Deliberative practices have gradually become part of the political discourse, policies, and governance, particularly over the last 30 years in the Republic of Türkiye (Şahin Reference Şahin and Arslan2024b). However, this period also coincides with a rise in competitive authoritarianism through centralization and regime change (Ergenç and Yüksekkaya Reference Ergenç and Yüksekkaya2024; Esen Reference Esen2021). As debates continue regarding the mechanisms of representative democracy and basic human rights, the ruling party, AKP, presents deliberation as a tool for legitimizing its power, whereas opposition parties see it as a means by which to uphold democratic rights. Despite the wide use of deliberation-related terminology, effective and innovative deliberative examples remain scarce (Tansel Reference Tansel2018).
Deliberation within state institutions largely revolves around strategic planning at the central administration and “citizen councils” at the local level (Varol and Gurer Reference Varol, Ercoskun and Gurer2011). Although citizen councils in local governments provide a platform for institutionalized stakeholders, structured deliberation for ordinary citizens remains rare (Özden Reference Özden2024). Despite this limited scope, Türkiye is not eager to follow international developments in deliberative practices (Ertugal Reference Ertugal2022). This raises questions about political parties’ take on deliberation at different levels.
In line with recent research about the relationship between political parties and deliberation (Gherghina and Jacquet Reference Gherghina and Jacquet2023; Gherghina, Soare, and Jacquet Reference Gherghina, Soare and Jacquet2020; Junius et al. Reference Junius, Caluwaerts, Matthieu and Erzeel2021), this article examines how mainstream political parties have engaged with the Citizen Council process in Ankara. As semipermanent civic platforms established under Municipal Law, citizen councils are convened at the mayor’s call after the local elections and consist of representatives from public agencies, civil society, and universities within municipal jurisdiction to engage citizens in deliberative processes concerning local issues.
In the 20 years since their legalization, citizen councils have established participatory practices across Turkey on issues such as environmental and urban rights struggles, urban identity, solidarity, and accountability in local governance (Demirci Reference Demirci2010). Regardless of which political party governs locally, they have developed a deep-rooted presence in cities like Çanakkale, Bursa, Antalya, Gaziantep, Tekirdağ, İzmir, and many others. However, even the most successful citizen councils tend to lack political party diversity, as representatives of political parties, although legally entitled to participate, rarely do so effectively. Moreover, the success of these councils is unsustainable, with many mayors and their political parties perceiving the councils’ growing influence as a potential threat (Şahin Reference Şahin2015).
As a result, it is rare to find citizen councils where the majority of mainstream political parties in Turkey are actively represented. Instead, most councils are dominated by the political party in control of the local government. Nevertheless, Ankara’s Citizen Council offers a unique and noteworthy exception to these trends, making it an ideal case for studying the interplay between citizen participation and political party engagement in Turkey. On the other hand, the general value judgment in Turkey that citizen councils should be above political views and divisions sometimes might lead to a certain distancing toward party representatives (Özdemir Reference Özdemir2011).
In Turkey, citizen councils began in Anatolian cities rather than in major urban centers like Istanbul and Ankara. Some argue that the absence of citizen councils in these two cities—the political capital and the country’s largest metropolis—reduced their visibility and made it difficult for political party headquarters to grasp their structure and potential. This was also a sign of the incoherent participatory policies of AKP (Yalçın-Riollet Reference Yalçın-Riollet2019). This was partly due to the sheer scale of these cities and the uninterrupted 25-year rule of the AKP, which had little need for citizen councils as a mechanism for political legitimization. Under AKP governance, political mobilization strategies differed: Istanbul followed a predominantly technocratic model, whereas Ankara relied heavily on political patronage (Yıldırım Reference Yıldırım2022). However, following the 2019 local elections, the mayors from the main opposition party, CHP, who won both cities, began using citizen councils as tools to compete with the AKP and enhance political legitimacy.
In Istanbul, Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu adopted a technocratic approach, pairing the citizen council with a robust new institution, IPA (Istanbul Planning Agency). In contrast, Ankara’s Mayor Mansur Yavaş pursued a more participatory model, establishing a highly inclusive citizen council and actively supporting its development. Although Istanbul’s citizen council remained bound under the shadow of the IPA, Ankara’s citizen council quickly gained influence by networking closely with other councils across Turkey, becoming a role model for participatory governance (Şahin Reference Şahin2024a). This approach was bolstered by the long-standing public expectation for greater participation in the capital city.
