Introduction: The Historical and Social Roots of Boycotts
On March 19, 2025, the arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu brought long-simmering societal tensions in Turkey to a boiling point. While people took to the streets in protest against what they saw as a blow to justice, they also decided to resist with their wallets. Believing that the rule of law had been undermined, masses turned to civil disobedience methods such as consumer boycotts to make their voices heard. This reaction reflects a long-standing tradition of resistance echoing into the present.
Although the concept of a boycott originated in 19th-century Ireland, it has since become a powerful tool in numerous social movements across the world. For example, Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930—launched to protest the British salt monopoly in India—demonstrated how people could use their economic power to deliver a political message. Similarly, the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the United States, which began in 1955, lasted 381 days and led to the Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. These examples show how oppressed communities have used “the language of money” to end unjust practices.
Turkey, too, has witnessed similar acts of public resistance in recent history. During the Gezi Park protests in 2013, widespread public outrage over the mainstream media’s failure to cover the events led people to stop watching certain TV channels, close their bank accounts, and boycott companies owned by those media groups. For instance, thousands of customers withdrew their funds from Garanti Bank, which was owned by Doğuş Group—also the parent company of pro-government channels like NTV and Star TV. The company’s stock prices plummeted, and the public backlash was so intense that the CEO of the media outlet was forced to issue a public apology. This incident revealed just how powerful the culture of civil boycotts can be in Turkey.
The latest wave of boycotts, sparked by #Ekremİmamoğlu’s arrest, is built upon these historical and social dynamics. For many, this decision was the final straw after years of unmet demands for justice, freedom, and democracy. Allegations of judicial politicization, the erosion of the rule of law, and an ongoing economic crisis have collectively pushed the public toward collective action. In their pursuit of justice, citizens have drawn inspiration from past movements and embraced the power of the boycott once again. In this article, I will delve into the details, goals, and impacts of the boycott movement that emerged after İmamoğlu’s arrest, compare it with similar examples, and finally explain—through both emotional and rational arguments—why those who haven’t joined the movement yet should consider doing so.
The Spark of the Boycott: How Ekrem İmamoğlu’s Arrest Ignited a Movement
On March 19, 2025, Ekrem İmamoğlu was taken into custody in a controversial operation and shortly after arrested on serious charges of corruption and terrorism. The accusations included grave offenses such as “rigging public tenders,” “bribery,” and even “aiding a terrorist organization.” These claims were deemed highly questionable and politically motivated by the opposition and large segments of the public. More than 100 individuals were detained as part of the same investigation, targeting the administration of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Legal experts and opposition leaders harshly criticized the process, labeling it a “civilian coup” and likening it to a “tribal state.” As the notion that “justice no longer exists” rapidly spread through society, anti-government protests erupted across the country.
Immediately following the news of the arrest, demonstrations took place throughout Turkey. People took to the streets in Istanbul’s Saraçhane district, in Ankara, Izmir, and even in smaller cities, protesting the decision. The slogan “There is no salvation alone, either all of us or none of us!” echoed in city squares across the nation. This powerful message underscored the belief that only unity could lead to liberation, embodying the spirit of the boycott movement.
While the protests continued, the opposition decided to channel their response beyond street demonstrations. On March 24, at a major rally in Saraçhane, Özgür Özel, the leader of the main opposition party CHP, made a bold move: he called for a boycott of pro-government media outlets and the companies that advertise with them. Addressing tens of thousands, Özel declared, “We no longer turn on TRT, which has betrayed us…” and went on to name and shame channels such as TRT, CNN Türk, A Haber, and Beyaz TV. The most striking statement was directed at advertisers. He warned, “If we see your ad on TRT, CNN Türk, A Haber, Beyaz TV, Türkiye, Akşam, or Yeni Şafak, we will not buy your products. Advertisers, do your math based on this square.” These words marked the beginning of a new phase of economic resistance: the people would not only vote at the ballot box but also with their wallets.
