Mehmet Fatih Cicekli, the 50-year-old governor of Ardahan province in northeastern Turkey, was dismissed from his post this month after posting videos of himself cycling in black tights and a red top. The decision has ignited a debate about the appropriateness of such attire for public officials.
One Member of Parliament suggested Cicekli be issued with a fig leaf, while another remarked that a governor in leggings would not be taken seriously. Cicekli defended his actions, stating he was wearing sports clothing for sports. A petition signed by 10,000 people has called for his reinstatement.
The incident has drawn comparisons to the broader cultural discussion surrounding "Middle-Aged Men in Lycra" (MAMILs), a term for men who take up cycling in middle age and often don tight-fitting cycling apparel. While Lycra is functional for cycling, offering aerodynamic advantages and comfort during long rides, its public display off the bike has been a point of contention.
Critics argue that certain clothing, like skin-tight Lycra, is only appropriate in specific contexts. The analogy is drawn to other items of clothing, such as hard hats on construction sites versus in restaurants, or wetsuits needing to be near water. Wearing cycling gear in public spaces, like a tea shop, can be perceived as out of place.
Historically, political figures have navigated public image through attire. Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was known to cycle in a suit, a deliberate choice that positioned him as a person on a bike rather than a dedicated cyclist. Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn's cycling attire, a sensible anorak, was seen as non-offensive. These examples suggest a public understanding that figures of authority are often expected to wear symbolic or formal attire, which Lycra does not provide.
Authority, it is argued, is often conveyed through decoration such as a mayor's chain or a judge's wig, which serve to make the individual's rank visible. Lycra, in contrast, is seen as revealing rather than concealing and lacks symbolic weight. The argument follows that once an official's physical contours are on display in such form-fitting attire, the focus can shift from their authority to their appearance, potentially undermining their perceived seriousness and the dignity of their office.
While Cicekli's cycling wardrobe was described as a "classic" combination of black and red, modern cycling fashion has evolved to include a wider range of colors, including white. Tighter fits and lighter colors can draw more attention to the wearer's form, a factor some believe contributed to the controversy.
Supporters of Cicekli, including the author of the provided notes who identifies as a MAMIL, express sympathy and advocate for his return. However, the prevailing sentiment suggests that while cycling in Lycra is acceptable and even practical on the road, changing out of the gear after dismounting is crucial for maintaining professional decorum and public perception of authority. The author concludes that Lycra is for the road only, and after cycling, one should change into appropriate attire, as the function of professional dress is to signify rank and role, not personal physique. The incident underscores the delicate balance public officials must strike between personal choices and the expectations associated with their positions.