Faculty of Social Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Beyond Populism: From Scholarship to Politics in “New” Turkey Halil Gürhanlı Doctoral Thesis To be presented for public examination with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, in Room 107, Athena Building, on the 10th of September, 2020 at 13:00. 1 ISBN 978-951-51-6485-8 (paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-6486-5 (PDF) Unigrafia Helsinki 2020 2 Abstract Lately, it has become almost a cliché to label Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as populist. Turkish democracy’s dramatic backsliding under his Justice and Development Party (AKP) government is often raised as a reminder of why all who believe in democracy should protect it against populism and populists in their own societies. But this was generally not the case until the summer of 2013 when millions took to the streets as part of the nationwide anti- government protests. The ruthless way in which the government suppressed the protests reminded his liberal-minded supporters at home and abroad of other populists with a similar authoritarian streak. Once promoted as the “Nelson Mandela of Turkey”, Erdoğan was turned into its “New Sultan” almost overnight. On the first level, this dissertation examines the epistemological and ontological roots of the mainstream narrative by asking: How could Erdoğan government so suddenly turn from beloved democrats into wretched populists? Operationalising a post-foundationalist theory of populism, this dissertation demonstrates that rather than undergoing an ideological metamorphosis, the AKP government was a consistently populist force from the beginning. Understanding populism as a fundamentally neutral rather than necessarily anti-democratic discourse whereby “the people” as the only legitimate yet presently powerless source of sovereignty is discursively constructed in antagonism with an illegitimately powerful elite, this dissertation firmly categorises the AKP as a populist party from the moment it first appeared on Turkish political stage in 2001. In fact, it argues that the moment when the mainstream scholarship started to label it populist was roughly the time authoritarianism and nativism came to fore much more pronouncedly as it core features, effectively transforming the AKP into a populist radical right party. The reason why most accounts failed to define it as such and instead vehemently supported it as a harbinger of liberal democracy for so long is that the AKP successfully integrated the epistemological framework of their thinking into its own ideological self-identification, branding itself as a “conservative democratic” party. Grounded on a strictly unidimensional logic whereby the Turkish modernisation process is understood with a reference to a distance between the bureaucratic centre and the Islamist periphery, mainstream scholarship considers the struggle between Kemalist power and Islamist opposition as the constitutive axis of Turkish politics along with the stereotypes of the authoritarian state and populist Islamist opposition. Having internalised this topographic model, the AKP broke its ties with Islamist tradition and branded itself as a state-of-the-art “conservative democratic” party 3 that was uniquely capable of overcoming, rather than perpetuating, this constitutive antagonism between the centre and periphery. Insofar as the party perfectly synchronised itself to the post- political tune of centre-periphery and declared its mission to be the realisation of a “politics beyond antagonisms,” early years of the AKP was celebrated as the end of political conflicts when the centre and the periphery of Turkish society would soon be “one” again. On the second level, through an immanent reading of the Laclaudian theory of populism in Turkish case, this dissertation also remarks at a significant shortcoming of his model, namely its underlying “emancipatory apriorism” about populism. There is a tendency in Laclaudian theory to categorise “political” as such only insofar as it refers to democratising and emancipatory endeavours. Having rendered populist reason synonymous with political reason, Laclau assigns populism an essentially emancipatory mission. This study inquiring the right- ward trajectory of a populist actor seeks to overcome this “emancipatory apriorism” that constitutes a gap in Laclaudian approaches to populism. Critically examining the AKP’s discourse as its trajectory from populism to nativist/nationalist radical-right has intensified in each dislocatory moment, the empirical part of this dissertation demonstrates that, contrary to Laclaudian conviction, it is indeed practically possible for populism to take non-emancipatory forms and descent into authoritarianism. As the case of Erdoğanism demonstrates, populist discourses can and do reach at such an extreme point of bipolar hegemony that they collapse all social differences into a singular political identity with respect to their articulation through the name of the leader. Though at this extreme point, it would be analytically more correct to categorise such cases not as mainly populist but radical right, for it is the nativist/nationalist and authoritarian—rather than populist—features that primarily determine their discourses. 