How president Erdoğan became a global leader...

As I sat down to write this piece, the weight of the thoughts accumulating in my mind made it difficult to form the first sentence. Because this issue is not merely the story of a single leader; it is the story of a nation, which has been engaged in a two-hundred-year struggle for survival, rising to its feet once again. For this reason, the question must be posed correctly from the very beginning: How would a leader who emerged from a long history of resistance against the Western colonial order be portrayed if he had been born in the West? If a leader of this magnitude had emerged in England, Germany, or America, how would academia position him, and through which concepts would it construct his narrative? And to consider an even more striking possibility: if this leader had come from a leftist tradition, how many hundreds of articles and thousands of pages of scholarly work would have been written about him in global literature today?

At the point we have reached today, the transformation brought about by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Türkiye has become a model in many regions. We are speaking of a leadership that is discussed far beyond the borders of the National Pact, that attracts greater attention, and that has become a concrete example of hope, development, and the idea of independence for oppressed nations. Yet paradoxically, a transformation of this scale has not been the subject of sufficiently in-depth academic analysis within its own country. One of the main reasons for this is that, for many years, the Westernist and ideological circles that shaped cultural power in Türkiye preferred to exclude such leadership rather than try to understand it. On the other hand, a significant portion of conservative intellectual circles have also lacked the courage to conceptualize this great transformation.

However, what has taken place in Türkiye over the last quarter-century is not simply a story of political success. This process is a holistic narrative of the reconstruction of state capacity, the strengthening of economic infrastructure, the achievement of independence in strategic areas, particularly the defense industry, and the transition from a passive role to an active subject in foreign policy. This broad transformation, spanning infrastructure investments, the technology ecosystem, energy policies, and security strategies, is not fragmented; it is the product of a systematic process built step by step under rational leadership.

It is at this point that Erdoğan's leadership becomes distinctive. By transcending the classical understanding of bureaucratic politics, he has put forward a different model, characterized by a strong bond he established directly with the people, his charismatic leadership capacity, and his ability to make swift decisions. This model has found a powerful resonance, especially in countries experiencing political fragility, having limited institutional capacity, or being vulnerable to external intervention. Because this form of leadership involves not merely governing, but also providing direction, taking risks in times of crisis, and forging new paths when necessary.

Within this framework, Türkiye's foreign policy has also taken on a new character. Rejecting a passive position within the Western-centric international system, Türkiye has transformed into a model of a "middle power that can chart its own course," at times asserting independent and unique positions. This situation has strongly resonated, particularly in post-colonial societies such as those in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Erdoğan's critiques of imperialism and his emphasis on national sovereignty have aligned with the historical memory of these societies; thus, Türkiye has begun to exert influence not only as a state but also as an idea.

Another dimension of this influence emerges in leader diplomacy. Direct relationships established with powerful leaders on a global scale have carried Türkiye beyond classical diplomatic patterns, positioning it as an actor that fosters mutual respect, competes when necessary, but is also capable of negotiation. This has made Türkiye a strategic power that establishes balance during a period when a multipolar world order is taking shape.

Erdoğan's perception in the Islamic world, however, warrants a separate discussion. As a leader who carries his religious identity with political visibility without radicalizing it, he has been perceived by many Muslim societies as "a figure who generates representation." This has found a strong resonance, particularly in societies experiencing identity crises.

Crisis management and the capacity to take risks are also defining elements of Erdoğan's leadership. Türkiye's intervention capacity displayed across a broad geography—from Syria to Karabakh, from Libya to the Eastern Mediterranean—has transformed the country from a regional power into a game-setting actor. The defense industry developed during this process has become not only a military asset but also one of the fundamental pillars of political independence.

Furthermore, Türkiye's humanitarian diplomacy capacity cannot be overlooked. Through institutions such as TİKA, the Yunus Emre Institute, and the Maarif Foundation, the education, health, and development projects carried out have created a tangible Turkish presence in hundreds of countries. This impact, as an area where state capacity and leadership vision converge, has further strengthened the global perception of Erdoğan.

This perception taking shape across different geographies is noteworthy. In the Far East and Asia, Erdoğan is seen as a political symbol of the quest for independent development; in the Middle East, he stands out as a figure combining Islamic representation with national sovereignty. In the Caucasus, he is perceived as a strategic actor that establishes balance; in Africa, as the concrete embodiment of anti-imperialist rhetoric; in the Balkans, as an element of trust reinforced by historical ties; and in Latin America, as a symbol of resistance outside the Western sphere. Europe, meanwhile, despite its criticism of Erdoğan, cannot do without him, because the leader it faces is simultaneously a demanding and an indispensable negotiating partner.

In conclusion, Erdoğan's perception as a strong leader across different geographies cannot be reduced to a single cause. This situation is a multi-layered sphere of influence arising from the combination of charismatic leadership, independent foreign policy, anti-imperialist discourse, strategic capacity, humanitarian diplomacy, and the ability to maintain balance in a multipolar world order.

These assessments must be made more extensively. Two statements he made during the war between Israel, the US, and Iran prompted me to write this piece:

"Israel started this war; 8 billion people are suffering the consequences."

"In this senseless war, isn't the economy of our region losing blood, aren't the infrastructures destroyed by missiles, drones, and bombs also the resources of our brothers? Even if our sects and origins differ, isn't the blood flowing in our geography the blood of us all?"

The first of these two statements resonated loudly around the world, and the second within the Islamic world. This, precisely, is imperial vision and conception.

To understand Erdoğan is, in fact, to grasp a larger truth: History is not merely a text written by great powers. Sometimes, that text is rewritten by a nation that has long been kept on the margins. Türkiye's march over the last quarter-century is precisely that.

And in this march, the name of this political intellect is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.