The process that began with the targeting of Ekrem Imamoğlu was followed by police violence during street protests and a wave of detentions. In an apparent attempt to defuse tensions, the government extended the Ramadan holiday to nine days immediately after the protests. However, a boycott was called for April 2, and many venues and brands joined the action. The announcement by various establishments on April 1 that they would also remain closed, along with the growing reach of the boycott call, prompted the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office to launch an investigation on charges of 'inciting the public to hatred and enmity.' Meanwhile, government ministers repeatedly claimed on television that the boycott amounted to an act of economic sabotage.

In an interview with ANF, academic Özgür Müftüoğlu said that although the economic loss from a one-day boycott was not substantial, its political impact was profound.

The government fears the continuation of protests

Müftüoğlu underlined that what truly unsettles the government is the people’s ability to act collectively. He explained: “A one-day action of non-consumption does not have a major economic impact when you look at it from a purely financial perspective. During the two-year COVID-19 pandemic, there were frequent lockdowns, and consumption dropped. But the real issue here is not simply the economic consequences. What genuinely worries the political power and capital circles is the fact that people are taking action against the government. There are moments in history when even the most seemingly passive actions can have profound effects. This boycott was just that kind of action. In fact, the Kurdish people have done this before through shop closures. When people are left with no means of expressing themselves, actions like this emerge. What truly concerns the government is the possibility that this type of collective action could be sustained. It is an extremely passive form of protest, yet it is still a movement. People are coming together around a common focus. Even voting is similar in that sense—passive but mobilizing. A shared emotion, a shared reaction to the government, is forming. These individual responses are converging.

Politicians have, for many years, grown accustomed to a particular mindset. This is not only about the Justice and Development Party (AKP); it has been the case throughout all repressive periods since the September 12 military coup: ‘society has already been manipulated in various ways anyway.’ This mindset goes far beyond the current government—it has existed throughout all repressive periods since the 1980 coup. In this context, consumption plays a crucial role. It was assumed that people would never give up consuming. They might choose not to drink coffee at café A and instead go to café B—but completely give up coffee? For some, that is entirely unexpected. However, this is no longer about economics; it has become a political response.

If more democratic conditions existed—if there were stronger organization, if people had freer means and methods of expression in the streets—the reaction might have taken a different form. Just last week, we saw people take to the streets—children and adults alike—and they were met with intense violence and were detained for absurd reasons. All of this is a method of intimidation. When the streets are suppressed, the state assumes that people will retreat to their screens, post a few messages on Twitter (now X) or Facebook, and then they will be identified, detained from their homes in the evening, and the rest will be too afraid to speak. But now this has branched out in ways they never expected. Society is responding. And this is a political response. Just like during the Gezi protests, it was never really about a few trees—here, it is not only about Imamoğlu either. It is about impoverishment, unemployment, desperation, and, for young people especially, the fact that education no longer offers anything or leads to any outcome.”

They are right to be worried

Müftüoğlu, when asked whether the power stemming from production—namely strikes—would be more effective, acknowledged that it would indeed be more impactful, but stressed that under current conditions, such a level of mobilization is not present.

He said: “Under normal circumstances, the greatest concern of the capitalist system is the halt of production. Because when production stops, all economic activity stops with it. Capital does not accumulate, the system fails to function. Workers actually hold this power—yet most of them remain unaware of it. Because the spaces that would allow them to realise this have long been shut down. Theories that explain this power have been banned, organisations have been discredited, and what has been left is a structure rendered ineffective. As long as these conditions remain, capital and the government feel no real threat. When a strike does occur, it is either banned or obstructed through various means.

The last serious strike wave we witnessed was in the spring of 1989. Since then, there has been almost no comparable movement. They now believe that this possibility has been entirely eliminated. Unfortunately, under current conditions, such a strike is not yet possible. But if production stops, the whole mechanism grinds to a halt. Even if strikes are launched for economic reasons, if they grow into a broader wave, they pose a serious threat to political power. There are many examples of this in history, both in Turkey and around the world.

It must also be said that something is beginning to awaken in society. What we are seeing now is a reflection of that. Those who joined the boycott today may strike tomorrow. At this moment, we can say that the conditions are not yet ripe, but this process is slowly preparing the ground. That is why they are trying to cut it off before it grows. Frankly, from the government’s perspective, this is extremely concerning—and they are right to be worried.”