Özgür Özel’s call quickly resonated with the public. For many citizens who had never experienced a consumer boycott of this scale, the approach was both surprising and inspiring. University students, in particular, embraced the idea and took it a step further. Young activists organized on social media and called for a nationwide general consumption boycott on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The goal was for not a single person to make a purchase or spend money that day. The movement, which sprouted under student leadership, soon gained widespread support. Numerous political figures, including CHP leader Özel, artists, small business owners, and social media influencers declared that they would participate in the no-spending action on April 2. Hashtags such as #boycott, #ConsumerBoycott, and #justice began trending on Twitter and Instagram. International media even reported on the development with headlines like: “Turkey braces for one of the largest consumer boycotts in its history.”
As April 2 approached, the ruling government didn’t remain silent. Alarmed by the growing reach of the boycott calls, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office announced on April 1—before the boycott day even arrived—that it had launched an investigation into the calls, claiming they might fall under “incitement to hatred and hostility.” In other words, from the perspective of pro-government circles, even participating in a boycott could be considered a crime. This move didn’t deter the movement; on the contrary, it further united its participants. When the morning of April 2 arrived, excitement was at its peak both online and in the streets.
April 2, 2025: National Consumer Boycott Day.
By this date, people from all walks of life had joined the boycott. Many had stocked up on food in advance and pledged not to enter any store or market that day. Even café and restaurant owners shut their doors, hanging posters reading, “We’re taking a break from shopping today.” The scale of the action so unsettled the government that several individuals who publicly supported the boycott were detained in the early morning hours. Among them were 11 well-known figures, including popular actor Cem Yiğit Üzümoğlu, who was taken from his home for expressing support on social media. Other reports indicated that famous doctor and activist Enes Özel, among others, had been summoned for questioning. TRT, the state-run broadcaster known for its pro-government stance, also took retaliatory action against artists supporting the boycott—Aybüke Pusat, lead actress in a TRT series, was abruptly removed from the cast after calling for the boycott. Despite all these attempts to suppress the movement, the boycott day was largely successful. For one day, cash registers fell silent, wallets stayed closed, and millions of citizens stood united in a quiet protest to say: “If the people stay silent, justice will too.”
Targets of the Boycott: Which Brands and Institutions Are Being Boycotted?
This boycott movement was not a spontaneous, random act of consumer inaction—it had clear targets and a strategic foundation. So, which brands, institutions, and entities are at the center of this boycott? Essentially, media organizations, companies, and brands believed to be aligned with the government, accused of spreading its propaganda or benefiting from the current regime, were added to the boycott list. The list announced by opposition leader Özgür Özel on March 24 was comprehensive and can be summarized into several main categories:
Pro-Government Media Outlets:
At the top of the boycott list were television channels such as TRT (state broadcaster), CNN Türk, A Haber, Beyaz TV, NTV, and Star TV, as well as pro-government newspapers like Türkiye, Akşam, and Yeni Şafak. These outlets were accused of either ignoring or distorting important news, including İmamoğlu’s arrest. For instance, their failure to report on the massive rally in Saraçhane, which drew tens of thousands of people, drew widespread public outrage. As a result, citizens were urged not to watch these channels, under the slogan: “Turning off the TV is also an act of resistance.”
Media Supporters (Advertisers):
A critical aspect of Özel’s strategy was to also boycott companies that advertise on these media channels. That is, the public was not only encouraged to stop watching these outlets but also to refrain from buying products advertised on them. Companies included in the boycott list were:
- Ülker (a major food producer under Yıldız Holding)
- Kilim Mobilya (furniture brand)
- EspressoLab (coffee shop chain)
- D&R and İdefix (book and music retailers)
- Demirören AVM (a shopping mall)
- İhlas Home Appliances
These companies were either directly linked to pro-government conglomerates or were seen as indirectly supporting them through substantial advertising expenditures. Notably, brands affiliated with the Demirören Media Group(owner of CNN Türk) and Turkuvaz Media Group (publisher of ATV-Sabah and Turkuvaz Kitap) also appeared on the list.
