TikTok’ta Aşırı Sağ Propaganda: AfD, RN ve FvD Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu makale, önemli üç Avrupa aşırı sağ partisi olan Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Rassemblement National (RN) ve Forum voor Democratie’nin (FvD) TikTok’u ideolojik üretim ve duygusal seferberlik için nasıl kullandığını incelemektedir. Popülist Radikal Sağ bakış açısı ile çerçeveleme ve gündem belirleme gibi medya etkileri teorilerinden yararlanarak, 2024–2025 yılları arasında resmi veya doğrulanabilir şekilde bağlantılı hesaplar tarafından üretilen on dokuz videonun karşılaştırmalı söylem ve tematik içerik analizini gerçekleştirmektedir. Çalışmada çıkarımsal bir kodlama kitabı (yerlicilik, otoriterlik, popülizm) platforma özgü estetik unsurların (müzik, kurgu temposu, tipografik vurgular, mizah/ironi) tümevarımsal kodlamasıyla birleştirilmiştir. Makale ayrıca etkileşim göstergelerini, izlenme, beğeni, paylaşım, yorum, takip etmekte ve mümkün olduğunda yayılma bağlamını anlamak için normalleştirmektedir. Bulgular, kriz, kültürel tehdit, elit karşıtlığı ve kimlik çerçevelerinin üç partide de ortak biçimde kullanıldığını, ancak tarzların ayrıştığını göstermektedir: AfD, çöküş anlatılarını ironiyle dramatize ederken; RN lider yakınlığı, umut ve göç referandumlarını harmanlamakta; FvD ise AB şüpheciliğini komplo temelli kriz söylemleriyle birleştirmektedir. Tüm vakalarda TikTok’un kısa biçimli yapısı, yoğun görsel-işitsel dili ve algoritmik dağıtım mantığı siyasetin estetikleşmesini, duygusal kamuların yaratılmasını ve aracı kurumları zayıflatan politik önerilerin normalleşmesini kolaylaştırmaktadır. Çalışma, Popülist Radikal Sağ literatürü ile platform çalışmaları arasında bir köprü kurarak TikTok’un gençler arasında aşırı sağ mesajları güçlendirdiğini göstermektedir. Makale, kutuplaşmayı azaltmak için daha güçlü medya okuryazarlığı ve şeffaf algoritmalar çağrısında bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• TikTok
• Aşırı Sağ
• Popülist Radikal Sağ
• Medyalaşma
• Siyasi Partiler.

Far-Right Propaganda on TikTok: A Comparative Analysis of AfD, RN, and FvD

Öz

This article examines how three prominent European far-right parties, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Rassemblement National (RN), and Forum voor Democratie (FvD), use TikTok as a vehicle for ideological production and affective mobilization. With Populist Radical Right framework and media‐effects theories of framing and agenda setting, it conducts a comparative discourse and thematic content analysis of nineteen videos posted by official or verifiably affiliated accounts, all produced and circulated between 2024 and 2025. A deductive codebook (nativism, authoritarianism, populism) is combined with inductive coding of platform-specific aesthetics (music, editing pace, typographic emphases, humor/irony). The article also track engagement signals, views, likes, shares, comments, and normalize where possible to contextualize diffusion. Findings reveal shared use of crisis, cultural-threat, anti-elite, and identity frames, but with distinct styles: AfD dramatizes decline with irony, RN mixes leader intimacy and immigration referenda with hope, and FvD pairs EU-skepticism with conspiratorial crisis framing. Across cases, TikTok’s affordances, short-form, audiovisual intensity, algorithmic distribution, facilitate the aestheticization of politics, the cultivation of affective publics, and the normalization of proposals that weaken intermediary institutions. The study links PRR research and platform studies, showing TikTok amplifies far-right messages among youth, and calls for stronger media literacy and transparent algorithms to curb polarization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• TikTok
• Far Right
• Populist Radical Right
• Mediatization
• Political Parties.

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). De facto political power and institutional persistence. American Economic Review, 96(2), 325-330.
2. Anderson, B. (2020). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. In S. Seidman & J. C. Alexander (Eds.), The New Social Theory Reader (pp. 282-288). Routledge.
3. Betz, H. G. (1994). Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe. Springer.
4. Brubaker, R. (2017). Why populism?. Theory and Society, 46(5), 357-385.
5. Ebner, J. (2023). Going mainstream: How extremists are taking over. Bonnier Books UK.
6. Edward, S. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
7. Engesser, S., Fawzi, N., & Larsson, A. O. (2017). Populist online communication: Introduction to the special issue. Information, communication & society, 20(9), 1279-1292.
8. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory, 390-397.

9. Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., & de Vreese, C. H. (Eds.). (2019). Communicating Populism Comparing Actor Perceptions, Media Coverage, and Effects on Citizens in Europe. Routledge.
10. Gerbaudo, P. (2018). Social media and populism: an elective affinity?. Media, Culture & Society, 40(5), 745-753.
11. Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2016). Instagrammatics and digital methods: Studying visual social media, from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1), 47-62.
12. Klein, O., & Muis, J. (2019). Online discontent: Comparing Western European far-right groups on Facebook. European Societies, 21(4), 540-562.
13. Krämer, B. (2017). Populist online practices: The function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1293-1309.
14. Kriesi, H., & Trechsel, A. H. (2008). The politics of Switzerland. Continuity and change in a consensus democracy. Cambridge University Press.
15. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Measuring the reliability of qualitative text analysis data. Quality and Quantity, 38(6), 787-800.
16. Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics: An introduction. Routledge.
17. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
18. Lührmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019). A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?. Democratization, 26(7), 1095-1113.
19. Maly, I. (2019). New right metapolitics and the algorithmic activism of Schild & Vrienden. Social Media+ Society, 5(2).
20. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). " Mediatization" of politics: A challenge for democracy?. Political Communication, 16(3), 247-261.
21. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58-67.
22. Miller-Idriss, C. (2022). Hate in the homeland: The new global far right. Princeton University Press
23. Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. In The People vs. Democracy. Harvard University Press.
24. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe (Vol. 22). Cambridge university press.
25. Mudde, C. (2019a). The 2019 EU elections: Moving the center. Journal of Democracy, 30(4), 20-34.
26. Mudde, C. (2019b). The far right today. Polity Press.
27. Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
28. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
29. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). We have always been social. Social Media+ Society, 1(1).
30. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
31. Rauchfleisch, A., & Kaiser, J. (2021). Deplatforming the far-right: An analysis of YouTube and BitChute. SSRN.
32. Ribeiro, M. H., Ottoni, R., West, R., Almeida, V. A., & Meira Jr, W. (2020, January). Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 131-141).
33. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228-246.
34. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. In C. Menkel-Meadow (Ed.), Multi-party dispute resolution, democracy and decision-making (pp. 65-95). Routledge.
35. Theocharis, Y., & Van Deth, J. W. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: A new taxonomy. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 139-163.
36. Tufekci, Z. (2018, March 10). YouTube, the great radicalizer. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html
37. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283.
38. Waisbord, S. (2024). Mob censorship: Online harassment of US journalists in times of digital hate and populism. In O. Westlund, R. Krøvel & K. S. Orgeret (Eds.), Journalism and Safety: An Introduction to the Field (pp. 30-46). Routledge.
39. Wodak, R. (2015). Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction John Wiley & Sons.