Authoritarianism in Turkey

Abstract

Since its establishment in 1923, the Republic of Turkey has struggled to establish a stable, well-functioning democratic system. Turkey’s founding leader, Mustafa Kemal—who was given the name “Atatürk” (father of all Turks) in 1934—adopted many reforms to modernize and Westernize the country. However, during most of Kemal’s rule (r. 1923–1938), Turkey was a single-party regime in which political opposition was very circumscribed and repressed. Although Turkey did formally democratize after World War II, its democracy has been interrupted by several military interventions and beset with numerous problems, including restrictions on civil and political rights, closures of political parties, and political violence. Although outright authoritarianism has been the exception rather than the rule since the 1940s, many Turkish governments have exhibited authoritarian tendencies, and institutions have been created to give non-elected actors—in particular, the military—an important role in political life. Those challenging the secular, unitary nature of the state—e.g., Islamic-oriented political parties and Kurdish movements—have been repressed. In the early 2000s, the governing Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), or Justice and Development Party, launched a series of reforms that pushed Turkey in a more democratic direction. However, in the 2010s, many began to believe Turkish democracy was again under assault, evidenced in an erosion of checks and balances and rule of law, a crackdown on the media, and use of anti-terror laws to repress dissent. By most accounts, the situation has deteriorated after a failed coup attempt in 2016, which was followed by dismissals and arrests of tens of thousands of people, declaration of a state of emergency, and constitutional changes that create a more centralized presidential system. The literature on Turkish politics is frequently periodized, meaning that the emphasis on democratization or the (re)emergence of authoritarianism is often a reflection of contemporary events. Whereas much of the work on Turkish politics in the first years of the republic acknowledged its single-party, authoritarian nature, the emphasis in later years often was more on the hopes and shortcomings of democratization, with attention given to various authoritarian features as opposed to an institutionalized authoritarian system. Studies of the AKP, in particular, are subject to periodization, with initial assessments of its policies grounded more on its democratization and later works focusing much more on its authoritarian turn.