Türkiye’de Muhalefetin Siyasal Pazarlama Stratejileri (2013–2019): Kritik Eşik Vakaları Üzerinden Karma Yöntemli Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2013–2019 döneminde Türkiye'de ana muhalefetin siyasal pazarlama stratejilerini yedi kritik siyasal eşik vakası (2013 Gezi olayları, 2014 Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimi, 2015 Haziran–Kasım genel seçimleri, 2016 darbe girişimi sonrası süreç, 2017 anayasa referandumu, 2018 Cumhurbaşkanlığı ve milletvekili seçimleri ile 2019 İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı seçiminin yenilenmesi) üzerinden karşılaştırmalı biçimde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma sorusu, muhalefetin siyasal pazarlama tercihleri ile seçimsel performans göstergeleri arasında kritik eşiklerde nasıl bir örüntü oluştuğudur. Çalışma, nitel ağırlıklı çoklu vaka çalışması tasarımı içinde yönlendirilmiş içerik analizi, karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi ve betimsel seçim istatistiklerini bir araya getiren karma yöntemli veri üçgenlemesine dayanmaktadır. Kuramsal çerçeve, Lees-Marshment'in parti-yönelimi tipolojisi, Smith ve French'in siyasal marka yaklaşımı, Coombs'un Durumsal Kriz İletişim Kuramı (SCCT) ve Capoccia ile Kelemen'in kritik kavşak kavramsallaştırması üzerinden kurulmuştur. Yüksek Seçim Kurulu kesin sonuçları, kurumsal karar metinleri, kampanya dokümanları ve Google Trends verileri, önceden tanımlanmış altı analitik boyut üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, 2019 İstanbul yenileme seçiminde altı boyutun eşzamanlı olarak yüksek değer aldığını; 2014 ve 2018 vakalarında ise izole boyut başarısının yapısal seçimsel sonuca tek başına dönüşmediğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, kriz-yoğun siyasal konjonktürlerde aday markası uyumu ile kriz iletişimi tutarlılığının birbirini tamamlayan iki merkezi siyasal pazarlama kapasitesi olarak çalıştığı yönünde, nedensellik iddiasını sınırlı tutan vaka temelli ampirik destek sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Siyasal pazarlama
• aday markası
• kriz iletişimi
• muhalefet stratejisi
• kritik kavşak
• Türkiye

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma yalnızca kamuya açık birincil belgeler ve agrege seçim verileri (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu belgeleri, kurumsal karar metinleri, parti belgeleri ve Google Trends verileri) üzerinden yürütüldüğü için kişi-düzeyi etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir. Bireysel katılımcıdan veri toplanmamış, anket veya görüşme yapılmamıştır. Tüm değerlendirmeler hukuki nitelendirme dilinden kaçınarak siyasal pazarlama terminolojisi içinde tutulmuştur. Ayrıca, Bu makalenin hazırlanması sırasında yazar, literatür taraması, dilsel biçimlendirme, kavramsal çerçevenin sistematizasyonu, veri tablolarının düzenlenmesi ve tanımlayıcı bulguların raporlanmasında yapay zeka destekli araçlardan (Claude - Anthropic ve ChatGPT - OpenAI) yararlanmıştır. Araştırma problemi, teorik çerçevenin seçimi, veri kaynaklarının belirlenmesi, analiz tasarımı, bulguların yorumlanması, literatür karşılaştırmaları, sonuçların çıkarılması ve metnin nihai bilimsel sorumluluğu tamamen yazara aittir. Yapay zeka çıktıları, yazar tarafından dikkatlice incelenmiş, doğrulanmış, düzenlenmiş veya gerektiğinde reddedilmiştir. Bu çalışmada kullanılan tüm veriler, kamuya açık birincil kaynaklardan (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu belgeleri, kurumsal karar metinleri, parti belgeleri ve Google Trends verileri) elde edilmiş olup yapay zeka tarafından üretilmemiştir. Makalenin özgünlüğü, doğruluğu ve bilimsel bütünlüğü yazarın sorumluluğundadır.