Public and Public-Private Institutions:
Turkey’s National Lottery (Milli Piyango) and its associated online betting platforms misli.com and iddaa.com were also targeted. Public backlash was sparked by the privatization of the national lottery and the controversial transfer of its revenues to government-affiliated companies. ETS Tur, a tourism company owned by the Minister of Tourism, was also boycotted. These actions reflected public reaction against allegations of corruption and the perceived handover of public resources to government cronies.
Doğuş Group and Its Affiliates:
Doğuş Holding, which was also targeted during the 2013 Gezi Park protests, once again found itself on the boycott list. Özel specifically named its subsidiaries and partners. The group-owned NTV and Star TV were already on the list, and this time, additional brands were included:
- Volkswagen, for which Doğuş holds the Turkish distributorship
- Upscale restaurants like Günaydın Steakhouse and Nusret (Salt Bae’s restaurant chain), in which Doğuş holds a stake
This move aimed to send a clear message to large capital groups: “If you don’t stay neutral, be prepared for consumer backlash.”
Other Pro-Government Entities:
The boycott scope extended beyond these categories. Outlets like TGRT (owned by İhlas Group), İhlas News Agency (İHA), Demirören News Agency (DHA), and Turkuvaz Kitap/Publishing House, as well as some e-commerce initiatives associated with pro-government individuals, were also included. In short, companies from sectors such as media, retail, food, publishing, and tourism were boycotted if they had any organic ties to the government.
The boycott list was shared widely online shortly after the March 24 rally. A website named BoykotYap.com was launched to publicize the full list of targeted brands. However, the site was short-lived—it was blocked by court order within just two days. Nevertheless, the information continued to circulate widely on social media, reaching millions of people.
In summary, the boycott targeted the entire media and economic ecosystem that supports the ruling power. Protesters aimed to apply economic pressure not just to the government itself, but to the structures that help sustain its influence. In the digital age, #PeopleResistance took on a new form—shutting off the TV and closing wallets. This clever strategy reflected a new mindset: “If our votes aren’t enough to make change, let’s send a message with our money.”
Economic, Sociological, and Political Impacts of the Boycott
What impact could just a few days of boycott really have? At first glance, some may think this way. However, the April 2 boycott and subsequent developments showed that economic and social effects were felt almost immediately.
Economic Impacts
Perhaps the most tangible result of the boycott was the panic it caused in the markets and the developments that followed. Major retail chains and government-aligned companies responded to the consumer shutdown in an unexpected way: a “discount storm.” During the week of April 2–8, when the boycott call was most intense, Turkey’s leading supermarket chains offered unusually high discounts. According to a report by Cumhuriyet newspaper, markets that typically release weekly discount brochures offered discounts of over 50% on many products that week. For instance, one supermarket cut prices on basic food items by nearly half in a single day.
This led many consumers to ask:
“So they were selling with over 100% profit margins before? And now, out of fear of the boycott, they’ve dropped to actual prices?”
Indeed, these extreme discounts laid bare just how inflated prices had become under long-standing inflationary pressure. Economically speaking, the boycott disrupted the price mechanism from day one, forcing companies into a dilemma: “Either we suffer losses from not selling or we reduce our profit margins.”
Some major companies targeted by the boycott also began to feel financial pressure. Particularly among publicly traded companies, fluctuations were observed in the stock prices of those named on the boycott list. While it’s too early to measure long-term effects, markets are highly sensitive to public sentiment. In fact, during similar protests in 2013, shares of Doğuş Group’s Garanti Bank saw significant declines. A similar climate of uncertainty emerged in 2025. The mere fact that a giant publicly traded company like Ülker was on the boycott list created unease among investors. The hashtag #Ülker trended on social media as many users criticized the company’s political alignment. It’s clear that such campaigns can affect both brand reputation and market value.
