Revision of the Election Law Stalls, Risk to Democracy Increases
The renewal of election regulations always sounds like an agenda agreed upon by all parties. Almost no one openly rejects the importance of improving the quality of electoral democracy. Everyone agrees that the existing system needs to be fixed, from issues of political representation, legal certainty, to the protection of citizens’ voting rights. However, looking at the current developments in the revision of the Election Law, the impression that emerges is the opposite. The process is proceeding hesitantly, stuttering, and as if not fully believed by the lawmakers themselves.
Moreover, there is an oddity that is hard to ignore. Discussions are taking place, but not really moving forward. Discussions are held, but have not yet reached formulation. The basic document that should serve as a common foundation has not even been opened to the public. In such a situation, it is difficult to avoid the impression that time is not being chased, but rather allowed to pass.
In fact, the need for regulatory renewal in elections is not a new thing. Since the post-2024 Election evaluation, various critical notes have been openly conveyed. The decline in the quality of election integrity, problems in organisation, to imbalances in political competition have become recurring issues. Various civil society organisations have even gone further by compiling academic papers and concrete draft laws through a participatory process.
This means that the problem does not lie in the absence of ideas. On the contrary, the material for making changes is already available. What is not yet visible is the political will to make it a genuinely prioritised agenda.
In this perspective, the stagnation of discussions can no longer be read merely as administrative delay. It reflects the weakness of institutional commitment in responding to democratic needs. When the need for change has been repeatedly identified but not followed by concrete steps, what emerges is neglect. And in the context of democracy, neglect is not a neutral condition. It opens space for the persistence of old problems, even strengthening them.
Furthermore, the ongoing delays also raise more serious questions. Is this merely unpreparedness, or a political choice to maintain the status quo? In many cases, election regulations are never free from the tug-of-war of interests. Delaying discussions can be the safest way to keep the power configuration as it is now.
If so, then this stagnation is not merely a technical issue, but part of a more structural problem in our democracy.
Amid these conditions, public debate often moves in too narrow a direction. Discourse on elections tends to focus on how to create better competition, as if the main problem of our democracy lies only in the lack of rivalry. In fact, the problem is not that simple.
Elections may appear competitive on the surface, but remain structurally unequal. Competition that takes place on top of resource imbalances, political access, and institutional control never truly brings justice. In such conditions, improving the design without touching the root problems will only result in cosmetic changes.
Ironically, as various signs of decline become increasingly clear, the response that emerges tends to be flat. We seem trapped in a narrow viewpoint, living in a comfort zone that limits the way we see problems, without serious efforts to break out of those boundaries.
On one side, the public demands honest and fair elections. But on the other side, practices such as money politics, vote manipulation, to the concentration of power through family networks or political dynasties still continue and, to a certain extent, are accepted as normal. When irregularities start to be seen as normal, the space for improvement becomes even narrower.
This condition cannot be separated from the tendency towards apathy in political life. Not a few actually realise that something is wrong, but choose to remain silent. Some feel they have no power to change the situation, others adapt to the existing conditions. In the long term, such attitudes actually strengthen the problematic status quo.
It is in this context that the revision of the Election Law should be positioned. It is not merely a legislative agenda, but a momentum to repair the foundations of democracy. Without serious renewal, we will only repeat the same problems in the next election.
However, the available time is becoming increasingly limited. The stages towards the 2029 Election are already on the horizon. In October 2026, the election organiser selection process must begin. Without an updated legal framework, that process risks repeating the same weaknesses, from recruitment quality to institutional integrity.
Experience shows that the quality of election organisers is very much determined by the design of the selection process. When the process is weak, the impact is immediately felt in the capacity and independence of the institution. In such a situation, maintaining the same regulatory framework without improvement is not just negligence, but a risky decision.
The problem is that the ongoing delays are actually narrowing the space for quality discussions. If this trend continues, time pressure will force the legislative process to be done in a hurry.
In such a situation, what is first sacrificed is not just procedure, but substance. Fundamental issues that should be the core of reform will be difficult to discuss in full. Debates on election system design, improvements to the nomination process, fixes to the organiser selection mechanism, to strengthening election integrity require time, data, and adequate deliberation space.
When time is not available, discussions tend to shift to things that are easiest to agree on or most beneficial in a p