Reform or siege? Debates on the new era in local governments

Metropolitan municipalities, which form the backbone of the local government system in Turkey, have recently returned to the public agenda. The government's effort to regain control over these areas through administrative authority regulations, following the loss of most metropolitan cities in the 2024 local elections, is being discussed under the heading of "local government reform."

The call for "local government reform" voiced by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during his latest parliamentary group meeting, where he drew attention to the need for reform regarding metropolitan municipalities, could open the door to a new era in Turkey's administrative structure. However, this call also brings with it many fundamental questions and debates in terms of public administration. In this article, I will attempt to analyze the scope of the proposed reform, its potential effects on the administrative structure, and the risks it poses in terms of local autonomy.

Factors such as increasing urbanization, climate change, technological transformation, demands for participation in governance, and security are increasing the importance of local governments with each passing day. In our country, local governments have also transformed in light of these factors in recent years. The Metropolitan Law No. 6360, which entered into force in Turkey in 2014, was also a part of this change. However, the law created many problems in practice. Today, the new regulatory proposals on the agenda have the potential to create a radical transformation in the local government system. Why is this new regulation mentioned by the President on the agenda, and what kind of rupture could it create in Turkey's local government model? When the content framework and systematic dimension of the proposed regulations are examined carefully, criticisms that this is a tendency toward the re-consolidation of central authority rather than a reform come to the fore.

What Did Law No. 6360 Change?

With Law No. 6360:

Metropolitan municipality boundaries were expanded to provincial administrative boundaries.

Villages and towns were given neighborhood status, and their legal entities were abolished.

Provincial special administrations were abolished in metropolitan cities.

The duties and resources of district municipalities were redefined.

The goal was to provide public services more efficiently and quickly. However, problems such as confusion of authority, lack of coordination, and the weakening of local autonomy emerged in practice.

Problems in the Distribution of Authority and the Risk of Centralization

As President Erdoğan also stated, the "confusion of authority" that has long persisted between metropolitan and district municipalities is a significant structural problem. However, the approach of "separating authorities with clear lines" proposed to solve this problem contradicts the contemporary understanding of governance. Such a rigid definition reduces the flexibility of local governments; whereas the solution should be sought in a model based on cooperation and coordination between duties.

Definitions of authority made solely by central will ignore the unique needs of the local level. This carries the risk of further weakening local autonomy. The fact that decisions to be taken on the grounds of preventing confusion of authority have a nature of narrowing authority and increasing control also brings with it the risk of weakening local autonomy.

What Does Making Governors and District Governors “More Active” Mean?

The President's statement that governors and district governors should be made more active in places that are not metropolitan municipalities raises question marks regarding the constitutional balance between the principle of decentralization and central tutelage mechanisms. This situation can be read as a tendency that could increase the executive branch's dominance over local administrations and is aimed at re-strengthening the administrative tutelage mechanism.

Efficiency and coordination in public administration are certainly important; however, it should not be forgotten that this efficiency must be balanced with the principles of democratic representation and decentralization. Replacing local administrators elected by the direct vote of the people with civil administrators or equipping them with an authority framework that overshadows their activities could result in the erosion of democratic legitimacy. It can also be perceived as a new model of tutelage in the shadow of democratic representation.

In this context, steps to be taken under the name of reform must be based on the principle of "democratic accountability" rather than "hierarchical control" in public administration.

Financial Tutelage in the Name of Financial Discipline?

While warnings regarding the financial discipline problems of municipalities and calls for transparency in the use of resources are appropriate, proposing regulations that will increase the financial powers of the central administration as the address for the solution to these criticisms could lead to the establishment of a financial tutelage mechanism that is incompatible with administrative autonomy.

The correct method is to activate the Court of Accounts audit, institutionalize internal audit systems, and implement performance-based budgeting models. Otherwise, financial auditing can turn into a tool for intervention.

The assessments made regarding the debt burden of municipalities are correct, and in this regard, more sustainable financial structures that will ensure financial discipline and use resources economically, efficiently, and effectively need to be created. However, the proposal of "management through medium and long-term programs" presented as a solution raises the possibility of the central administration assuming a more directive role over municipal budgets. This situation may limit the capacity of local administrations to develop and implement their own financial policies, weakening the strategic planning capabilities of local governments.

As emphasized in the European Charter of Local Self-Government, it is essential that services are provided by units closest to the public and that local governments have sufficient financial resources. In Turkey, this principle is often ignored; local governments are made dependent on the central government.

However, many regulations and practices in our country increase the dependence of local governments on the center and negatively affect the administrative and financial autonomy of local governments. In order to implement local democracy based on financial autonomy by taking rational and optimal service delivery as a basis, there is a need for regulations that first determine the shares allocated to local governments from general budget tax revenues according to objective criteria and reduce their financial dependency rates by expanding the taxing authority of local governments to a certain extent. In the provision of public services, central government and local government organizations are not substitutes for each other, but complements.