Political Marketing Strategies of the Opposition in Türkiye (2013–2019): A Mixed-Methods Analysis Through Critical Threshold Cases

Abstract

This study aims to comparatively examine the political marketing strategies of the main opposition in Türkiye in the period of 2013-2019 through seven critical political threshold cases (2013 Gezi Park protests, 2014 Presidential election, June-November 2015 general elections, post-coup attempt period of 2016, 2017 constitutional referendum, 2018 Presidential and parliamentary elections, 2019 Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality mayoral election rerun). The main research question is how a pattern emerges between the opposition's political marketing preferences and electoral performance indicators at critical thresholds. The study is based on a mixed-methods data triangulation approach that combines directed content analysis, comparative case analysis, and descriptive election statistics within a qualitative, multi-case study design. The theoretical framework is established through Lees-Marshment's party-orientation typology, Smith and French's political brand approach, Coombs' Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), and Capoccia and Kelemen's critical juncture conceptualization. The final results of the Supreme Election Board, institutional decision texts, campaign documents, and Google Trends data were evaluated across six predefined analytical dimensions. The findings show that in the 2019 Istanbul rerun election, all six dimensions simultaneously achieved high values and translated into electoral performance; in contrast, in the 2014 and 2018 cases, isolated dimension success did not alone translate into structural electoral results. The study provides case-based empirical support, with limited causal claims, for the idea that candidate brand alignment and crisis communication consistency function as two complementary central political marketing capacities in crisis-intensive political conjunctures.

Keywords

• Political marketing
• candidate branding
• crisis communication
• opposition strategy
• critical juncture
• Türkiye

Ethical Statement

This study does not require individual-level ethics committee approval as it was conducted solely using publicly available primary documents and aggregated election data (Supreme Election Board documents, institutional decision texts, party documents, and Google Trends data). No data was collected from individual participants, and no surveys or interviews were conducted. All assessments were kept within political marketing terminology, avoiding legal terminology. Furthermore, during the preparation of this article, the author utilized AI-assisted tools (Claude - Anthropic and ChatGPT - OpenAI) for literature review, linguistic formatting, systematization of the conceptual framework, organization of data tables, and reporting of descriptive findings. The author bears full scientific responsibility for the research problem, selection of the theoretical framework, identification of data sources, analysis design, interpretation of findings, literature comparisons, drawing conclusions, and the final scientific responsibility of the text. AI outputs were carefully reviewed, verified, edited, or rejected by the author when necessary. All data used in this study were obtained from publicly available primary sources (Supreme Election Board documents, institutional decision texts, party documents, and Google Trends data) and were not generated by artificial intelligence. The author is responsible for the originality, accuracy, and scientific integrity of the article.

