Arendt Re-defines “the Political” in Turkey: A Theoretical Analysis of the Gezi Protests

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe popular perception of in Turkish society and Turkish culture has always been problematic. The is usually identified with party affiliation-marking an equivalency between being and being ideological, both of which are associated with partisanship and manipulation. This understanding of leaves ability and capacity of determining in which context and by whom politics can be practiced to official discourse of state. Current developments in Turkey show that both government officials and opposition are embroiled in a constant battle of defining politics and how to be to public. When it comes to controversial issues such as civil-military relations, headscarf issue and judicial independence, official discourse adopts a negative attitude towards being political. Most newspaper headlines are full of quotations from officials warning Turkish citizens to shun active politics when it comes to these sensitive topics. Being is thus depicted as being inappropriate and untimely.1 Such an understanding reinforces a negative perception of politics and being political. Within this context, politics is seen as an illegitimate reaction to an already existing system and structure.One can observe aforementioned negative perceptions of being during Gezi protests in Turkey. At end of May 2013, a group of environmentalists staged a sit-in protest against an urban development project in Istanbul's Taksim Square. The brutal eviction of peaceful protestors by Turkish police led to further protests throughout country. Despite official declarations that park would remain in its present condition, continuing protests aimed instead at disproportionate use of police force that was persistently being carried out against protestors.The character of these events has been a controversial issue. Interestingly, even though protesters and government officials were on opposing sides in this context, they comprehended the from same perspective. At its very early stages, most of protestors denied character of their action. Instead, they believed they were protesting strictly out of a concern for environment and not as part of any party or organization. Government officials, however, attributed protestors' actions as ideologically and politically motivated. These officials cast doubt on motivations of protestors and argued that most were protesting against government itself, rather than acting out of environmentalist concerns. For both government officials and Gezi protestors, was equated with partisanship.Beginning with these perceptions of what it is to be political, this paper argues that Gezi protests epitomize action for very reasons employed to reject their character. Even though concept of often carries a negative connotation, there are more affirmative ways of defining what being is. While remaining cognizant of this, this paper takes an Arendtian approach to demonstrate character of these events. As a theorist of action, revolution and civil disobedience Arendt provides a resourceful theoretical context for analysis of social movements. I argue that concept of action, constitution of public sphere, and exclusion of violence from that same public sphere in Arendt's theory correspond to various protests during Gezi demonstrations. Moreover, denial or insistence that protesters are political ignores intermediate space of Arendtian politics that is neither environmental nor captured by party politics. I offer a brief account of Hannah Arendt's substantiation of political, action, public sphere and violence. While presenting Arendt's conceptualization, I will also illustrate how different forms of protest, such as sit-ins, organizing forums, and standing one's ground, correspond to being through exclusion of violence and acting spontaneously in a self-constituted public sphere, with condition of plurality of equals. …