We are living in bizarre times. Not just strange or odd, but truly bizarre. Politics is being tested like in a diploma exam. The diploma of Istanbul Mayor and the CHP’s almost certain presidential candidate, Ekrem İmamoğlu, has become nearly the only topic of discussion these days. The diploma debate is not new in Turkish politics either. This is a country where, perhaps since his election, there has been an ongoing debate over whether President Tayyip Erdoğan has a diploma or not. However, this time, the roles have reversed: those who once said, "Erdoğan does not have a diploma; his presidency is invalid," are now facing off against those who argue, "İmamoğlu’s diploma is null and void; he cannot run for the presidency." The debate is revolving around the question of "who actually has a diploma."
The issue is this: According to the constitution, one of the criteria for being elected president is having “higher education (university) credentials.” Now, nearly half of the country is searching for Erdoğan’s diploma, while the other half is looking for İmamoğlu’s. Sure, the constitution should not be violated, but should politics be confined to 30- or 50-year-old diplomas?
RESENTMENT TOWARD EDUCATED
Beneath the diploma issue, which is actually a legal debate, lies a deeper story for Turkey. There was a time when society took pride in people who won places at good universities and achieved important professions. Of course, children from wealthy families always had greater opportunities for success, but when children from poor backgrounds accomplished the same, they were praised even more. Then, beginning in the 1950s, a mindset that could be summed up with the famous slogan, “We will create a millionaire in every neighborhood,” spread throughout society. And in recent times, a type of anti-intellectualism has grown like an avalanche in culture, arts, and politics, leading to hostility toward those who read and write.
LAST MINUTE
Our focus today, however, is on an academic, a constitutional law professor, and a former MP from the Gelecek Party, Serap Yazıcı. She resigned almost at the last moment, practically in the final minutes, to join the ruling AKP. And yes, she has a solid law degree. Can a politician switch parties? Of course. There’s nothing wrong with that. But the timing of this switch matters. Moreover, CHP Chair Özgür Özel suggested that Yazıcı first approached them but was turned down, hinting at a negotiation. Similar messages were conveyed by the Gelecek Party. Yazıcı, for her part, denied Özel’s claim.
DIPLOMA OR ETHICS?
At the congress held on Feb. 23, many other figures who had no prior association with the AKP, people from different parties or independent backgrounds, also joined and were given roles in management. So why was Yazıcı the one most criticized? For example, in the 1990s, there was an MP named Kubilay Uygun, who switched parties five or six times in a short span and earned the nickname “Spineless Kubi.” But Yazıcı’s party switch was different.
Because Yazıcı had fiercely criticized the presidential system introduced by the 2017 referendum, calling it a “one-man regime.” She was the founder of the Gelecek Party with former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. Alongside her late husband, constitutional law professor Ergun Özbudun, she had even worked on a draft constitution for the AKP in 2007. But the draft she contributed to did not advocate for a Turkish-style presidential system like today’s; rather, it supported a parliamentary system. Later, she and her husband distanced themselves from politics, only to re-emerge with the Gelecek Party. In the opposition’s "Table of Six" initiative, led by former CHP Chair Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, Yazıcı was at the forefront of drafting the constitutional and legal texts.
And then, suddenly, we saw her in the AKP, a party she had previously denounced in legal terms. She claimed she resigned from her party “for the reason I saw.” Some also speculated that financial incentives were involved. After joining the AKP, she stated that she had not abandoned her previous views but that she had been “influenced by Erdoğan” during a last-minute meeting.
Returning to the diploma issue—back in the 1980s, when we were in university, exams were never a topic of controversy. There were no such debates. Distrust in exams and skepticism are relatively new.
And let’s conclude with the diploma matter. A quote attributed to Shams Tabrizi has been circulating as part of this debate: "What matters is not the diploma, but ethics."