Thus, since the 2019 local elections, Ankara’s Citizen Council—renowned for its scale, influence, and engagement with representatives from all political parties—has become a primary case for studying deliberative democracy in Turkey. Established after the opposition ended 25 years of uninterrupted AKP rule, the Council stands out with over 3,000 institutional members, 60 deliberative mini publics, and more than 10,000 active participants, successfully bridging political divides (Şahin Reference Şahin2023). This article evaluates the Council’s functioning through an analysis of annual reports, mini-public and working-group session minutes, and the author’s participant observation memos from 2019 to 2024, together with interviews done with party representatives. It explores how political parties engage with this platform and the implications for deliberation in Turkish governance.
Thus, since the 2019 local elections, Ankara’s Citizen Council—renowned for its scale, influence, and engagement with representatives from all political parties—has become a primary case for studying deliberative democracy in Turkey
Political Parties and Deliberation in Türkiye: An Overview
The Justice and Development Party (AKP) gained access to power in the early 2000s, after a fierce political struggle between secular elites and Islamist polity. In its first 10 years of rule, the AKP initiated decentralization, emphasizing fiscal discipline, transparency, and participation. However, as the party consolidated its power in the 2010s, these trends reversed, with growing centralization and authoritarianism (Şahin Reference Şahin2019). Events such as the Gezi Park protests (Ramazanoğulları Reference Ramazanoğulları2022) and the 2016 failed religious-oriented coup attempt (Parmaksız Reference Parmaksız and Christofis2019) highlighted the demand for democratic participation, but they also marked the beginning of a more restrictive period for civic engagement (Esen and Gümüşçü Reference Esen and Gümüşçü2021). With the transition to a presidential regime in the 2020s, political parties split into two main camps. The AKP and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) formed an alliance promoting a conservative, security-oriented deliberation with defined borders. In contrast, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Good Party (İYİP) advocated a more libertarian, constructivist approach, open to global developments (Esen Reference Esen2024). On the other hand, the pro-Kurdish political movement, which has repeatedly been compelled to change its name and structure due to court-ordered party closures, most recently rebranding as the DEM Party (Peoples Party of Equality and Democracy), advocates for a deliberation framework centered on political autonomy and identity (Kaya and Whiting Reference Kaya and Whiting2020). Despite these differing stances, none of the parties have effectively advocated and implemented widespread deliberative practices.
The Republican People’s Party (CHP) has served as Türkiye’s main opposition party since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power but struggled to achieve significant electoral success until 2019 despite widespread public dissatisfaction and crises. The CHP’s relationship with deliberation is complex. As the oldest party of the Turkish Republic, it embodies a republican legacy alongside a social democratic identity. Before the 2010s, its primary focus was on safeguarding secular rights through a nationalist lens, but the party gradually shifted toward broader societal engagement, including local and national deliberative practices (Keyman Reference Keyman2010). Although some CHP-led municipalities experimented with participatory budgeting and neighborhood committees, these were not widely adopted and the Party’s breakthrough in the 2019 local elections is largely attributed to strategic political alliances and co-optation of figures from diverse ideological backgrounds.
Since the 2010s, the rise of nationalist parties and the pro-Kurdish political movement has shaped deliberative approaches along two distinct lines: one defined by strict security policies and the other rooted in political autonomy (Akgül and Akgül Reference Akgül and Akgül2022). The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) views deliberation within the confines of state control and national citizenship, employing a bureaucratic model closely aligned with state authority. Similar approaches are adopted by İYİP and the Victory Party, both founded by former MHP members. In contrast, the DEM Party has championed deliberation centered on identity, ecological rights, and gender equality. However, it has faced criticism for offering hierarchical structures at the local level, and allegations of ties to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party, an internationally recognized terrorist organization) have led to the criminalization of its municipalities and the dismissal of elected mayors.
Today, political parties do not have a clear deliberation model and the interaction of parties with existing deliberative structures is determined more by the interest, contribution, and expectations of people in local organizations than by party headquarters. It is therefore important to scrutinize experiences such as the Ankara Citizen Council to trace interactions of parties with deliberation.
