Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has remained in power for 20 years by repeatedly surmounting political crises: mass protests, corruption allegations, an attempted military coup and a huge influx of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war. Now the Turkish people and economy are being pummeled by sky-high inflation, and many are still recovering from a devastating earthquake in February made worse by the government's slow response. Yet Erdogan — a populist with increasingly authoritarian instincts — enters a runoff election Sunday as the strong favorite against opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu after falling just shy of victory in the first round of voting. So, even with a weak hand, what explains his longevity and wide appeal? Erdogan, 69, has cultivated deep loyalty from conservative and religious supporters by elevating Islamic values in a country that has been defined by secularism for nearly a century. He has tightened his grip on power by deploying government resources to his political advantage — lavishly spending on infrastructure to please constituents, and strictly controlling the media to silence criticism. And he has swayed many Turks to his side by the way he navigates the world stage, showing that his country has an independent streak — and can flex its military — as it engages with the East and West. Erdogan's popularity at a moment of economic crisis also seems to be derived from the mere fact of his endurance; many people seem to want some stability, not more change, according to interviews with voters and analysts. "During times of national crises such as this one, people usually rally around the leader," said Gonul Tol, an analyst at the Middle East Institute in Washington. "The voters don't have enough faith in the opposition's ability to fix things." Already Turkey's longest serving leader, Erdogan would stretch his rule into a third decade — until 2028 — if he were to secure a majority of votes in the runoff. He received 49.5% of the votes in the first round — four percentage points ahead of Kilicdaroglu, a social democrat who has led the country's main opposition party since 2010. And on Monday Erdogan won the endorsement of the far-right candidate who finished in third place, giving him a boost heading into the runoff. Kilicdaroglu, an economist and former member of parliament, is the joint candidate of a six-party coalition alliance. He has promised to undo Erdogan's economic policies, which experts say have stoked inflation, and to reverse Erdogan's increasingly authoritarian leanings, including crackdowns on free speech. But his campaign has struggled to entice Erdogan supporters. "Look at the stage our country has arrived in the last 20 years. (The opposition) would take us back 50-60 years," said Bekir Ozcelik, a security guard in Ankara, who voted for Erdogan. "There is no other leader in the world that measures up to Erdogan." What Ozcelik and many other supporters see in Erdogan is a leader who has shown that Turkey can be a major player in geopolitics. Turkey is a key member of NATO because of its strategic location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and it controls the alliance's second-largest army. Under Erdogan's rule, Turkey has proven to be an indispensable and, at times, troublesome NATO ally. It vetoed Sweden's entry into NATO and purchased Russian missile-defense systems, prompting the United States to oust Turkey from a U.S.-led fighter-jet project. Yet, together with the U.N., Turkey brokered a vital deal that has allowed Ukraine to ship grain through the Black Sea to parts of the world struggling with hunger. After civil war broke out in Syria in 2011, Erdogan embroiled Turkey by backing opposition fighters seeking to depose President Bashar Assad. The fighting triggered a surge of Syrian refugees that Erdogan has used as leverage against European nations, by threatening to open up Turkey's borders and swamp them with migrants. And Turkey now controls large swaths of territory in northern Syria, after a succession of military attacks aimed at Kurdish groups there affiliated with rebels that Turkey has outlawed. Erdogan has boasted about Turkey's military-industrial sector on the campaign trail citing homemade drones, aircraft and a warship touted as the world's first "drone carrier" — and the message appeared to resonate with voters on May 14, analysts say. On the domestic front, Erdogan has raised Islam's profile in country whose secular roots are fraying. He has curbed the powers of the once staunchly secularist military and lifted rules that barred conservative women from wearing headscarves in schools and government offices. To further rally his conservative supporters, Erdogan has disparaged Kilicdaroglu and the opposition as supporting what he called "deviant" LGBTQ rights. The biggest threat Erdogan faces at the moment is the economy. His primary method of attacking families' diminishing purchasing power has been to unleash government spending, which — along with lowering interest rates — only makes inflation worse, according to economists. Erdogan has increased public-sector wages, boosted pensions and allowed millions of people to retire early. He has also introduced electricity and gas subsidies and wiped out some household debt. He has also promised to spend whatever is necessary to reconstruct the vast quake-stricken areas. At each ground-breaking ceremony he attends, Erdogan says only his government can rebuild lives following the disaster that leveled cities and killed more than 50,000 in Turkey. Erdogan's party won 10 out of 11 provinces in the region affected by the quake, an area that has traditionally supported him — despite criticism that his government's initial response to the disaster was slow. Mustafa Ozturk, an Erdogan supporter in Ankara, said his standard of living has declined as a result of inflation. But the way he sees it, Turkey isn't the only country struggling with inflation since the pandemic. "It isn't Erdogan's fault," he said. Ozturk said he would never vote against Erdogan, saying he felt "indebted" to him for bringing Islam more to the forefront of society. Erdogan's message — and power — are amplified by his tight control over the media. The state-owned