On the other hand, pro-government media attempted to downplay the boycott’s economic impact. The state-run Anadolu Agency and several pro-government newspapers published articles claiming that spending on April 2 had not decreased compared to previous days. For example, Yeni Şafak reported that credit card spending on Wednesday, April 2 was higher than on Tuesday, April 1, which was the day after a public holiday, using the headline: “People didn’t support the boycott, they stood with local shopkeepers.”
However, despite this counter-propaganda, the reality on the ground told a different story. Millions of people sacrificed even a single day’s worth of spending to send an economic message. Additionally, the increase in spending figures may have been due to people stocking up on April 1 before the boycott or planning purchases for after the boycott. In other words, numbers can be interpreted in multiple ways—but the deep discounts offered by retail chains in a clear state of panic were the most telling sign that the boycott was being taken seriously.
Social (Sociological) Impacts
Beyond its economic consequences, the boycott had a profound impact on public psychology and the sense of unity within society. For a population long divided along political lines, the boycott demonstrated that people could unite under a shared demand for justice. It wasn’t just supporters of the CHP or İmamoğlu who participated—people from all walks of life who felt wronged lent their support. On social media, even some users known for their conservative identities posted messages like, “I’m an AK Party supporter, but what’s happening is wrong. I’m joining the boycott today.” In this way, the boycott took on the tone of a civic duty that resonated with anyone guided by conscience.
The role of youth in this process deserves special attention. For many university students, this was perhaps their first experience with such an organized form of civil action—reminiscent of the activism seen at Gazi University or METU in earlier years. On campuses, class boycotts were held, forums were organized, and handouts were distributed. The younger generation realized that they could shape the national agenda using the power of social media. This development challenged the narrative that Gen Z is apolitical, revealing instead how strongly they can drive change. In fact, one survey showed that 72% of Gen Z respondents said they would boycott a brand based on its political stance. This underscores the significant role that political awareness among younger generations plays in the foundations of such movements.
Another key sociological effect of the boycott was the strengthening of solidarity. Participants made a small sacrifice by avoiding purchases for a day, but in return, they gained a powerful feeling of collective unity. People exchanged messages on social media like, “We held on, the day’s almost over, well done to us all,” offering mutual encouragement. By the evening, many proudly shared posts saying, “I didn’t buy anything today, and I’m proud of it.”These messages spread rapidly, garnering tens of thousands of likes. Society experienced the satisfaction of acting together, and this is likely to lower the threshold for participation in future democratic actions—people realized that when they unite, their voices are stronger.
Of course, the boycott did not create a completely unified society; opposing groups also expressed their stance. Some government supporters claimed they celebrated a “shopping festival” in defiance of the boycott and even posted receipts showing that they had intentionally shopped from the listed brands. These counter-boycott actions reflected ongoing polarization within society. However, their numbers appeared to be relatively small, as reliable polling data painted a different picture.
According to a post-boycott survey, 35% of respondents said they fully participated and did not purchase from any listed brand, while an additional 5% supported the boycott but had to buy from certain brands out of necessity. Altogether, roughly 40% of the population appeared to have participated in the boycott to some degree. Meanwhile, 50% said they did not join the boycott against domestic brands, choosing instead to evaluate each company individually. This suggests that half of society remains cautious for now. But what matters most is that the culture of boycotting has taken root. Six out of ten people believe boycotts can genuinely bring results, and even among those who didn’t participate, 45% believe the boycott was a significant way for citizens to express their grievances.
These statistics indicate that the boycott has gained legitimacy from a sociological standpoint and now holds a meaningful place in the toolbox of public dissent.
Political Impacts
Undoubtedly, one of the most significant effects of such a wide-reaching boycott was felt in the political arena. For the first time in years, opposition parties united around a common stance. The boycott initiated by the CHP received support from opposition parties of various ideological backgrounds, including the İYİ Party, the Felicity Party (Saadet), and the Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA). Members of Parliament from these parties declared on social media that they would not make any purchases on April 2. Some even symbolically refrained from buying water from the Parliament cafeteria to show solidarity. This created a sense of morale and unity within the opposition base. After years of electoral defeats, opposition supporters felt, perhaps for the first time, that they had made an effective move against the ruling government.
