Search

Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 Turkey has undergone double regime transitions. First, tutelary democracy ended; second, a competitive authoritarian regime has risen in its stead. We substantiate this assertion with specific and detailed evidence from 2015 election cycles, as well as from broader trends in Turkish politics. This evidence indeed confirms that elections are no longer fair; civil liberties are being systematically violated; and the playing field is highly skewed in favour of the ruling AKP. The June 2015 election results and their aftermath further confirm that Turkey has evolved into a competitive authoritarian regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's governance of Turkey, including his calling for November 2015 elections soon after the political party Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) was defeated in June 2015 elections. An overview of Turkey's conflict with its Kurdish population is provided.

The 2015 parliamentary elections in Turkey marked an important turning point as the outcome ended the 12 years of single-party government by the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Apart from the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), two other opposition parties, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), gained more votes than in the previous election. Significantly, by gaining 13.1 per cent of the vote, HDP managed to cross the 10 per cent electoral threshold. Since no party obtained enough parliamentary seats to establish a single-party government, the parties that are represented in the parliament had to form a coalition government which could have moderated Turkey’s enduring social polarization. However, since none of the parties was able to establish a government, the president called for the early elections on 1 November 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Summary In countries where governments’ disproportionate power over the bureaucracy is coupled with a strong political polarization, can votes for the national incumbent party “buy” preferential policy treatment and faster regional economic growth? The article tests such question on Turkey’s 81 provinces over 2004–12. Results uncover a link between votes and faster regional growth, as well as a small influence of preferential allocations in explaining it. Yet, after addressing potential endogeneity, economic performance is almost entirely explained by standard drivers, primarily human capital endowment. Results suggest that the impact of electorally motivated distributive politics on regions’ economic performance is extremely limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will examine how the media reported the 2011 election campaign in Turkey in comparison to the 2007 elections. In order to reflect the different ideological segments within the society (pro-secular, nationalist vs religious-conservative), four newspapers – Zaman, Cumhuriyet, Hürriyet and Posta – are chosen. The empirical evidence suggests that there are similarities between the analysis of the 2011 elections and the previous research findings of the 2007 elections with regard to the topics garnered, the main themes and the absence of the European Union-membership-related narratives. Yet, we also observe a major difference in the 2011 elections. The themes of the contestation between competing party programmes, values, and issue positions have shifted away from the secularism and Islam to the daily politics such as the economic progress, the military operations, the terrorist attacks, the corruption allegations and the Kurdish issue. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The election of the first government of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002 was a turning point for Turkey. People wanted change. That's what the AKP offered. Their successful economic management has seen Turkey transformed over the last 12 years. Foreign policy initiatives also prospered and relations with a number of neighbours improved.. More recent events have led some commentators to ask whether Turkey is moving forwards or backwards on the democratic path. There are concerns that the Ataturk legacy of a secular state is being slowly eroded by the forces of a conservative democracy and that too much power is now concentrated in the hands of Mr Erdogan. This is the background to the 2013 riots in (westernised) Istanbul. And the situation in the region leaves little room for optimism. The challenge now is to promote the political stability and predictability that will encourage continuing foreign and domestic investment in Turkey and to undertake the further structural reforms essential if Turkey is to rise out of the middle income trap and climb into the group of wealthier nations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses municipal elections in Turkey and the administration of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The author reflects on Erdogan's majority win in the 2011 election and allegations of government corruption and anti-democratic behavior. Other topics include Erdogan's Islamic beliefs and their relationship to public policy, legislation on the National Intelligence Organization, and relations with the U.S. government.

Research indicated that partisan affiliation, ideological and economic factors are the main determinants of the voters’ party preferences at Turkish elections. However, as Turkish political parties have been non-institutionalized structures, the role played by their political leaders seems to be larger than life. This paper seeks to assess the relative impact of the party leaders on the voters’ party preferences vis-à-vis ideology, partisan identity and economic satisfaction through empirical analyses with binary logistic regression. The data for the study were compiled as nationally representative surveys of the Turkish voters in June–July 2007 and May–June 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses efforts by Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to suppress and criticize the Turkish media as of late 2013. It examines television network CNN Turk owner Aydin Dogan and CNN Turk's lack of coverage during demonstrations known as the Gezi Park protests in Turkey in June 2013. The article discusses Dogan's career, Erdogan's public denunciations of the media during weekly speeches in the Turkish General Assembly, and the propaganda of the Turkish political party the Justice and Development Party (AKP). It also discusses Erdogan's political success, the fundraising entity known as Deniz Feneri, and sympathetic journalists close to Erdogan.

This paper discusses the conflict between the AK Party government and the Gezi activism with reference to hegemony, power-resistance dichotomy, local/metanarratives and the carnivalesque. The AK Party's 11-year rule revolutionized center-periphery relations in Turkey. The party pioneered the democratization process until the 2011 elections but took an authoritarian turn aterwards -- which gave rise to the revolts. However, the protests mobilized a heterogeneous group, some of whom maintained militarist and partiarchal metanarratives while others took a libertarian stance. his paper highlights the fragmentation of discourses under the "Gezi Spirit" as well as among AK Party supporters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkish voters elected a new National Assembly on June 12, 2011. As expected, the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP, Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) prevailed. This brief introductory article provides background on the elections and the main Turkish political parties. It also introduces the various contributions for this special issue that will analyze the impact this election will have on both domestic and foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The parliamentary elections in Turkey were held on 12 June 2011. The elections marked an important turning point as the Justice and Development Party (AKP) became the winner for the third time and with a higher vote, 49.9 per cent. The Republican People's Party (CHP) and the ethnically oriented Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), increased their votes to 25.9 and 6.65 per cent, respectively, while the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) obtained 12.9 per cent of the votes. The new parliament is highly representative, with 95 per cent of the voters being represented. This raised hopes about the drafting of a new constitution based on broad consensus. However, the enduring polarization of secular and religious groups, coupled with the obstructive attitude of Turkish and Kurdish nationalists, render this reformist undertaking difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]