broadcaster TRT Haber devoted more than 48 hours of airtime to Erdogan since April 1, compared with 32 minutes given to Kilicdaroglu, according to Ilhan Tasci, a member of Turkey's radio and television watchdog. Kilicdaroglu's promise to repair the economy and uphold women's rights to wear Islamic headscarves in schools simply did not resonate in the country's conservative heartland. "Kilicdaroglu changed the image of the (opposition) party, but Erdogan controls the narrative, so there is that fear factor" among conservative women who wear Islamic-style headscarves, Tol said. "They believe that if the opposition comes to power, they will be worse off." After Turkey's pro-Kurdish party backed Kilicdaroglu, Erdogan portrayed the opposition as being supported by Kurdish "terrorists." The opposition's efforts to refute this were rarely broadcast by the mainstream media. Erdogan "meticulously crafted a run for victory that included leaning on state institutions, leaning on information control and demonizing the opposition as terrorists or (having) beliefs interpreted as insufficiently Muslim," said Soner Cagaptay an expert on Turkey at the Washington Institute and an author of numerous books about Erdogan. "The media switched the debate to how Turkey has become an industrial military giant under him. And it worked," Cagaptay said. During the first round of voting on May 14, Turkey also held legislative elections, in which Erdogan's alliance of nationalist and Islamist parties won a majority in the 600-seat parliament. That gives him an additional advantage in the second round, analysts say, because many voters are likely to back him to avoid a splintered government. "The parliament is overwhelmingly with us," Erdogan said last week in an interview with CNN-Turk. "If there is a stable administration, there will be peace and prosperity in the country."

A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment is upending gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. The high court's ruling that set new standards for evaluating gun laws left open many questions, experts say, resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to apply it. The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said. Under the Supreme Court's new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation." Courts in recent months have declared unconstitutional federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers,felony defendants and people who use marijuana. Judges have shot down a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed and gun restrictions for young adults in Texas and have blocked the enforcement of Delaware's ban on the possession of homemade “ghost guns." In several instances, judges looking at the same laws have come down on opposite sides on whether they are constitutional in the wake of the conservative Supreme Court majority's ruling. The legal turmoil caused by the first major gun ruling in a decade will likely force the Supreme Court to step in again soon to provide more guidance for judges. "There’s confusion and disarray in the lower courts because not only are they not reaching the same conclusions, they’re just applying different methods or applying Bruen's method differently," said Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine University's law school who focuses on firearms law. “What it means is that not only are new laws being struck down ... but also laws that have been on the books for over 60 years, 40 years in some cases, those are being struck down — where prior to Bruen — courts were unanimous that those were constitutional," he said. The legal wrangling is playing out as mass shootings continue to plague the country awash in guns and as law enforcement officials across the U.S. work to combat an uptick in violent crime. This week, six people were fatally shot at multiple locations in a small town in rural Mississippi and a gunman killed three students and critically wounded five others at Michigan State University before killing himself. Dozens of people have died in mass shootings so far in 2023, including in California, where 11 people were killed as they welcomed the Lunar New Year at a dance hall popular with older Asian Americans. Last year, more than 600 mass shootings occurred in the U.S. in which at least four people were killed or wounded, according to the Gun Violence Archive. The decision opened the door to a wave of legal challenges from gun-rights activists who saw an opportunity to undo laws on everything from age limits to AR-15-style semi-automatic weapons. For gun rights supporters, the Bruen decision was a welcome development that removed what they see as unconstitutional restraints on Second Amendment rights. “It’s a true reading of what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights tells us,” said Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “It absolutely does provide clarity to the lower courts on how the constitution should be applied when it comes to our fundamental rights." Gun control groups are raising alarm after a federal appeals court this month said that under the Supreme Court's new standards, the government can’t stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the law “embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society." But the judges concluded that the government failed to point to a precursor from early American history that is comparable enough to the modern law. Attorney General Merrick Garland has said the government will seek further review of that decision. Gun control activists have decried the Supreme Court's historical test, but say they remain confident that many gun restrictions will survive challenges. Since the decision, for example, judges have consistently upheld the federal ban on convicted felons from possessing guns. The Supreme Court noted that cases dealing with “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach.” And the justices clearly emphasized that the right to bear arms is limited to law-abiding citizens, said Shira Feldman, litigation counsel for Brady, the gun control group. The Supreme Court's test has raised questions about whether judges are suited to be poring over history and whether it makes sense to judge modern laws based on regulations — or a lack