Recent natural disasters in Turkey have sparked widespread controversy and a heated confrontation between the government and the opposition. The opposition was quick to exploit the discontent on the ground as a result of these disasters, to shed light on the poor and failed preparations to deal with such crises, which, as the opposition described it, is a matter of “national security.” The Turkish government, in turn, tackled the issue as a manifestation of external conspiracies, in an apparent bid to confront the rising internal resentment as a result of its failures in managing a number of crises. Accordingly, disaster recovery has become another bone of contention in the ongoing confrontation between the regime and the opposition in Turkey.
Combined Challenges
In July, the Turkish states of Risa, Artvin, and Düzce were hit with torrential rains that resulted in landslides, causing severe damage to properties, buildings, and roads, and resulting in loss of life, injuries, and missing persons.
Turkey had not recovered from the effects of this disaster when fires broke out on July 28 in several states in the south and southwest of the country. The fires originated from the Manavgat area in the state of Antalya on the Mediterranean, reaching vast forest areas covering approximately 20 states along the coast. This prompted Turkish authorities and security forces to announce the closure of the coastal road, and the use of Turkish Coast Guard ships, private boats, and yachts in the process of evacuating citizens and tourists from residential communities, tourist areas, and hotels in the surrounding areas.
Despite the efforts made by the Turkish state agencies to deal with these natural disasters, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s pledge to provide facilities and financial assistance to those affected, the government’s response was widely criticized, especially by the opposition. The criticism focused on a number of issues, including:
1- Delayed response: Although Turkey is exposed to forest fires every year during the summer, the government was criticized by both supporters and the opposition for its weak and inadequate response to the fires. A lack of preparation, slow response, and failure to control the fires led them to spread widely and swiftly to vast areas. The governor of Adana, one of the areas affected by the fires, expressed his dissatisfaction with the ignorance of local authorities about the extent of the spread, noting that only one drone was designated to provide photographs and coordinates of the blazes, which were changing and escalating by the minute.
2- The need to hire fire-extinguishing planes: The Turkish government was subjected to a sharp wave of criticism by the general public as well as the opposition following the announcement by Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Bekir Pakdemirli that airplanes needed to put out fires in mountainous area that civil defense and firefighting vehicles could not reach were not available. Criticism mounted at Erdogan’s explanation that “the main reason for the lack of necessary aircraft is that the Turkish Aeronautics Association has not been able to modernize its fleet and technologies.” This situation prompted Ankara to accept aid from Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Iran as well as the European Union, which announced the activation of the Civil Protection Mechanism and the dispatch of 3 planes to Turkey in response to the emergency.
Forests constitute a third of Turkey’s area, and the country suffers blazes in these forests annually, making it an expected occurrence. The government’s lack of precautionary measures, by borrowing or renting firefighting planes, was widely subjected to criticism. President of the Republican People’s Party Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu commented on this crisis, declaring: “You are taking measures from scratch as if we are witnessing such fires for the first time. This is the biggest weakness of the government that rules Turkey. There is no planning nor farsightedness.”
3- A regime “disconnected” from reality: One of the main points of criticism regarding Erdogan, was the repeated display of images showing him distributing packages of tea to those afflicted by the floods and fires. This was met with widespread condemnation and sarcasm by both the public and the opposition, especially as he repeated this action twice, first during his visit to flood-stricken Risa, and again in Mugla, as he inspected the conditions of its residents after the fires that raided them.
Members of the Republican People’s Party described Erdogan’s actions as a “dark comedy”, that did not take into account the nature of events and the needs of those affected, and that provided no effective solutions or measures to compensate for their losses and secure their lives and property. According to the opposition, Erdogan’s actions embodied the ruling regime’s disconnect from reality. His statement that: “The only solution is to be in harmony with these natural disasters, because they are natural phenomena that the world has not found solutions for,” was especially met with criticism.
4- Deflecting blame: As part of the Turkish government’s attempt to deflect attention from the shortcomings and inaction that characterized its management of these disasters, it was quick to claim that the fires were the result of intentional acts of terrorist sabotage. Although these blazes are a yearly occurrence, linked to the extreme rise in temperatures, and despite the absence of any evidence of deliberate sabotage, the government bases its claim on the fact that it is not a coincidence that fires broke out in four regions at about the same time, meaning the involvement of terrorist organizations cannot be ruled out.
Accordingly, fingers were pointed at the Kurdish separatist movement the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, especially since it has a long history of arson and crimes of environmental vandalism since the 1990s. Intelligence and security authorities took advantage of the fires to launch a campaign of investigations and arrests against a number of people suspected of being involved in arson.
Main repercussions
The recent disasters in Turkey led to a number of major repercussions:
1- Demands for the dismissal of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry: Against the backdrop of these successive disasters, demands escalated among the Turkish opposition to dismiss Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Vice President of the largest opposition party in the country, Republican People’s Party, Rafat Zebek stated that the fires broke out as a result of worsening drought levels in Turkish forests, adding that Turkish political forces had been calling for realistic solutions for this problem for the past two years. However, the ministry insisted on denying the existence of the problem.
2- Erosion of the ruling party’s support base: Several reports indicated that the growing popular discontent with the government’s response to the fires negatively reflected on the ruling party base of support. Some supporters of the ruling Justice and Development Party expressed their regret for voting for it, criticizing the policies pursued by the party for two decades that have adversely affected environmental stability in Turkey. Public parks have been uprooted from the city centers for commercial projects, and deforestation is common to make way for industrial projects, while what is needed is the allocation of sufficient financial resources to protect forests, providing compensating for periods of drought, and putting surveillance cameras at forest entrances.
3- A hit to tourism: The fires and the government’s response to them are expected to impact the country’s 2021 tourist season, cutting it short, especially with tourists losing confidence in the level of service and insurance provided by the Turkish authorities.
In light of the warnings of the World Meteorological Organization that the Mediterranean region will be exposed to high temperatures during the summer season, reaching up to 40 degrees Celsius, it is not unlikely that Turkey will face more environmental crises and disasters. This risk would be exacerbated if Turkey does not take into account the shortcomings and weaknesses it faced during its current crisis, and work to overcome its effects, especially as the crisis has acquired political significance.