TWO NATIONS, ONE DIVIDE: EXAMINING THE ROOTS OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION IN TÜRKİYE AND THE UNITED STATES

Abstract

Many factors have contributed to the global rise of political polarization in recent years – such as the electoral successes of populist leaders, the emergence of social media-based echo chambers, rising economic insecurities, and an intensifying rivalry between globalists and nationalists worldwide. In this context, a comparative study of polarization in the U.S. (United States of America) and Türkiye offers an intriguing opportunity. Examining the similarities and differences between their experiences may teach researchers a lot about the origins of polarization, its adverse effects on democratic governance and potential solutions. The Republicans and the Democrats in the U.S. have grown more ideologically opposed during the past decade in particular, leading to political violence as became evident with the 6th January 2021 Capitol Riot and the 13th July 2024 assassination attempt targeting Donald Trump. A great schism has also shaped Turkish politics as the long reign of the AKP (Justice and Development Party) since 2002 has polarized secularists and Islamists as well as Kurdish and Turkish nationalists. It will be argued that while authoritarian inclinations, political institutions, and historical legacies are distinctive to each setting; identity politics, economic inequalities, and social media driven echo chambers are major commonalities. A number of insights on reducing polarization will be derived from this comparative analysis, namely the need to build coalitions of parties/social movements representing different ideologies, reducing economic inequality, encouraging inclusive government, and promoting media diversity.

Keywords

• Political Polarization
• Populism
• Democratic Erosion
• Türkiye
• United States

İKİ MİLLET, BİR AYRIM: TÜRKİYE VE ABD’DE SİYASİ KUTUPLAŞMANIN KÖKENLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Popülist liderlerin seçim başarıları, sosyal medya temelli yankı odalarının ortaya çıkışı, artan ekonomik güvensizlikler ve küreselciler ile milliyetçiler arasında yoğunlaşan rekabet gibi pek çok faktör son yıllarda siyasi kutuplaşmanın dünya çapında yükselişine yol açtı. Bu bağlamda, ABD (Amerika Birleşik Devletleri) ve Türkiye’deki kutuplaşma olgusunun karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi bize değerli bir fırsat sunmaktadır. Deneyimleri arasındaki benzerlik ve farklılıkları incelemek; araştırmacılara kutuplaşmanın kökenleri, demokratik yönetimler üzerindeki olumsuz etkileri ve kutuplaşmayı azaltıcı olası çözümler hakkında çok şey öğretebilir. ABD’de Cumhuriyetçiler ve Demokratlar arasında özellikle son on yılda derin bir ideolojik uçurum oluştu ve bu durum, 6 Ocak 2021 Capitol İsyanı ve Donald Trump’a yönelik 13 Temmuz 2024’teki suikast girişiminde açıkça görüldüğü üzere siyasi şiddete de yol açtı. AKP’nin (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) 2002’den bu yana süren uzun hegemonyası ise, laikler ve İslamcıların yanı sıra Kürt ve Türk milliyetçileri arasında da çekişmelere neden oldu; böylelikle 2000’li yılların başından bu yana kutuplaşma meselesi Türk siyasetini şekillendiren temel bir olgu haline geldi. Otoriter eğilimler, siyasi kurumlar ve tarihi miraslar iki ülke arasında farklılıklar gösterirken, kimlik siyasetinin yükselişi, ekonomik adaletsizlikler ve sosyal medyanın yönlendirdiği yankı odalarının belirmesi başlıca ortak noktalarıdır. Bu karşılaştırmalı analizde söz konusu ülkelerde ve dünya çağında kutuplaşmanın azaltılmasına ilişkin faydalı öneriler elde edilecektir ve bunların başında farklı ideolojileri temsil eden partiler/toplumsal hareketlerden oluşan koalisyonlar kurmanın gerekliliği, ekonomik eşitsizliği azaltma, kapsayıcı hükümet tarzını teşvik etme ve medya çeşitliliğini sağlamak gelmektedir.