thereof— from the past. “We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication,” wrote Mississippi U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. Some judges are “really parsing the history very closely and saying ‘these laws aren’t analogous because the historical law worked in a slightly different fashion than the modern law’,” said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Others, he said, "have done a much more flexible inquiry and are trying to say ‘look, what is the purpose of this historical law as best I can understand it?'" Firearm rights and gun control groups are closely watching many pending cases, including several challenging state laws banning certain semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. Already, some gun laws passed in the wake of the Supreme Court decision have been shot down. A judge declared multiple portions of New York’s new gun law unconstitutional, including rules that restrict carrying firearms in public parks and places of worship. An appeals court later put that ruling on hold while it considers the case. And the Supreme Court has allowed New York to enforce the law for now. Some judges have upheld a law banning people under indictment for felonies from buying guns while others have declared it unconstitutional. A federal judge issued an order barring Delaware from enforcing provisions of a new law outlawing the manufacture and possession of so-called “ghost guns" that don't have serial numbers and can be nearly impossible for law enforcement officials to trace. But another judge rejected a challenge to California's “ghost gun" regulations. In the California case, U.S. District Judge George Wu, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, appeared to take a dig at how other judges are interpreting the Supreme Court's guidance. The company that brought the challenge —“and apparently certain other courts" — would like to treat the Supreme Court’s decision “as a ‘word salad,’ choosing an ingredient from one side of the ‘plate’ and an entirely-separate ingredient from the other, until there is nothing left whatsoever other than an entirely-bulletproof and unrestrained Second Amendment,” Wu wrote in his ruling. ____ Richer reported from Boston.  

Dozens of leaders and senior officials from Arab and Islamic countries warned on Sunday Israeli actions in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank could worsen regional turmoil, as violence surges between Israel and the Palestinians. The meeting in Cairo was hosted by the Arab League and attended by President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas along with many foreign ministers and senior officials. The high-level gathering came amid one of the deadliest periods of fighting in years in Jerusalem and the neighboring Israeli-occupied territory. Forty-five Palestinians have been killed so far this year, according to a count by The Associated Press. Palestinians have killed 10 people on the Israeli side during that time. Speakers at the meeting condemned Israel’s “unilateral measures” in Jerusalem and the West Bank in statements, including home demolitions and expanding settlements. They also condemned visits by Israeli officials to the city’s contested holy site, which is sacred to both Jews and Muslims and has often been the epicenter of Israeli-Palestinian unrest. There was no immediate comment from Israel's government. The officials also voiced support for Jordan's role as custodian of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam. The mosque is built on a hilltop in Jerusalem’s Old City that is the most sacred site for Jews, who refer to it as the Temple Mount because it was the site of the Jewish temples in antiquity. Since Israel captured the site in the 1967 Mideast War, Jews have been allowed to visit but not pray there. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its undivided capital, while the Palestinians seek east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Calling Jerusalem "the backbone of the Palestinian cause," el-Sissi warned of dire repercussions of any Israeli move to change the status quo of the holy site, saying they would “negatively impact” future negotiations to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Also Read: Palestinian man, Israeli child die as bloodshed rises He said such measures would impede the long-sought after two-state solution to the conflict, which would leave “both parties and the whole Middle East with difficult and grave options.” El-Sissi, whose country was the first Arab nation to establish diplomatic ties with Israel, called on the international community to “reinforce the two-state solution and create conducive conditions for the resumption of the peace process.” King Abdullah II also called for Israel to cease its violations and incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque. “The region cannot live in peace, stability, and prosperity without any progress made on the Palestinian cause,” he warned. Ahmed Aboul-Gheit, the secretary-general of the pan-Arab organization, also warned that attempts to partition the Al-Aqsa Mosque and obliterate its Arab and Islamic identity “would fuel endless unrest and violence.” Abbas, the Palestinian president, said his administration would resort to the United Nations and its agencies and demand a resolution to protect the two-state solution to the conflict. “The State of Palestine will continue going to international courts and organizations to protect our people’s legitimate rights,” he said. The ongoing bout of violence has put the region on edge. Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Egyptian, Israeli and Palestinian leaders and urged them to ease tensions. Israel is run by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new far-right government. Many politicians in Netanyahu’s administration oppose Palestinian independence. Sunday's meeting in Cairo issued a final statement that condemned what it called “Israeli's systemic policy” that aims at “distorting and changing” Jerusalem’s “Arab and Islamic culture and identity.” The communique also urged the International Criminal Court to pursue its investigation and hold those responsible for Israel’s alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity accountable.