Erdogan vs. Gulen: The Fractured Power Struggle That Redefined Modern Turkey

The decades-long rivalry between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Fethullah Gulen is one of the most consequential political dramas in Turkey’s modern history—a conflict that evolved from ideological alliance to existential confrontation, reshaping the nation’s institutions, judiciary, military, and media landscape. What began as mutual support between two influential Islamist-political figures quickly unraveled amid deepening mistrust, culminating in an unprecedented late-2010s showdown that exposed fractures across state and society. At its core, the rift stemmed from divergent visions for Turkey’s future.

Erdoğan, rising through the ranks of religiously infused governance, advocated a grassroots-based political movement anchored in conservative democratic values and centralized executive authority. Gulen, once a protégé and influential voice through his vast civil society network and media outlets, championed a more moderate, ethical Islam combined with technocratic modernization and dialogue. Their alliance in the early 2000s helped launch Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), which effectively dismantled the old military-backed establishment and secured dominance over two decades of Turkish politics.

Their initial partnership, however, began to implode around 2013 after a public falling out—triggered by investigative reports implicating Erdoğan’s inner circle in corruption scandals with close Gulen-linked business figures. Erdoğan accused Gulen’s network of orchestrating an elite cabal undermining his reforms, while Gulen’s representatives insisted the allegations were part of a coordinated smear campaign. This severance, though not widely acknowledged publicly at first, laid the foundation for escalating tension.

By 2014, the conflict became visibly political. Erdoğan consolidated hardline control over state institutions, appointing loyalists to military, judicial, and bureaucratic roles. Gulen’s allies, who had previously shaped media and local governance through subtle influence, gradually lost ground.

The situation intensified in 2016 with the failed military coup—spearheaded by rogue sections of the armed forces widely believed to have Gulen supporters. Erdoğan seized the moment, launching a sweeping purge targeting alleged Gulenists across the judiciary, military, universities, and civil service. Thousands were dismissed, arrested, or expelled, reshaping the country’s institutional spine.

The purge following the July 2016 coup attempt marked the turning point. Erdoğan framed the betrayal as an existential threat, casting Gulen as the mastermind of a state-undermining cadre. In a September 2016 statement, he declared: “This is not a coup attempt.

It is a state-organized terrorist operation—directly orchestrated by Fethullah Gulen and his followers.” The declaration bridged suspicion and accusation into a national crisis.

Gulen, operating in self-imposed exile in Europe—primarily London—denied involvement and described the crackdown as a “cleansing operation” meant to dismantle democratic reform. To his international supporters, however, the mass dismissals and arrests signaled a besoins régime’s transition from democratic contestation to authoritarian retribution. International observers, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, documented hundreds of lengthy pre-trial detentions and unfair trials of suspected Gulen loyalists, raising concerns about due process and political repression.

While pro-government narratives cast the purge as cleansing a treasonous network, critics argue the scale of purges—extending into parliament, the judiciary, media, and academia—exceed what is justified by credible evidence. Nick CT, praising Turkey’s investigative depth, noted: “The government’s narrative is narrowly hierarchical—accusations centered on a single faction, yet the targets span multiple sectors, suggesting systemic paranoia rather than surgical justice.”

The Lockstep Between Alliance and Enmity

The alliance between Erdoğan and Gulen’s ideological cohorts was never absolute. Their shared commitment to a socially conscious conservative agenda unified early efforts, including the AKP’s anti-secular reforms and Gulen’s transnational advocacy for moral governance.

Yet beneath shared truisms lay sharp differences: - **Governance Models**: Gulen favored consensus-based consultative politics and gradual reform, whereas Erdoğan increasingly pursued centralized, executive-led transformation. - **Civil Society Engagement**: Gulen’s titu-lation in media, charity, and local activism built soft power outside formal politics, while Erdoğan’s model centralized power within a single party structure. - **Military Relations**: Gulen’s network maintained cautious distance from military independence, whereas Erdoğan sought direct subordination of the armed forces to presidential authority—culminating in direct civilian control post-2016.

Yet the strategic convergence was undeniable. Gulen’s network, through NGOs, universities, and religious institutions, had helped cultivate a public base for AKP policies. As political theorist Gülay Çağlayan observes, “Their partnership represented a hybrid model—bottom-up social mobilization fused with top-down state consolidation.

When trust cracked, the architecture built on mutual reliance collapsed instantly.”

By 2017, Erdoğan’s authority rested on a newly centralized state apparatus. The constitutional referendum that year, passed amid state of emergency, abolished the prime minister role, empowering the presidency with sweeping executive powers. The Gulen movement’s diminished operational capacity—its leaders indicted, assets frozen, global offices shuttered—left no organized resistance.