On the government side, the boycott clearly caused discomfort. Although the President and other officials avoided explicitly mentioning the word “boycott,” they made veiled references in speeches, urging citizens to “avoid reckless acts that could harm the economy.” Pro-government media framed the boycott as a “sabotage attempt targeting the Turkish economy.” For example, a column in Yeni Şafak newspaper claimed that the CHP was trying to destroy the economy by targeting local and national brands. This was part of a broader strategy by the government to discredit the boycott movement. However, this approach appeared to backfire—most people viewed the issue not through a partisan lens but as a matter of justice.
Moreover, the fact that many of the boycotted brands were labeled as “local and national” did not exempt them from criticism. On the contrary, the public believed that these brands, by aligning themselves with the ruling powers, were betraying the national will. According to one survey, 34.8% of respondents fully supported boycotting local brands, while only 27.7% believed the boycott would harm the Turkish economy. This indicates that the “harm to the economy” argument did not resonate with a significant portion of the population.
One of the most politically important effects of the boycott was seen in the media sector. After facing public backlash, some major media outlets targeted by the boycott began shifting toward more balanced coverage. For instance, Habertürk TV, which initially ignored Özgür Özel’s rally in Saraçhane, decided to broadcast it live shortly after the boycott call. Similarly, NTV, though initially resistant, began providing more visible coverage of Ekrem İmamoğlu-related news once pressure on its parent company, Doğuş Group, increased. These developments highlight the boycott’s indirect political influence on the media. Channels that had long operated with a one-sided narrative were forced to be more cautious out of fear of losing viewers and alienating advertisers. This could mark the beginning of a new balance within Turkey’s media-politics-capital triangle.
Perhaps the most alarming realization for the ruling party was this: the boycott gave the opposition a powerful tool outside of elections. Governments typically pay close attention to economic indicators and market reactions. If consumer spending drops significantly or certain companies begin to suffer major losses, pro-government business elites may grow uneasy and relay their concerns to the administration. Indeed, historical examples like the international boycotts against apartheid-era South Africa show how economic pressure can force even entrenched regimes to consider reforms. Similarly, in Turkey, if the boycott continues or is repeated, pro-government conglomerates might start saying to the government: “This can’t go on.” After all, no one wants to alienate their consumers. In this sense, the boycott has become a new method of exerting pressure on political power—through economic channels.
All things considered, the boycott movement that began after March 19 quickly reshaped Turkey’s political and social agenda. It was a peaceful but impactful form of resistance that both empowered the public and sent a clear warning to the ruling power. Moreover, it seems that this culture of boycott won’t be a one-time occurrence—six out of ten people believe that similar boycott calls will increase in the future. In short, a significant portion of society is saying, “This is just the beginning. The struggle continues.”
Similar Boycott Examples: Comparisons from Turkey and Around the World
Throughout world history, boycotts have been one of the most peaceful yet powerful weapons used by people against injustice. To better understand the recent wave of boycotts in Turkey, it’s useful to examine similar examples from the past.
Examples from Turkey
The tradition of boycotts is not foreign to Turkish history—it stretches back to the Ottoman era. In 1908, during the Second Constitutional Period, the Ottoman public organized a boycott of Austrian goods in response to Austria’s annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This boycott significantly damaged Austria’s economy and led to diplomatic gains for the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, during the Turkish War of Independence, boycott campaigns were held against the products of occupying forces, and a nationwide mobilization under the slogan “Use Domestic Goods” was launched as part of the economic struggle for independence.
