More than eight years ago, Turkish philanthropist Osman Kavala was arrested. The accusations against him remain unclear. His wife, Ayşe Buğra, who travelled to Berlin to accept the Liberal International Prize for Freedom 2025 on his behalf, speaks about Erdoğan’s possible motives and the tense political climate in Turkey.
Ayşe Buğra: It has now been eight and a half years since he was arrested. I am glad to say that he has remained psychologically strong and is coping with the situation, difficult as it is. However, conditions have become harsher since the verdict. Previously, I could visit him every week; now I can only see him twice a month: once during an “open visit”, where we can sit in the same room together, and once separated by a glass partition, speaking by telephone.
He reads a great deal, which helps him enormously, especially fiction. We often read together.
Buğra: We read the same books, write to each other about them, or discuss them during visits. Most recently, we read Montaigne’s Essays — a new complete edition in Turkish. Montaigne is always helpful, regardless of the circumstances one finds oneself in.
Buğra: Montaigne gives one strength through his writings, but also through the personality that emerges from his essays. He himself lived through difficult times — during the devastating religious wars of sixteenth-century France — yet he found ways to preserve his freedom and remain true to himself without bitterness or complaint.
Buğra: Yes. Anadolu Kültür continues its work. My husband follows the foundation’s initiatives with great interest, even though he cannot actively participate from prison. The organisation’s goal has always been to foster cultural cooperation and build bridges between people of different cultures, worldviews, and political positions.
My husband wants to contribute to the development of empathy and solidarity. That is especially important in today’s polarised world.
Buğra: It is difficult to comprehend. His case follows no legal logic whatsoever. The accusations do not even correspond to the offences defined in the penal code. He was accused of attempting to overthrow the government by force, yet in around twenty hearings that I attended, I never heard a single concrete example of such an act.
His imprisonment appears to serve the purpose of retrospectively criminalising the 2013 Gezi protests and intimidating Turkish civil society. Perhaps his continued detention is also simply the consequence of a chain of bad decisions that have become difficult to reverse.
Buğra: I do not understand it myself. He is not a politician; he does not belong to any political party or organisation. His civil society work has always been transparent. At times, Anadolu Kültür even cooperated with government ministries.
The accusations are difficult to understand. The most plausible explanation is that after the 2016 coup attempt, a new narrative emerged portraying the Gezi protests as an attempted overthrow of the government. To sustain that narrative, alleged masterminds had to be identified and punished.
Buğra: Possibly. Perhaps because many people know him, or because he comes from a wealthy family. But that is speculation. The fact remains: there has been no serious attempt to present evidence.
Buğra: Yes. Because the Turkish authorities refused to comply with that ruling, the Court initiated infringement proceedings against Turkey, concluding unequivocally that Turkey had failed to fulfil its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is an extraordinary case that someone remains imprisoned despite such a ruling. It is also a case that could call the entire European human rights system into question.
Buğra: I hold on to the belief that it must. Turkey has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1949, and compliance with international court rulings is even anchored in the Turkish constitution. Whether this will actually happen, I cannot say. But the hope remains.
Buğra: I believe this system is fundamentally important. One cannot simply say that it no longer works and should be discarded. It must be defended because it gives weight to norms and values — to human rights and individual freedoms.
Without such a system, people whose rights are violated would be left entirely unprotected.
Buğra: European states naturally pursue geopolitical and economic interests. But I believe those interests should not overshadow values. I would like to see human rights given greater emphasis in international relations.
If these values are completely pushed aside, that only strengthens authoritarian tendencies.
Buğra: It is not for me to make demands. But I would like to see his case receive greater attention in discussions between German representatives and the Turkish government. It is not about pressure, but about raising awareness and expressing concern.
Buğra: There are many opinion polls indicating widespread dissatisfaction among the population. Economic problems are at the top of people’s concerns, and those problems are very serious.
Increasingly, “justice” is also cited as a central concern. Even if such surveys do not specify exactly what people mean by injustice, this points to a fundamental criticism of the current situation.
Still, it is difficult to assess whether this dissatisfaction could lead to democratic change given the deep polarisation in the country. In the 2024 local elections, the main opposition party won the largest share of the vote and secured mayoral offices in many major cities. Yet it now faces enormous challenges because of continuing measures against its elected mayors.
Buğra: It is extremely tense. Inflation is among the highest in the world. Poverty and social insecurity are increasing. Many well-educated young people see no prospects for themselves. This strengthens the desire for change.
Buğra: One should not equate a country’s population with its government. It is important to recognise that many people in Turkey are committed to justice and freedom.
It is important to remain sensitive to injustice and to seek dialogue. Ask questions, speak with one another — dialogue is essential, prejudice is harmful.
The interview was originally published here.
