Judicialization of urban planning and its consequences for democratic politics: Insights on the Case of Ankara, Türkiye

Urban planning in Türkiye has become increasingly subject to judicial oversight through lawsuits filed by professional chambers, particularly the Chamber of City Planners. This article examines the judicialization of urban planning in Ankara based on the judicial actions of the Chamber —defined as the increasing exposure of planning to judicial assessment and decisions rather than democratic processes—while also tracing how litigation has functioned as a professional strategy of contestation that has important consequences for democratic politics and spatial justice. Based on analysis of Chamber activity reports documenting the lawsuits from 2000 onwards and in-depth interviews with Chamber executives, we identify four systemic and interrelated features driving judicialization: rent-seeking instrumentalization, top-down authoritarian governance, political Islamist spatial politics, and global Southern characteristics. Through lawsuit examples—Atatürk Forest Farm, Bank of Provinces, Saraçoğlu Neighborhood, and piecemeal plan amendments—we demonstrate two primary consequences. First, judicialization shrinks democratic space by displacing contestation from public forums into courtrooms, limiting participation to planning and legal experts, while constraining the Chamber’s potential to contribute to the expansion of democratic space. Second, it exacerbates spatial injustices through temporal uncertainties: politically connected developers and investors acquire building rights rapidly while working-class neighborhoods wait indefinitely. The analysis reveals judicialization’s paradox—simultaneously responding to authoritarian urbanism while reinforcing democratic erosion. The article concludes that legal mechanisms alone cannot sustain democratic urban politics, requiring complementary strategies building broader democratic capacity and inclusive engagement beyond captured judicial venues.