In more recent times, we’ve seen state-led boycott campaigns. For instance, during a political crisis with France in 2020, President Erdoğan called for a boycott of French products. In response, French-branded cheeses and cosmetics were temporarily removed from store shelves, and the public avoided purchasing them for a time. This boycott, being state-sponsored, was widely publicized—but did not have lasting effects. Similarly, during times of tension with the U.S., there were calls to boycott American electronics, such as iPhones. These reactions were generally emotional and had only short-term impacts.
Grassroots boycotts in Turkey, initiated by the public rather than the state, have been rarer but more powerful. A prominent example was the 2013 Gezi Park protests, when the public spontaneously launched a media boycott. As channels like NTV, Habertürk, and CNN Türk failed to cover the demonstrations for days, people turned off their TVs and canceled their Digiturk subscriptions. As a result, executives at these channels had to resign or issue public apologies, and media owners were forced to reconsider their editorial policies. Additionally, during Gezi, people avoided restaurants and hotels owned by conglomerates like Doğuş Group. In many ways, this served as a precursor to the 2025 boycott.
The 2025 boycott stands out as more organized and target-focused compared to Gezi. During the Gezi protests, public reactions emerged spontaneously and were directed at specific actors. This time, however, a political leader issued a formal call, and a systematic list of targets was created and followed. It may very well be the first meticulously planned consumer boycott in Turkish history. News reports have described it as “one of the most widespread consumer boycotts ever organized in Turkey.” In this respect, it surpasses all previous examples in both scope and level of public awareness.
Examples from Around the World
One of the most iconic examples of boycotts in world history is the anti-apartheid boycott against South Africa. During the 1980s, socially conscious individuals and groups around the globe boycotted South African products, sports teams, and cultural events to apply pressure on the country’s racist regime. Ultimately, South Africa could not withstand the international isolation and was forced to abandon its apartheid policies. This example serves as powerful evidence that economic and cultural boycotts can trigger political change.
Another striking case is the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956), which has already been briefly mentioned. In Alabama, USA, African American citizens refused to use city buses for 381 consecutive days to protest racial segregation. They organized alternative transportation systems and walked instead of paying fares to a system that discriminated against them. Eventually, as city revenues declined and national pressure mounted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled segregation on buses unconstitutional, making public transportation accessible to all. This remains one of the most famous examples of a local boycott leading to a national civil rights victory.
Consumer boycotts have also occasionally brought major corporations to their knees. One long-running example is the Nestlé baby formula boycott, which began in the 1970s. It was a global movement protesting Nestlé’s aggressive marketing of infant formula in developing countries, often discouraging breastfeeding. Over the decades, this boycott forced Nestlé to make partial policy changes in response to the pressure. More recently, environmental activists launched boycott campaigns against oil giant Shell, criticizing its role in climate change. These campaigns significantly harmed the company’s public image and forced it into damage control.
All of these examples show that even when boycotts do not immediately lead to political change, they have immense power to raise awareness, spark public debate, and influence long-term behavioral shifts. In this light, the boycott movement in Turkey is carving out its place in the global history of resistance. Especially in the digital age, where organization and mobilization can happen almost instantly, the kind of social impact that once took years can now unfold within days.
The 2025 boycott in Turkey is advancing by learning from both local and global boycott experiences. It draws inspiration from the legacy of Gezi, while also echoing the spirit of Montgomery and the determination of the anti-apartheid movement. This unique blend gives it a distinct place in history.
Can Boycotts Lead to Change on an Individual and Societal Level?
Perhaps the most critical question surrounding the boycott movement is this: “Can it truly make a difference?” Some may ask what significance one person’s decision not to shop could possibly have. But when millions of “individuals” come together, they form an immense force. The April 2 boycott gave us a small glimpse of this potential. So, what might change if this awareness continues and the momentum grows?
On the Individual Level
Every citizen who participated in the boycott discovered their own power. People who once felt helpless—asking “What can I possibly do?”—realized that when they unite, they can challenge massive corporations and change the national conversation. This psychological turning point is incredibly important. No one should feel insignificant or powerless anymore. Even the few coins in our pockets have power—if we know when and how to use them. This awareness is the foundation of true citizenship—it goes beyond being a consumer and becomes the consciousness of a rights-seeking individual.
