in the case of Turkey comes with an asterisk. Mr Erdogan, 69, rules a strategically important NATO nation with the alliance’s second-largest military. He has carved out a role for himself as a kind of mediator between NATO, to which he is bound by the treaty, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he maintains ties that have undermined the Western alliance, even as he engages in an indirect war. to fend off Russia’s destructive aggression in Ukraine.

Under Mr. Erdogan, Turkey supplied drones that were vital to Ukraine’s defense, barred Russian warships from the Black Sea and helped broker a deal that lifted a Russian embargo on Ukrainian grain and other food exports. At the same time, Turkey is suspected of being a key conduit on goods flown to Moscow that have circumvented Western sanctions and bolstered Mr Putin’s forces, including sensitive technology, electronics and vehicle parts used by the (Russian) military. It bought an advanced Russian missile defense system (S-400) despite strong objections from Washington and other key allies, who warned it would undermine the bloc’s defenses. And it has blocked Sweden’s ambition to join NATO, despite support for Stockholm’s bid from almost all of the alliance’s other 30 member states.

The double game of realpolitik, playing one side against the other in seeking to raise his stature as a “geopolitical politician” to whom he should appeal, is more than a cause of distress. Mr. Erdogan embraced positions that undermined Western strategy and they gave Mr Putin much more room to manoeuvre. In return, Russia has flooded Turkey with billions of dollars worth of aid, including cash flows from oligarchs seeking to avoid sanctions. Mr Erdogan has also benefited from financial support from other authoritarian states, including China and Saudi Arabia.

The most profound and possibly permanent damage was to the interior. A charismatic strongman, he ruled by stoking divisions, including between religious and secular Muslims. He has jailed political opponents, journalists and others who have criticized him and curtailed the space for Turkey’s once-vibrant civil society to thrive – a crackdown that intensified after a failed coup attempt in July 2016.

The Turkish courts have become instruments for his revenge. Constructive categories are commonly used to silence dissent. Independent media have been largely silenced. Publicly, many Turks are afraid to speak their mind. The vaguely defined crime of spreading “misinformation” has recently been enshrined in law as a new tool of Mr Erdogan’s intensifying tyranny.

Mr Erdogan’s position has been further damaged by the slow response to the devastating earthquake that paralyzed southern and central Turkey in February, killing at least 45,000 people and injuring twice as many. That failure, and the death toll compounded by the collapse of substandard buildings, was emblematic of the corruption and mismanagement that many Turks see as a hallmark of his administration.

Mr Erdogan’s opponent, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, is a low-profile former civil servant who represents a six-party coalition that has assembled in the hope of ousting Mr Erdogan. In videos, often shot from his modest kitchen — a stark contrast to the flamboyant 1,000-room palace Mr. Erdogan built for himself — Mr. Kilicdaroglu, 74, has vowed to serve only once a term in which he will reunite an increasingly politically divided Turkey. It says it will do so by reversing constitutional changes Mr Erdogan has used to consolidate power and restore the independence of the central bank, courts and diplomatic corps.

Mr Kilicdaroglu’s Republican People’s Party, the main opposition, has been losing elections for years to Mr Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party. Understandably, many Turks see Mr Kilicdaroglu’s lack of charisma as less important than the promise he represents to restore the tolerance, pluralism, respect for human rights and economic common sense that have been so compromised by Erdoganism.

If Mr Erdogan does not prevail in the May 14 vote or in a possible run-off two weeks later, there are concerns that he and his supporters may challenge the result. In a country where democracy has been relatively firmly established, these concerns are a measure of how deeply Turkey’s strongman has subverted the rules – and the dangers of expanding his authoritarian rule.”