Keywords

• Kutuplaşma
• Popülizm
• Demokratik Erozyon
• Türkiye
• ABD

References

1. • Acemoglu, Daron & Robinson, James (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, New York: Crown Business.
2. • Achen, Christopher H. & Bartels, Larry M. (2016), Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. • Adar, Sinem & Seufert, Günter (2021), Turkey’s Presidential System after Two and a Half Years: An Overview of Institutions and Politics, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.
4. • Aktas, Elvan (2017), “The rise and the fall of the Turkish economic success story under AKP (JDP)”, Contemporary Islam, no: 11, pp. 171-183.
5. • Altınörs, Görkem & Akçay, Ümit (2022), “Authoritarian neoliberalism, crisis, and consolidation: the political economy of regime change in Turkey”, Globalizations, Vol. 19, no: 7, pp. 1029-1053.
6. • Arslantaş, Düzgün & Arslantaş, Şenol (2022), “How does clientelism foster electoral dominance? Evidence from Turkey”, Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, Vol. 7, no: 3, pp. 559-575.
7. • Aşık, Güneş & Karakoç, Ulaş & Pamuk, Şevket (2023), “Regional inequalities and the West–East divide in Turkey since 1913”, The Economic History Review, Vol. 76, no: 4, pp. 1305-1332.
8. • Atak, Kıvanç & Della Porta, Donatella (2016), “Popular uprisings in Turkey: Police culpability and constraints on dialogue-oriented policing in Gezi Park and beyond”, European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 13, no: 5, pp. 610-625.