On the Societal Level
At a societal scale, boycotts can become the voice of the silent majority. Between elections, the public’s ability to influence decision-making is often limited. But our daily consumption habits are like constant votes—choosing which companies to support or reject adds up to political impact over time. If large segments of the population stop providing economic support to powerful entities, those entities begin to lose influence over society. For example, if most people stop buying newspapers or watching TV channels aligned with the government, these outlets will lose their advertising revenue. Without ad income, they may face closure or at the very least be forced to adopt more balanced coverage. In this way, the government’s most powerful propaganda tools begin to weaken. Similarly, if a large company closely tied to the ruling party suffers continued losses due to boycotts, it may eventually reconsider its political alignment. In short, economic power reshuffles the deck.
The continuation of the boycott is crucial to achieving its goals. In the short term, the aim is the release of Ekrem İmamoğlu and other detained opposition figures, and the halting of politically motivated investigations. Whether these goals will be met is uncertain, but if the momentum of the boycott is sustained, the government may be left with no option but to back down. History has shown that even governments believed to be immovable have been forced to retreat in the face of determined public resistance. During the Gezi Park protests, for example, the government had to suspend the controversial military barracks project; and more importantly, even officials long believed to be incapable of apologizing were forced to acknowledge their mistakes—however reluctantly. Therefore, if the boycott grows large enough and persists, there is a real chance the ruling power may be compelled to recognize its errors and abandon unlawful practices.
Moreover, this boycott is creating a new model of civic participation. In a climate where labor unions are weak and street protests are easily suppressed, creative methods like consumer boycotts are becoming new platforms for public expression. Today it may be about not shopping; tomorrow, people might begin discussing other forms of financial civil disobedience—like tax resistance or bank boycotts. Regardless of the method, this movement instills the idea that “another kind of protest is possible.”
At the same time, it’s essential to be sensitive to the possible negative impacts of the boycott. Some economists warn that long-term consumer boycotts could slow economic activity and increase unemployment. Careful planning is needed to ensure that small businesses and producers do not suffer. Indeed, surveys show that 34.8% of the public is concerned about the potential economic harm of boycotting domestic brands. To maintain this balance, boycott calls must clearly distinguish between small local businesses and large pro-government corporations. This is why the current movement has made a point of targeting specific holding companies and brands, rather than everyday marketplaces or neighborhood shops. In fact, the aim is for consumer spending to shift toward small businesses and away from big chains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the boycott has a high potential to create meaningful change—both individually and collectively. As individuals become active agents in the fight for justice, society develops a stronger sense of collective consciousness. And this consciousness is the most valuable currency of a democratic society. The people who awaken through the boycott today will be more confident and engaged in elections, civic movements, and community action tomorrow. Once the public realizes its own power, no government remains untouchable forever.
A Call to the Hesitant: Why We Should Join the Boycott
We’ve now laid out the reasons, development, and impact of the boycott movement in detail. Yet, there may still be people keeping their distance, thinking, “What difference will it make if I join?” These words are a direct call to those individuals—because your participation matters more than you think:
1. It’s Time to Stand United for Justice
The arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu is not just the imprisonment of one man—it’s the imprisonment of national will and the very idea of justice. Today it’s a democratically elected mayor; tomorrow, anyone could be unjustly targeted. Joining this boycott means saying, “I refuse to be complicit in injustice.”
Every product you don’t buy, every channel you don’t watch, every rating point you withhold is a weight placed on the scale of justice. Remember, the scale only measures correctly when we fill it.
2. A Small Sacrifice, a Huge Impact
This boycott doesn’t demand huge sacrifices. All it asks is that you avoid certain brands, choose alternatives when possible, or skip shopping for just a day.