Trustee Practices: Exception or Rule?

President Erdoğan's statement that the trustee model applied in municipalities associated with terrorism will now "become an exception" is noteworthy. However, considering that this method is used quite frequently and widely in practice, the risk of the institution of trusteeship turning into an ordinary administrative tool is on the agenda.

Although the appointment of a trustee on the grounds of public safety finds a legal basis, it is essential that the exceptional nature of this practice be preserved and that no room be left for arbitrariness in terms of the principles of legal predictability and administrative stability.

Trustee appointments should be a method that can only be applied with judicial decisions and as a last resort within the framework of international local governance norms. In this context, there is a need for structural reforms supported not only by political statements but also by legal safeguards.

Call to Parliament: Common Sense or Legislative Support?

The President's call to all political parties for the reform process is a positive step in terms of a participatory process. However, whether the reform process will truly be carried out with "common sense" will be measurable not only by the calls made, but by the checks-and-balances mechanisms that will be included in the content of the regulations to be prepared.

Why Is It on the Agenda Now?

This regulation suddenly came to the agenda after the government lost most of the metropolitan cities to the opposition in the 2024 local elections. The alleged lack of service was actually noticed with the government's loss of power in these cities. So, what is on the table right now?

Town municipalities will be reopened.

Rural neighborhoods will return to village status.

District municipalities will be given more authority.

The powers of metropolitan cities will be trimmed.

The government presents this as "strengthening decentralization." The opposition, on the other hand, sees it as "part of a siege plan for the metropolitan cities under its control" and expresses the following concerns:

Political Division and Fragmentation of Service: Reopening town municipalities does not bring service closer to the public; it localizes political polarization. It is clear that most of the newly opened municipalities will be government-backed. This will bring with it both injustice in resource distribution and double standards in local services.

Disempowerment of Metropolitan Cities: Metropolitan municipalities, which are already restricted within the current legal framework, will be further disempowered in areas such as transportation, infrastructure, and zoning. The central government will neutralize metropolitan administrations by carrying out services directly through rural units close to itself.

A New Blow to Local Democracy: Although the opening of town municipalities may look like democratization at first glance, it is actually a strategy to create new vote pools under the control of the government. It is aimed at creating political structures that can be easily directed, especially in low-population settlements.

Disaster, Water, Transportation: Public Service Confusion: While even the current system cannot provide enough coordination in services such as disaster management, water infrastructure, and environmental planning, the new fragmented structure will create bigger problems. Especially in provinces under earthquake risk, the confusion of authority between institutions can cause a system that should save lives to turn into a disaster.

Conclusion: The Risk of Reform-Looking Centralization

The need for reform in the local government system in Turkey is clear; this need is a political and social necessity as much as it is technical. However, the real issue is in which direction this reform will be shaped. We are at a crossroads: Either a model will be built that strengthens local democracy, is participatory, transparent, financially sustainable, and can establish balanced relations with the central government; or a structure where powers are gathered in one hand, local autonomy is weakened, and centralization is institutionalized will prevail.

A local government understanding that prioritizes democratic participation, has high service delivery capacity, and is sensitive to social demands is indispensable for contemporary public administration. However, reaching this goal is possible not through bureaucratic dominance, but through institutional balance and effective audit mechanisms.

The reform discourse that has come to the agenda today carries the risk of turning into an interventionist understanding that is legitimized by technical and administrative justifications but has the potential to overshadow fundamental rights and freedoms. For this reason, local government reform will be an indicator not only of the reorganization of the administrative and financial structure but also of Turkey's understanding of democracy and its commitment to the rule of law.

As the reform process progresses, the answers to these fundamental questions are of vital importance:

Is a real transfer of authority aimed, or is it the narrowing of areas of authority?

Is the autonomy of local governments being weakened in the name of auditing?

Is the investment and service production capacity of local governments being eroded on the grounds of financial discipline?

Will the reform process be carried out with technical staff and expertise, or will the political conjuncture be decisive?

Is a structure that is participatory, transparent, accountable, and in line with international standards aimed for?

The answer to these questions will determine not only the future of local governments but also the direction of democracy in Turkey, the quality of public administration, and the foundation of citizen-state relations. When the new law comes to the agenda, we must look at this regulation not only in terms of service delivery and institutional structure but also in terms of constitutional values, democratic legitimacy, and social conscience. Because this is a step that will determine not only how municipalities will operate but also how Turkey will be governed.

It should not be forgotten that a well-constructed local government system does not only increase the efficiency of public services; it also strengthens social peace, regional development, and democratic maturity. If this reform process is directed correctly, it can turn into an important opportunity for Turkey. However, if it remains in the shadow of centralist tendencies, this process will turn into a tool of control and dominance, not reform.

In conclusion, the future of local governments in Turkey is a threshold where not only technical regulations but also an understanding of democracy based on participation in governance, justice in resource distribution, and the rule of law is redefined. How we cross this threshold will shape not only Turkey's today but also its tomorrow.