9. • Aydın-Düzgit, Senem (2019), “The Islamist-Secularist Divide and Turkey’s Descent into Severe Polarization”, in Thomas Carothers and Andrew O'Donohue (eds.) Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, Washington: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 17-37.
10. • Aydın-Düzgit, Senem & Balta, Evren (2019), “When Elites Polarize over Polarization: Framing the Polarization Debate in Turkey”, New Perspectives on Turkey, no: 60, pp. 153-176.
11. • Bail, Chris (2021), Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12. • Bernaerts, Kamil & Blanckaert, Benjamin & Caluwaerts, Didier (2023), “Institutional design and polarization: Do consensus democracies fare better in fighting polarization than majoritarian democracies?”, Democratization, Vol. 30, no: 2, pp. 153-172.
13. • Böller, Florian & D. Herr, Lukas (2020), “From Washington without Love: Congressional Foreign Policy Making and US-Russian Relations under President Trump”, Contemporary Politics, Vol. 26, no: 1, pp. 17-37.
14. • Bramson, Aaron & Grim, Patrick & Singer, Daniel J. & Berger, William J. & Sack, Graham & Fisher, Steven & Flocken, Carissa & Holman, Bennett (2017), “Understanding Polarization: Meanings, Measures, and Model Evaluation”, Philosophy of Science, no: 84 (January), pp. 115-159.
15. • Brennan Center for Justice (2019), “Lamone v. Benisek”, 29.07.2019, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/lamone-v-benisek.
16. • Brill, Steven (2015), America’s Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Back-Room Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System, New York: Random House.
17. • Canen, Nathan J. & Kendall, Chad & Trebbi, Francesco (2020), “Political Parties as Drivers of U.S. Polarization: 1927-2018”, National Bureau of Economic Research, December, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.nber.org/papers/w28296.
18. • Cheterian, Vicken (2023), “Friend and Foe: Russia–Turkey relations before and after the war in Ukraine”, Small Wars & Insurgencies, Vol. 34, no: 7, pp. 1271-1294.
19. • Collier, David (1993), “The Comparative Method”, in Ada W. Finifter (ed.) Political Science: The State of Discipline, Washington DC: American Political Science Association, pp. 105-119.
20. • Coppins, McKay (2020), “The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Re-Elect the President”, The Atlantic, March 2020, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/.
21. • Crotty, William (2015), Polarized Politics: The Impact of Divisiveness in the US Political System, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
22. • Darmofal, David & Strickler, Ryan (2019), Demography, Politics, and Partisan Polarization in the United States, 1828–2016, London: Springer, pp. 34-61.
23. • Dart, Tom (2017), “Transgender 'bathroom bill' leaves Texas Christians deeply divided”, The Guardian, 06.08.2017.
24. • Demir, Vedat (2021), “Freedom of the Media in Turkey Under the AKP Government”, in Hasan Aydin & Winston Langley (eds.) Human Rights in Turkey: Assaults on Human Dignity, London: Springer, pp. 51-88.
25. • Donley, Greer (2022), “Medication Abortion Exceptionalism”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 107, no: 3, pp. 627-704.
26. • Economist Intelligence Unit (2023), “Our World in Data – Democracy Index”. Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu.
27. • Elçi, Ezgi (2024), “Right-wing populism in Turkey and the 2023 elections”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 24, no: 2, pp. 297-317.
28. • Enders, Adam M. (2021), “Issues versus Affect: How Do Elite and Mass Polarization Compare?”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 83, no: 4, pp. 1872-1877.
29. • Esen, Berk & Gumuscu, Sebnem (2023), “How Erdoğan’s Populism Won Again”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 34, no: 3, pp. 21-32.
30. • Ete, Hatem (2018), “Reframing the July 15 Coup Attempt: A Political and Sociological Examination”, Bilig, no: 87, pp. 179-202.
31. • Freedom House (2024), “Freedom in the World 2024 Report – Turkey”, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/freedom-world/2024.
32. • Göcen, Serdar (2023), “Inflation and income inequality linkages: do institutions matter?”, Applied Economics [Online].
33. • Göksel, Oğuzhan (2019), “Foreign Policy Making in the Age of Populism: The Uses of Anti-Westernism in Turkish Politics”, New Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, no: 1, pp. 13-35.
34. • Göksel, Oğuzhan & Tekdemir, Omer (2018), “Questioning the ‘Immortal State’: The Gezi Protests and the Short-Lived Human Security Moment in Turkey”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 45, no: 3, pp. 376-393.
35. • Gottheimer, Josh & Reed, Tom (2017), “Let’s Stop the Bickering and Fix the Health Care System”, The New York Times, 04.08.2017.
36. • Gumuscu, Sebnem (2024), “The AKP and Stealth Islamization in Turkey”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 25, no: 3, pp. 371-397.
37. • Guriev, Sergei & Papaioannou, Elias (2022), “The Political Economy of Populism”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 60, no: 3, pp. 753-832.
38. • Harmon-Jones, Eddie & Mills, Judson (2019), “An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory”, in Eddie Harmon-Jones (ed.) Cognitive Dissonance: Re-examining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology, New York: American Psychological Association, pp. 3-24.