Methodology of the Study
One of the primary challenges of working with citizen councils in Turkey is to reach documentation and archiving of their routine operations, deliberative activities, and participation processes, as their structure does not have a corporate body. However, city councils established after the 2019 local elections have made significant strides in leveraging technology to document and share these processes. The Ankara Citizen Council has developed a comprehensive archive. This archive includes executive decisions, mini-public and working-group minutes, and occasional audio and video recordings, all made accessible through social media, WhatsApp groups, and the internet. Since 2019, systematic annual reports have been published, offering detailed accounts of these activities. The archive allows for tracking which council members engage with specific themes, their contributions, and even their statements. The existence of this archive was also instrumental in selecting the Ankara Citizen Council as a case study for this article.
To analyze the participation of political party representatives within the Citizen Council, annual activity reports and meeting minutes were reviewed to identify their preferred mini publics and working groups, priority areas, and levels of engagement. This analysis covered five years of activity reports and 60 mini-public and working-group documents, which were subjected to content analysis. The assessment focused on whether political party representatives participated regularly, took the floor during discussions, or actively engaged in deliberations. Additionally, the author’s memos, maintained as a participant observer since 2019, were used to evaluate stakeholder involvement. The summary of this analysis can be followed in table 1 below:
Table 1 Basic Data about the Engagement of the Local Representatives of Mainstream Political Parties of Türkiye in the Citizen Council of Ankara
Note: The data here are obtained with the permission of the Citizen Council Secretariat.
Following this evaluation, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 political party representatives who were most actively involved in the council’s activities, consisting of three CHP, two AKP, one MHP, two İYİP, one DEM, and one DEVA. The interviews focused on two questions: (1) What motivated their participation in the Citizen Council? and (2) What benefits did they perceive from their involvement? Using the data collected, the researchers analyzed the modes of engagement and the contributions of political party representatives within the Citizen Council.
Mainstream Political Parties and the Ankara Citizen Council Experience
Citizen councils can also be found in various other contexts such as Mexico (Lombard Reference Lombard2013), Belgium (Niessen and Reuchamps Reference Niessen and Reuchamps2019), and South Korea (Oh et al. Reference Oh, Ko, Alley and Kwon2015), and others. Despite facing challenges like political pressure, lack of independence, and inconsistent public awareness, approximately 300 councils have been established across Türkiye to date, with notable success in the Istanbul and Ankara post-2019 local elections. Political party participation in these councils was limited to the ruling party’s representatives, but the Ankara Citizen Council marked a significant shift by including representatives from all major parties in its execution. This unprecedented inclusivity facilitated nonpolarized urban policy debates and even extended participation to more marginal parties and small ones.
The Citizen Council’s establishment enhanced its visibility and facilitated the adoption of innovative methods that increased its effectiveness. Efforts were made to keep the Council distanced from everyday political conflicts to connect previously unlinked segments of civil society. This allowed for various activities addressing issues such as urban aesthetics, budget management, and social inclusion for marginalized groups like the disabled and youth. The responsiveness of the mayors of Istanbul and Ankara during crises, such as the pandemic, highlighted the value of political party involvement in the Council (Şahin Reference Şahin2023). The Council also played a central role in the rise of Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavaş, whose moderate, participatory, and accountable political approach gained cross-party support. Initially, a nationalist, Yavaş was elected under the CHP-İYİP alliance and consolidated his popularity with the Council facilitating engagement between local party organizations. By fostering nonpolarized interactions, the Citizen Council became a foundation for long-term cooperation and new political alliances in tackling urban challenges. This situation, which at first seemed strange but later internalized within deliberation practices, was expressed by a CHP representative as follows:
When our party came to power after a very long time, we expected to see a structure in which we were in the majority in the citizen council. At first, we were worried when we saw that there were also people from parties like AKP. But then we realized that this was actually a very important thing. We saw that we should adopt the understanding of embracing everyone regardless of their party, not the exclusion policies that AKP has been implementing recently. (Interview excerpt, CHP local representative)
