Why Istanbul Should Not Be the Capital of Turkey: Insights and Arguments
The question of why Istanbul, a city that forms the backbone of Turkey's economy and infrastructure, is not the capital, has long puzzled many. Some argue that Istanbul should be the capital due to its enormous economic importance. Others, however, believe that Ankara should resume its role as the capital due to various geopolitical, defensive, geographical, and practical reasons. This article aims to examine these arguments and provide insights into why Istanbul, despite its importance, is not the capital of Turkey.
Geopolitical and Defensive Considerations
Istanbul may be the largest and most economically vital city in Turkey; however, it is not without its vulnerabilities. One of the strongest arguments for maintaining Ankara as the capital lies in its strategic geopolitical and defensive advantages. Istanbul is not as inherently secure as Ankara, making it a less ideal choice for the seat of government. Historically, Istanbul's bustling commerce and trade have made it a prime target for invasions. While an invasion may not be as straightforward as walking into Paris, protocols developed over centuries of Ottoman rule can still protect the city. Nevertheless, the city's safety remains a significant concern.
In contrast, Ankara is surrounded by the Central Anatolian Plain and is protected by mountains on all sides. This natural terrain makes it extremely difficult for even the most powerful armies to reach Ankara, thereby providing a far safer location for the capital than Istanbul.
Geographical Factors
Another crucial factor that supports Ankara's suitability as the capital is its geographical advantages. Not only is Ankara a safer city compared to Istanbul, but it is also better protected from natural disasters. Turkey is particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, with many fault lines crisscrossing the country. Ankara, situated on higher ground, is far from the intense seismic activity, particularly the North Anatolian Fault Line, near Istanbul. This past a significant earthquake in 1999, which led to severe damage in Istanbul, highlights the vulnerability of Istanbul to natural disasters.
Moreover, the geographical space available in Ankara is much more conducive for expansion compared to Istanbul. Istanbul has reached its physical limits and is facing demographic pressures. The sprawling metropolis is filled with people, buildings, and vehicles, with no room for further growth. This population density and lack of space make it ultimately unwise to implement a massive expansion of governmental institutions, as has been seen with the regime's approach to using Istanbul.
Logistical and Ideological Considerations
Besides security and geography, the current regime's promotion of Istanbul as the capital can be attributed to a mix of economic interests, ideological ambitions, and personal rivalry. President Erdogan and his regime have long advocated for the strategic positioning of economic and political centers in Istanbul, a move that has been more about ideology and personal preference rather than practical needs. Ankara's push for reform and modernization has been met with resistance, despite its practical advantages.
Historically, Istanbul held a greater role in Turkish history and culture. However, it is often referred to as an 'old prostitute on her deathbed.' This metaphor illustrates the city's aging population, traffic congestion, and physical constraints. The lack of expandable space, combined with its historical significance, makes the transition to Istanbul an ill-advised move. Moving the entire governmental infrastructure from Ankara to Istanbul would be a significant logistical and practical challenge.
Conclusion
While Istanbul is a crucial city in Turkey, its history and current conditions make it less suitable for the role of capital. Ankara's strategic location, safety, and geographical advantages make it the better choice. The current status of Istanbul as a major economic and cultural hub does not negate the necessity for Ankara to remain the capital. Ultimately, the decision to keep Ankara as the capital should be based on the most sensible and practical considerations rather than ideological or personal motivations.