Türkiye: a shift from authoritarianism to wavering democracy
- Mar 17
- 1 min read
Updated: Mar 20
This abstract draws on findings from research deliverable D3.3 on transitions and postcolonialism, which has been submitted but is not yet published. It is written by Pınar Uyan-Semerci, Emre Erdoğan and Tuğçe Erçetin, Istanbul Bilgi University – Türkiye.
Türkiye’s democratic trajectory under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) illustrates a gradual shift from reformist openings to entrenched authoritarian practices. Since coming to power in 2002, the AKP, emerging from the Islamist National Outlook Movement, mobilized a national-conservative, socially conservative, and populist base, enabling long-term dominance. Early reforms focused on EU-aligned democratization, civil-military relations, minority rights, and legal protections, including for the Kurdish and Alevi communities. These reforms, framed as breaking military tutelage and fostering equal citizenship, temporarily expanded democratic participation.
After 2007, however, the AKP consolidated power via constitutional amendments, judiciary control, and electoral reforms, weakening institutional checks on executive power. Events such as the Gezi Protests, coercive measures against Kurdish representatives, and the 2016 coup attempt led to mass arrests, purges, and a state of emergency, which the government leveraged to centralize authority. The 2017 shift to a presidential system further concentrated power in the executive, while media, judiciary, and civil society increasingly faced politicization and suppression.
Populist discourse now emphasizes fear, security, and nationalist identity, framing the state as defending homogeneous people against internal and external threats. Political polarization, exclusionary populism, and contested citizenship redefine the SC, with loyalty and conformity prioritized over democratic contestation. Türkiye exemplifies a competitive-authoritarian system where formal institutions endure, but civic agency, media freedom, and opposition rights are severely constrained.