Political parties in Türkiye, particularly opposition parties, have long struggled to mobilize the public, a challenge evident in the stark contrast between the AKP’s vast membership and that of its nearest competitors. This imbalance reflects the weak resources and networks of local opposition party organizations. However, the Ankara Citizen Council’s inclusion of local party organizations as members has created new opportunities for political engagement. First, it provides a platform where party representatives can interact with various civil society groups and other political parties, free from the negative effects of polarization. Second, these interactions grant party representatives increased visibility and access to important politicians and administrators. Third, these connections often serve as pathways for new political and administrative appointments. After the 2024 local elections, many CHP and İYİP representatives who had engaged closely with the Citizen Council assumed positions in newly won district municipalities. Whereas AKP representatives benefitted from improved public perceptions and cross-party transitions, DEM representatives maintained a more cautious stance, which is understandable thinking about the prejudices toward the Party. For İYİP, this interaction occasionally conflicted with the party’s central leadership, leading to local resignations in the run-up to the 2024 local elections. A person working in the local organization of İYİP, who was interviewed within the scope of this article, expressed this situation as follows:
Since the establishment of our party, Ankara Citizen Council has been the most important channel through which we can express ourselves, show ourselves and meet other prominent people in the city. We had the opportunity to discuss the problems of the city without prejudices and discrimination against our party. Maybe I would not have been able to see or meet the mayor in any other way. However, even though we told our headquarters about the benefits of this structure, we were not taken very seriously. In my opinion, we found interest and opportunities in the citizen council that political parties did not show. (Interview excerpt: İYİP local representative).
Although the issues that party representatives prioritize in Citizen Council work are influenced by party ideology, the level of contribution and participation is shaped by the individual perception of the representatives. For example, whereas representatives of parties on the right contribute to issues such as urban identity and history, parties closer to the left tend to focus on issues such as gender, urban identity, and environmental policies. It was also found in the interviews that the level of contribution of representatives is influenced by multiple variables such as relations with the mayor, municipal bureaucrats, civil society organizations, and citizen council executives.
Conclusion
The study highlights a notable divergence in attitudes toward deliberation between the central leadership of mainstream political parties and their local branches in Ankara. Although national-level party leadership, across ideologies, remains indifferent or cautious toward participatory platforms like the Citizen Council, local branches have embraced such mechanisms with greater enthusiasm. This enthusiasm is driven by two factors: the desire for nonpolarized civic engagement and the opportunity to increase political visibility. The inclusive approach of the Ankara Citizen Council initially met with skepticism and fostered meaningful cross-party interactions, facilitating urban policy debates in a more constructive, less polarized manner.
At the grassroots level, the participation of political party representatives in the Citizen Council provided them with a platform to interact with civil society and other political actors in ways that the rigid hierarchies of their parties do not permit. This experience has proven especially beneficial for representatives from opposition parties, who face challenges in mobilizing public support due to limited resources and networks relative to the ruling AKP. However, although the representatives found the environment provided by the Citizen Council useful for their political goals, they did not express what influence this experience had on the mainstreaming of deliberation within their party. It could also be argued that they prefer to take positions on working issues in line with their party ideology rather than more actively engaging with different stakeholders. In the future, it can also be analyzed whether these representatives carry what they have learned from the Council interaction to the party process. The characteristics of the network that party representatives form with other stakeholders within the institutional structure and the level of differentiation from other civilian networks may also be effective in determining the political meaning attributed to deliberation. In this respect, network analyses can provide important insights. In addition, it can be argued that the political effects of Ankara being a capital city can also be investigated in terms of citizen councilor participation of the parties. Nevertheless, the case of Ankara demonstrates that local political agents are beginning to recognize the value of deliberation.
The Ankara experience suggests that new deliberative practices at local level can serve as testing grounds for the position and interaction of political parties with civil society, even in environments marked by authoritarianism and centralization. This adds detail to the existing evidence from established democracies (Gherghina Reference Gherghina2024). The future of deliberation in Türkiye may depend on the ability of these experiments to influence broader political practices. Whether these examples can be scaled up to affect national politics remains an open question, but the potential for addressing polarization and provision of new channels of political interaction is clear.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article is based upon work from the COST Action CA22149 Research Network for Interdisciplinary Studies of Transhistorical Deliberative Democracy (CHANGECODE), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
The author would like to acknowledge the Ankara Citizen Council secretariat for sharing the data on the work of the Ankara Citizen Council, which forms the basis for the evaluations in this article, in line with the understanding of public transparency and accountability.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