Meanwhile, Erdoğan’s government intensified prosecutions, framing dissent under the anti-terrorist veil. Toilibrate reality, independent analysts caution that the silencing extended beyond Gulenists, encompassing critics across the political spectrum.

Media as Battlefield: From Gulen’s Voice to Turkey’s Silenced Pluralism

Before the rupture, Gulen’s influence permeated Turkish public life through a sophisticated web of semi-autonomous institutions. Independent journalists, educators, and businessmen linked to his movement shaped discourse around ethics, democracy, and social responsibility.

Key media outlets—including NTV, Zaman (later shuttered), and educational foundations—played a role in modernizing conservative civic engagement. Erdoğan’s AKP leveraged this environment early, but as tensions rose, state-aligned outlets shifted, marginalizing critical voices with Gulen ties.

The July 2016 coup attempt and Erdoğan’s subsequent crackdown redefined media’s role in this rivalry.

The government cited uncertified but widespread speculation that media groups supported the coup, justifying mass purges. Reforms in 2020 transferred the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) and Broadcast Ministry into presidential purview, ensuring ideological compliance. Independent outlets—once buoyed by Gulen’s network—faced shutdowns, fines, and legal harassment.

By 2023, foreign press freedom organizations ranked Turkey near the bottom globally, its media ecosystem tightly controlled, reflecting the political cost of the Gulen schism.

Critics argue that the transformation undermined pluralism. Some founders of Gulen-aligned institutions fled to Europe, establishing alternative networks abroad, while domestic voices anxious about reprisal self-censored.

“Before, we debated, debated, debated,” remarked one Ankara editor under condition of anonymity. “Now, even neutrality risks scrutiny. The cost of dissent is too high.”

Civil-Military Ties and the Shift in National Security

The military, long a guardian of Turkey’s secular establishment, became the primary arena for their contest.

Gulen’s network maintained indirect influence through educated officer cadres and quiet reform advocates pushing for civilian oversight. Erdoğan’s post-2016 purges eliminated decades of military institutional memory, replacing senior generals with loyalists loyal to the presidency.

Militarily, the 2016 coup attempt exposed vulnerabilities—loose links between rogue units and underground opposition—and prompted sweeping retribution.

The Chalala affair, a 2017 scandal implicating retired admiral Bekçi Chalala (allegedly orchestrating efforts to depose Erdoğan), further justified Erdoğan’s crackdown, but it also revealed deep fault lines. For Gulen supporters, Chalala symbolized continued meddling by old elite forces. For Erdoğan, it justified dismantling the military’s autonomous power.

Since then, Turkey’s defense posture has evolved under centralized control. The merger of ministries in 2020 and expansion of presidential authority over armed forces reflect eroded institutional checks—developments critics trace directly to the post-coup security paradigm, where loyalty superseded expertise.

International Perceptions and Geopolitical Consequences

Globally, the rivalry attracted scrutiny.

Western allies, particularly during Erdoğan’s early tenure as reformer, initially supported AKP’s democratic consolidation. Yet, deteriorating democratic norms, press freedom declines, and human rights concerns eroded trust. The U.S.

and EU expressed alarm over mass dismissals and judicial overreach tied to Gulen allegations, though strategic interests—particularly counter-Kurdish militancy and migration control—often muted official criticism.

Regionally, Erdoğan’s campaign against Gulenist networks resonated with authoritarian allies seeking to suppress dissent, while antagonizing Islamist groups who viewed Gulen’s message as incompatible with Erdoğan’s rising centralism. Gulen’s exile base in Europe preserved a transnational advocacy front, occasionally calling for democratic accountability in Turkey but largely constrained by geopolitical realities.

By 2023, Latin America’s Forum of Turkey Studies noted a shifting perception: “While once seen as a bridge between Islam and democracy, Erdogan’s Turkey, forged in conflict with Gulen’s shadow, now reflects a state prioritizing control over pluralism.”

The Long Shadow: Legacy and Uncertain Paths Forward

The Erdogan-Gulen rivalry was never a simple good-versus-evil contest—it was a profound struggle over Turkey’s identity, governance, and future. Erdoğan’s consolidation secured political dominance but reshaped the state into an executive centerpiece, altering balances between military, judiciary, media, and civil society. Gulen’s network, though diminished, preserved an alternative moral and ideological current, embedded in education, charitable work, and diaspora activism.

The conflict’s trajectory illustrates how ideological alignment can fracture under pressure of power, mistrust, and perception. What began with shared aspirations for a socially infused political order evolved into a partition between competing visions of authority—one rooted in top-down transformation, the other in pluralistic consensus. As political analysts observe, “This rivalry didn’t just change leadership—it rewritten the rules of Turkish politics.

Whether the state can now sustain its new equilibrium, or if deeper divisions will re-emerge, remains one of the most critical questions facing the nation.”