{"id":11565,"date":"2021-05-17T09:00:20","date_gmt":"2021-05-17T07:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/home\/?p=11565"},"modified":"2021-05-17T15:13:45","modified_gmt":"2021-05-17T13:13:45","slug":"populism-in-turkey-towards-the-demise-of-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/home\/populism-in-turkey-towards-the-demise-of-democracy\/?lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Populism in Turkey: Towards the Demise of Democracy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By \u00c9lise Massicard<\/a>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"

Dances with flags at the square. Events of June 7, 2013. \u00a9 Mstyslav Chernov, Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0<\/p><\/div>\n

In recent years, Turkish democracy appears to have experienced a step-by-step descent into hell, with a succession of events such as the repression of the Gezi protests<\/a> in 2013, the attempted coup d\u2019\u00e9tat of July 2016 and the ferocious repression that followed, and finally, the constitutional reform of 2017<\/a> that resulted in a substantial increase in presidential powers. Yet even as restrictions of freedoms become increasingly common, observers of contemporary Turkey are struck by the frequency of the governing elite\u2019s strong references to democracy and the people. How can a party, which initially came to power and has remained there for almost 20 years through elections, which overcame the military supervision that limited civilian politics for decades, and which managed to open negotiations to join the European Union, pose such a threat to democracy? Can the notion of populism help us to understand the dynamics of the democracy in this country?<\/p>\n

An Ambivalent Democracy<\/h4>\n

To understand why the Turkish context is prone to populism, it is important to consider the history of its democracy. In the 1920s, the Republic of Turkey was created by circles close to Mustafa Kemal: educated, westernised military and bureaucratic elites that founded and \u2018maintained\u2019 a regime that claimed radical top-down reformism. Kemal\u2019s elites had little in common with the rest of society and gave themselves the job of educating and guiding the masses. This \u2018regime elitism\u2019 has made Turkey prone to populism, which is based on opposition between the elites and the \u2018people\u2019.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk \u00a9 Yok, Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0<\/p><\/div>\n

Although popular representation through election has always formed the basis of political legitimation, the move to a multi-party system at the beginning of the 1950s changed its implications: lawmakers were now freely elected. Since the first competitive elections in 1950, the main opposition party, the conservative and liberal Democratic Party, was highly critical of the domination of the bureaucratic elites, accusing them of being out of touch with the people. The Democrats won by a large majority on the promise of giving the people their voice back, with the famous slogan \u2018Yeter! S\u00f6z milletindir\u2019 <\/i>(Enough! It is the Nation\u2019s turn to speak). The Kemalist elites moved aside \u2013\u2009but not without anxiety, and kept certain bastions, notably bureaucracy and justice, out of the hands of the election winners.
\nThe military coups that have peppered Turkey\u2019s contemporary history\u2009\u2013\u2009notably those of 1960, 1971 and 1980\u2009\u2013\u2009reveal the \u2018supervised\u2019 nature of the regime: unelected authorities\u2009\u2013\u2009military as well as judiciary\u2009\u2013\u2009guard the regime against threats that could actually emanate from the elected authorities, such as political instability or the tendency of the elected powers to move away from certain supposedly inalienable constitutional principles, notably secularism. Thus, the first coup d\u2019\u00e9tat in 1960 brought an end to the reign of the Democratic Party, which was turning away from secularism and exercising power by bridling the opposition and limiting public freedoms. However, these coups d\u2019\u00e9tat have all been justified by the need to rescue democracy, requiring an interruption of its processes and a modification of its rules to ultimately achieve smoother operation.
\nThe political history of Turkey can be seen as a confrontation between the supporters of the people\u2019s will who believe that the people should not be restricted in any way on one side and, on the other side, those concerned by possible abuse of this indomitable popular will, who consider that counter-powers, notably judiciary and bureaucratic, are essential to channel it(1)<\/sup><\/a>Insel, Ahmet. \u201c\u2019Cet \u00c9tat n’est pas sans propri\u00e9taires\u00a0!\u2019\u00a0 Forces pr\u00e9toriennes et autoritarisme en Turquie\u201d <\/i>(\u201c\u2019This Nation is not without owners!\u2019 Praetorian forces and authoritarianism in Turkey), Autoritarismes d\u00e9mocratiques. D\u00e9mocraties autoritaires au XXIe si\u00e8cle (Democratic authoritarianism. Authoritarian democracies in the 21<\/i>st<\/i> century). <\/i>La D\u00e9couverte, 2008, pp. 133-153.<\/span><\/span>