39. • Haselmayer, Martin &Wagner, Markus & Meyer, Thomas M. (2017), “Partisan Bias in Message Selection: Media Gatekeeping of Party Press Releases”, Political Communication, Vol. 34, no: 3, pp. 367-384.
40. • Heltzel, Gordon & Laurin, Kristin (2020), “Polarization in America: two possible futures”, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, no: 34, pp. 179-184.
41. • Hunt, Michael H. (1987), Ideology and U. S. Foreign Policy, New Haven: Yale University.
42. • Iyengar, Shanto & Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew & Malhotra, Neil & Westwood, Sean J. (2019), “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States”, Annual Review of Political Science, no: 22, pp. 129-146.
43. • Jacobson, Gary C. (2011), “Obama and the Polarized Public”, in James A. Thurber (ed.) Obama in Office: The First Two Years, New York: Routledge, pp. 19-40.
44. • Jenkins, Richard (2014), Social Identity 4th Edition, London and New York: Routledge.
45. • Jung, Bryan (2022), “Americans’ Real Wages Fall Again as Inflation Soars to Fresh 40-Year High”, The Epoch Times, 13.07.2022.
46. • Kınıklıoğlu, Suat (2020), “Syrian refugees in Turkey: changing attitudes and fortunes”, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Working Paper, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020C05/.
47. • Kim, Kenneth (2019), “The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Testing the Effect of News Framing on Perceptions of Media Bias”, Communication Research Reports, Vol. 36, no: 1, pp. 35-44.
48. • Kimya, Fırat (2019), “Political economy of corruption in Turkey: declining petty corruption, rise of cronyism?”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 20, no: 3, pp. 351-376.
49. • Klein, Naomi (2019), On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal, New York: Allen Lane.
50. • Kleinfeld, Rachel (2023), “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Kleinfeld_Polarization_final_3.pdf.
51. • Kleinfeld, Rachel (2024), “The Rising Tide of Political Violence: An Attempted Assassination of Trump Is Part of a Global Trend”, Foreign Affairs, 19.07.2024. Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/rising-tide-political-violence.
52. • Kubicek, Paul (2005), “The European Union and Grassroots Democratization in Turkey”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 6, no: 3, pp. 361-377.
53. • Kubina, Emily & Von Sikorki, Christian (2021), “The Role of (Social) Media in Political Polarization: A Systematic Review”, Annals of the International Communication Association, Vol. 45, no: 3, pp. 188-206.
54. • Laebens, Melis G. & Öztürk, Aykut (2021), “Partisanship and Autocratization: Polarization, Power Asymmetry, and Partisan Social Identities in Turkey”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 54, no: 2, pp. 245-279.
55. • Lavigne, Ryan (2019), “The End of Opposition: The AKP’s Ten-Year War on Press Freedom in Turkey”, UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, no: 17, pp. 1-29.
56. • Leffler, Melvyn P. (2005), “9/11 and American Foreign Policy”, Diplomatic History, Vol. 29, no: 3, pp. 395-413.
57. • Le Monde (2022), “NATO deal with Sweden and Finland: Ankara celebrates 'national victory,' worries mount in Stockholm”, 29.06.2022, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/06/29/nato-deal-with-sweden-and-finland-ankara-celebrates-national-victory-worries-mount-in-stockholm_5988325_4.html.
58. • Lijphart, Arend (1971), “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, no: 3, pp. 682-693.
59. • McCoy, Jennifer & Rahman, Tahmina & Somer, Murat (2018), “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 62, no: 1, pp. 16-42.
60. • McCoy, Jennifer & Somer, Murat (2019), “Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 681, no: 1, pp. 234-271.
61. • McGarvey, Emily (2023), “International Women’s Day: Istanbul women defy ban on protests”, BBC News, 09.03.2023, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64897655.
62. • Mehlhaff, Isaac D. (2023), “A Group-Based Approach to Measuring Polarization”, American Political Science Review [Online], pp. 1-9.
63. • Moffitt, Benjamin (2016), The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
64. • Montellaro, Zach & Gerstein, Josh (2022), “Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections”, Politico, 30.06.2022, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/supreme-court-gop-independent-legislature-theory-reshape-elections-00043471.
65. • Murib, Zein (2018), “Trumpism, Citizenship, and the Future of the LGBTQ Movement”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 14, no: 4, pp. 649-672.
66. • Nagel, Caroline (2019), “Populism, immigration and the Trump phenomenon in the U.S.”, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, Vol. 37, no: 1, pp. 12-16.
67. • Neuborne, Burt (2019), When at Times the Mob Is Swayed: A Citizen’s Guide to Defending Our Republic, New York: The New Press.
68. • Oder, Bertil Emrah (2021), “Turkey’s Democratic Erosion: On Backsliding and the Constitution”, Social Research: An International Quarterly, Vol. 88, no: 2, pp. 473-500.
69. • Özkut, Gizem Tuğba & Aşçı, Jülide (2020), “Long-Lasting State of Emergency: Use of (In)security for Consolidation of Power in Turkey”, Democracy and Security, Vol. 16, no: 3, pp. 189-209.
70. • Özpek, Burak Bilgehan (2019), “The State’s Changing Role Regarding the Kurdish Question of Turkey: From Consistent Tutelage to Volatile Securitization”, Alternatives, Vol. 44, no: 1, pp. 35-49.