4 Acknowledgements Emilia Palonen was the reason why I decided to apply for my doctoral studies at University of Helsinki even before I met her in person. As a master’s student at the University of Essex, it was her doctoral dissertation on Hungarian politics that had encouraged me to embark upon a similar scholarly journey myself, focusing on the case of Turkey. Once I followed her footsteps and arrived Finland in 2009, she was one of the first people I met and has been the best of supervisors since. I sincerely thank her for being the most patient and understanding teacher and mentor, whose selfless support for my research and genuine belief in me have remained unchanged over the years. Most of all, I am indebted to her for standing by me even during the most critical turning points of my studies and personal life when things looked the bleakest. It would truly be impossible for me to see this whole process through without her. Michael Freeden, Zeynep Gambetti and Mahmut Mutman acted as pre-examiners for this dissertation, which they reviewed and commented with exceptional care. Their insights and observations have enabled me to improve this work immensely, giving it the much needed clarity and coherence. I am also honoured that Paul T. Levin kindly agreed to act as my opponent. I have nothing but a profound gratitude for all four who have generously dedicated their invaluable time and efforts for the completion of this dissertation. Juri Mykkänen offered me his complete support in his administrative capacity during a particularly challenging period when the question of finding a work space at the university was a constant issue for many doctoral candidates. He would go out of his way to find a solution to my problems, no matter how small they were or how busy he was. I extend my warmest thanks to all the colleagues I have had during the time I worked as part of the Mainstreaming Populism in the 21st Century project. While Juha Herkman, with his seemingly infinite serenity, tirelessly supported my research even when it took some abrupt breaks, Virpi Salojärvi selflessly offered her help when I needed it the most. I thank all the kind colleagues I have had throughout the years at the Department of Political and Economic Studies. Particularly, World Politics seminar coordinated by Teivo Teivainen and Heikki Patomaki has provided the friendly yet challenging, free and inspirational atmosphere to share and discuss ideas. At the department, I was also fortunate to meet Hanna- Kaisa Hoppania, Tuomas Parsio, Jemima Repo, Jenny Schröer, Taavi Sundell and John Welsh in the course of my doctoral studies. Having shared the same office, classes and seminars with them in various stages, we became friends who could throw their most outlandish thoughts at one another just to see where they would land. I am proud to admit that some of the more 5 interesting ideas that I found worth pursuing came to me in the course of our numerous memorable get-togethers. As a member of the rather small Turkey-related research clique in Helsinki, I have had countless important and inspiring discussions with Anu Leinonen, Pia Irene Ranna, Toni Alaranta, and Johanna Vuorelma who, have all improved my research significantly in their own ways. I am particularly indebted to Pia who has always been ready to lend a hand whenever I needed it, both as a colleague and a friend. For the financial support without which this research would not have been possible, I thank the generous support of the Research Foundation of the University of Helsinki, the Academy of Finland, the Niilo Helander Foundation, the Kone Foundation and the Oskar Öflund Foundation. Outside academia, members of my massive Turkish-Finnish “family” in Helsinki and tight-knitted alumni group from the University of Essex have all nurtured my soul and raised my spirits with their joy and kindness. My life-long friends Göktuğ Karpat, Kenan Çarpan and Erim Ertan have done the same despite being thousands of kilometers away. It was an immense comfort to know that they always had my back. But most of all, I am deeply indebted to Yonca Ermutlu, whose hearth-felt concern and support for my work and happiness brought this work back from the edge of disastrous failure many times. This dissertation would quite literally not exist had I not have her on my side all these years. I want to thank my loving mother Neriman Gürhanlı, mother-in-law Maritta Tikkinen- Arı and father-in-law Halûk Arı whose unconditional love for me and my family, and unfailing support for everything I was interested in doing contributed directly to the completion of this work. Finally, I want to offer my deepest gratitude and love to my best friend, life-long partner and wife Melis Arı-Gürhanlı who, for some unfathomable reason, has been with me through thick and thin for over a decade while I worked to complete this dissertation.