Maybe you’ll pass on your favorite chocolate bar or postpone filling up your gas tank. These are small steps individually, but when millions take them, the effect is massive. On April 2, we saw that a single day without consumption shook the national agenda. Even one day of lost revenue forced some companies to rethink.
Don’t think, “It won’t matter if I don’t join.” Maybe you’re the one person who tips the scale. Every drop becomes an ocean.
3. Emotional and Moral Fulfillment
Never underestimate the inner peace that comes from doing the right thing. That feeling of having stood up to injustice—even in a small way—is priceless.
There is nothing more fulfilling than going to bed knowing, “Today, I did my part for my country and my people.” And when you see thousands of others online sharing the same emotions, it becomes a source of hope.
For the first time in a long time, we’ve felt true unity and solidarity. That feeling alone is worth joining the boycott.
4. An Investment in the Future
If we dream of a more democratic and just country for our children, the fight starts today. Boycotts are peaceful, civilized tools of resistance.
The legacy we leave may not be material wealth, but the stance we took today. One day, our children will look back and say, “My family didn’t stay silent in the face of injustice.”
Leaving behind a legacy of justice is far more valuable than leaving behind money.
5. United People Defeat Oppression
Remember the slogan echoed during the protests: “No salvation alone—either all of us together, or none of us.”
This isn’t just a protest chant—it’s a truth. If some boycott and others don’t, the effect weakens. But if we move as one, we become impossible to ignore.
Unity is our greatest weapon. What governments fear most is the people coming together. If we unite today in boycott, we can unite tomorrow at the ballot box, and the next day in every area of life.
No oppressive regime can survive long when it sees the people standing shoulder to shoulder.
6. The Most Peaceful Way to Be Heard
What makes the boycott so powerful is that it is completely peaceful. There’s no harm, no violence, no conflict. We’re simply not buying.
It’s the most civilized form of protest in the world. That gives us complete moral authority. No one can say, “Why are you doing this?” because we’re not hurting anyone.
We’re simply choosing where our money goes. If we’re afraid to use even this basic right, we risk losing even greater rights tomorrow. That’s why we must join this legitimate and peaceful movement without fear.
Final Words
Dear readers, the boycott is not the end goal—it’s a means to an end. Our goal is to live in a fair, free, and democratic Turkey.
Sometimes we vote. Sometimes we take to the streets. And sometimes—we stand in front of store shelves, and walk away empty-handed.
It may sound small, even humorous. But today, this is what our resistance looks like: skipping the supermarket, zapping away from biased channels, and refusing that product.
These small acts, when multiplied, become a mass movement.
So let’s unite in this #PeopleResistance. For Ekrem İmamoğlu and all those unjustly punished. For the restoration of justice. For a better future for our children.
If we boycott today, maybe tomorrow we’ll celebrate. Remember—the sun of justice rises after the darkest nights. Overcoming these dark days is up to us.
We will either win together, or none of us will.
The choice is yours. The power is yours. The future is yours.
Together, toward a more just and equal tomorrow.
#Boycott is our power, justice is our goal. ✊
Sources:
- Cumhuriyet – “Price Wars During Boycott”, April 3, 2025
- Euronews Türkçe – “CHP’s Boycott List Expands: ‘They’ll Hit Rock Bottom’”, March 29, 2025
- Euronews Türkçe – “11 People Detained Over Boycott Calls Released”, April 3, 2025
- Euronews Türkçe – “A Movement Led by Students: Turkey on General Boycott Today”, April 2, 2025
- Yeni Şafak – “The Survey That Could Deter Özgür Özel From Boycotts”, April 3, 2025
- Marketing Türkiye – “What Does Society Think About Boycotts?”, April 2025
- PİRHA – “İmamoğlu’s Arrest Protested in Dersim”, March 24, 2025
- Odatv – “This Wave Will Drown the Past”, June 4, 2013
- Wikipedia – “Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu” (Accessed: April 2025)
- Wikipedia – “Montgomery Bus Boycott” (Accessed: April 2025)