71. • Pfaff, Katharina Gabriela & Plümper, Thomas & Neumayer, Eric (2023), “Polarized Politics: Protest Against COVID-19 Containment Policies in the USA”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 138, no: 1, pp. 23-46.
72. • Rossinow, Doug (2008), Visions of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
73. • Rostbøll, Christian F. (2024), “Polarization and the Democratic System: Kinds, Reasons, and Sites”, Perspectives on Politics [Online], pp. 1-17.
74. • Saka, Erkan (2018), “Social Media in Turkey as a Space for Political Battles: AKTrolls and other Politically motivated trolling”, Middle East Critique, Vol. 27, no: 2, pp. 161-177.
75. • Schultz, Kenneth A. (2017), “Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 40, no: 4, pp. 7-28.
76. • Shapiro, Thomas M. (2017), Toxic Inequality: How America’s Wealth Gap Destroys Mobility, Deepens the Racial Divide, and Threatens Our Future, New York: Basic Books.
77. • Shoss, Mindy & Su, Shiyang & Schlotzhauer, Ann & Carusone, Nicole (2022), “Job Insecurity Harms Both Employees and Employers”, Harvard Business Review, 26.09.2022, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://hbr.org/2022/09/job-insecurity-harms-both-employees-and-employers.
78. • Siebrits, Krige (2022), “Economic Inequality and Political Polarization”, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Vol. 18, no: 1, pp. 41-60.
79. • Solnit, Rebecca (2024), “In the Shadow of Silicon Valley”, London Review of Books, Vol. 46, no: 3, pp. 7-11.
80. • Somer, Murat (2018), “Turkey: The Slippery Slope from Reformist to Revolutionary Polarization and Democratic Breakdown”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 681, no: 1, pp. 42-61.
81. • Southern Poverty Law Center (2018), “General Hate”, 08.08.2018, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://web.archive.org/web/20180408201658/https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/general-hate.
82. • Sözen, Yunus (2020), “Studying autocratization in Turkey: political institutions, populism, and neoliberalism”, New Perspectives on Turkey, no: 63, pp. 209-235.
83. • Spruill, Marjorie J. (2017), Divided We Stand: The Battle over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics, New York: Bloomsbury.
84. • Stewart, Alexander J. & McCarty, Nolan & Bryson, Joanna J. (2020), “Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline”, Science Advances, Vol. 6, no: 50, pp. 1-9.
85. • Stout, Christopher T. (2020), The Case for Identity Politics: Polarization, Demographic Change, and Racial Appeals, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
86. • Szymański, Adam & Cihangiroğlu, Ahmet Furkan (2023), “Deliberate polarization as a distractive political strategy in economic downturns: the case of Turkey”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [Online]. Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13530194.2023.2251140.
87. • Tarzi, Shah M. (2019), “The Trump Divide and Partisan Attitudes Regarding US Foreign Policy: Select Theoretical and Empirical Observations”, International Studies, Vol. 56, no: 1, pp. 46-57.
88. • Taş, Hakki (2022), “Erdoğan and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Outside-In Approach to Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 23, no: 5, pp. 722-742.
89. • Tillery Jr., Alvin B. (2019), “What Kind of Movement is Black Lives Matter? The View from Twitter”, Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, Vol. 4, no: 2, pp. 297-323.
90. • Toros, Seçil & Toros, Emre (2022), “Social media use and political participation: the Turkish case”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 23, no: 3, pp. 450-473.
91. • Türkoğlu, Didem & Odabaş, Meltem & Tunaoglu, Doruk & Yavaş, Mustafa (2022), “Political Polarisation on Social Media: Competing Understandings of Democracy in Turkey”, South European Society and Politics, Vol. 27, no: 2, pp. 223-251.
92. • Ugur-Cinar, Meral (2023), “Elections and Democracy in Turkey: Reconsidering Competitive Authoritarianism in the Age of Democratic Backsliding”, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 94, no: 3, pp. 445-451.
93. • White, John (2015), What Happened to the Republican Party? And What It Means for American Presidential Politics, New York: Routledge.
94. • Yavuz, M. Hakan (2022), “The Motives behind the AKP’s Foreign Policy: Neo-Ottomanism and Strategic Autonomy”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 23, no: 5, pp. 659-680.
95. • Yavuz, M. Hakan (2023), “A Torn Country: Erdoğan’s Turkey and the Elections of 2023”, Middle East Policy, Vol. 30, no: 3, pp. 81-94.
96. • Yavuz, M. Hakan & Öztürk, Ahmet Erdi (2023), Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and the New Republican People’s Party in Turkey, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
97. • Yavuzyılmaz, Hakan & Tsarouhas, Dimitris (2023), “Opening the box of parties and party systems under autocratization: evidence from Turkey”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 23, no: 4, pp. 901-920.
98. • Yılmaz, Cengiz & Özdemir, Özlem (2012), “Factors driving the political polarization process in Turkey: Relative effects of a number of determinants ranging from economic voting behavior to collective trauma effects”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, Vol. 7, no: 311, pp. 9-39.
99. • Yüksek Seçim Kurulu (2024), “Sandık Sonuçları ve Tutanaklar”, Date of Accession: 10.05.2024 from https://sonuc.ysk.gov.tr/sorgu.