With less than a month to go before Turkey’s April 16 referendum, the democratic and free climate this fateful vote requires is nowhere to be seen. The country is engulfed in a toxic campaign teeming with autocratic displays of populist nationalism aimed at boosting support for constitutional changes designed to hand sweeping executive powers to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In the words of veteran Hurriyet columnist Taha Akyol, “The government’s propaganda machine is working full throttle in a formidable ‘yes’ campaign, using also the powers of the state. … We see on a daily basis how the ‘yes’ vote is promoted through state power and how the same state power is used to suppress the ‘no’ vote.”

The most striking example in this regard is perhaps the “no” campaign of former Interior Minister Meral Aksener, whose appeal to nationalist and conservative voters makes her a serious threat in government eyes. Aksener’s public events face regular disruptions through a variety of means, ranging from power cuts at campaign venues to rally bans and physical attacks.

Another example is the abolition of a provision in electoral laws that stipulated penalties for private TV networks and stations that fail to provide balanced and objective coverage of competing campaigns. The government scrapped the provision in February through a legislative decree, a tool made available by the state of emergency in effect since the July 15 coup attempt, flouting the constitution, which says that amendments to electoral laws can take effect only a year after adopted. The loss of this provision means that the voice of the opposition is now completely absent from the scores of pro-government channels.

Violations of law and the evisceration of rules have become a hallmark of the campaign. Chief among them is Erdogan’s breach of the president’s neutrality, a norm enshrined in both the constitution and the presidential oath. Erdogan says the provision is no longer relevant because he was elected directly by the people and asserts his right to take sides. He leads a bellicose “yes” campaign, vilifying the “no” camp and fanning artificial tensions, as in the recent crises with Germany and the Netherlands.