Direct Lines to Power: CIMER as a Populist Instrument in Modern Governance

This paper explores the Presidential Communication Center (CIMER), an institution operating under the Directorate of Communications of the Republic of Türkiye, as a manifestation of populist policy in contemporary governance. Established as a mechanism to streamline communication between citizens and the presidency, CIMER positions itself as an efficient and inclusive tool for addressing public grievances, policy suggestions, and direct appeals to the head of state. However, beyond its practical function, CIMER also serves as a symbolic and operational vehicle for fostering the perception of a direct, unmediated connection between the president and the people, a hallmark characteristic of populist governance. Drawing on a robust body of literature on populism, this paper situates CIMER within the broader theoretical framework of populist strategies that seek to erode intermediary institutions such as legislative bodies, bureaucratic agencies, and legal processes. Scholars of populism have frequently noted that populist leaders endeavor to bypass these institutional checks in favor of establishing direct relationships with their constituencies, thereby projecting an image of responsiveness and personal accountability. CIMER exemplifies this tendency by offering citizens a platform to bypass traditional avenues of participation and oversight. It creates the illusion of direct presidential engagement while simultaneously consolidating executive authority and marginalizing alternative bureaucratic and procedural channels. Through an analysis of CIMER’s structural and operational mechanisms, the official discourse and the public perception, this study underscores its dual role as both a practical administrative tool and a populist political instrument. On the one hand, CIMER’s promise of rapid response makes it an appealing option for citizens seeking redress. On the other hand, its design reinforces a populist narrative that presents the president as the singular, accessible leader who can address the concerns of the "ordinary people" directly. This bypassing of intermediary institutions not only aligns with populist tendencies but also poses significant implications for democratic governance, particularly regarding the weakening of institutional checks and the concentration of power in the executive branch. The paper draws on qualitative content analysis of CIMER’s official communications, public statements by government officials, and case studies of its implementation. It also incorporates theoretical insights from the populism literature to highlight how CIMER reflects and reinforces the key tenets of populist rhetoric: the centralization of power, the personalization of authority, and the delegitimization of intermediary institutions. By examining the interplay between CIMER’s operational realities and its populist underpinnings, this study sheds light on the broader implications of administrative reforms framed as tools for enhancing democratic engagement but which, in practice, may undermine the very institutions that sustain democratic governance. As such, the study contributes to the growing body of scholarship on the intersections of populism, governance, and institutional reform, offering a nuanced understanding of how populist policies manifest in administrative practices and their implications for the resilience of democratic systems.