References

1. Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi. (2018). 24 Haziran 2018 Cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimleri ve genel seçimler seçim beyannamesi. https://www.akparti.org.tr/media/271931/secim-beyannamesi-2018.pdf
2. Avraham, E. (2015). Destination image repair during crisis: Attracting tourism during the Arab Spring uprisings. Tourism Management, 47, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.003
3. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472
4. Bunce, V. J., & Wolchik, S. L. (2011). Defeating authoritarian leaders in postcommunist countries. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977404
5. Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852
6. Çarkoğlu, A., & Yıldırım, K. (2015). Election storm in Turkey: What do the results of June and November 2015 elections tell us? Insight Turkey, 17(4), 57–79. https://www.insightturkey.com/articles/election-storm-in-turkey-what-do-the-results-of-june-and-november-2015-elections-tell-us
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
10. Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi. (2018). 2018 seçim bildirgesi. https://chp.org.tr/yayin/2018-secim-bildirgesi
11. Demiralp, S., & Balta, E. (2021). Defeating populists: The case of 2019 Istanbul elections. South European Society and Politics, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2021.1923639
12. Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134543 (Original work published 1970)
13. Esen, B., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2017a). A small yes for presidentialism: The Turkish constitutional referendum of April 2017. South European Society and Politics, 22(3), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2017.1384341
14. Esen, B., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2017b). Turkey: How the coup failed. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0006
15. Esen, B., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2019). Killing competitive authoritarianism softly: The 2019 local elections in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 24(3), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2019.1691318
16. Google. (n.d.). FAQ about Google Trends data. Google Trends Help. Retrieved July 25, 2026, from https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533?hl=en
17. Henneberg, S. C., & O'Shaughnessy, N. J. (2009). Political relationship marketing: Some macro/micro thoughts. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(1–2), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725709X410016
18. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
19. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
20. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
21. Lees-Marshment, J. (2001). The marriage of politics and marketing. Political Studies, 49(4), 692–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00337
22. Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004
23. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017
24. Mill, J. S. (1974). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation (J. M. Robson, Ed.). University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1843)
25. Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1987). A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica, 55(3), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913610
26. Newman, B. I. (1999). The mass marketing of politics: Democracy in an age of manufactured images. SAGE Publications.
27. O'Cass, A., & Voola, R. (2011). Explications of political market orientation and political brand orientation using the resource-based view of the political party. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5–6), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.489831
28. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087176
29. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984997
30. Smith, G., & French, A. (2009). The political brand: A consumer perspective. Marketing Theory, 9(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593109103068
31. Speed, R., Butler, P., & Collins, N. (2015). Human branding in political marketing: Applying contemporary branding thought to political parties and their leaders. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990833
32. Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2017). Everybody lies: Big data, new data, and what the internet can tell us about who we really are. Dey Street Books.
33. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
34. Supreme Election Board. (2014). Decision No. 3719: Final results of the 12th Presidential Election held on 10 August 2014. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/Kararlar/2014Pdf/2014-3719.pdf
35. Supreme Election Board. (2015a). Final results of the 25th General Election of Members of Parliament, 7 June 2015 (Form 96/A: domestic results). https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/Milletvekili/7Haziran2015/KesinSecimSonuclari/ResmiGazete/A.pdf
36. Supreme Election Board. (2015b). Final results of the 26th General Election for Members of Parliament, 1 November 2015 (Form 96/A: domestic results). https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/Milletvekili/1Kasim2015/KesinSecimSonuclari/96-A.pdf
37. Supreme Election Board. (2017a). 16 April 2017 Constitutional Amendment Referendum results. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/2017Referandum/2017HO-Ornek135.pdf
38. Supreme Election Board. (2017b). Decision No. 573 regarding the 16 April 2017 referendum. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/5060/2017-573.pdf
39. Supreme Election Board. (2017c). Decision No. 574 regarding the 16 April 2017 referendum. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/5061/2017-574.pdf
40. Supreme Election Board. (2018a). Decision No. 2018/952: Final results of the Presidential election. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/77779/2018-952.pdf
41. Supreme Election Board. (2018b). Final results of the 27th General Election of Members of Parliament, 24 June 2018 (Form 96/A: domestic results). https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/24Haziran2018/KesinSecimSonuclari/2018MV-96A.pdf
42. Supreme Election Board. (2019a). Decision No. 4219: Decision regarding the annulment of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality mayoral election. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/78053/2019-4219.pdf
43. Supreme Election Board. (2019b). Decision No. 4379: Procedures regarding the rerun of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality mayoral election. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/karar/dosya/78043/2019-4379.pdf
44. Supreme Election Board. (2022). Seçim istatistikleri (2009–2019). https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/2009_2019_%C4%B0STAT%C4%B0ST%C4%B0K_K%C4%B0TABI.pdf
45. Yardımcı-Geyikçi, Ş. (2014). Gezi Park protests in Turkey: A party politics view. The Political Quarterly, 85(4), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12112
46. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.