Hook

In the early 2000s, Turkey looked like a promising case of democracy. Many people believed it could become a stable liberal democracy, even in a Muslim-majority country. However, today, Turkey is often described as an authoritarian regime. So what went wrong?

In my view, the key factor is not just economic or cultural conditions, but political polarization. More specifically, Turkey experienced what scholars call pernicious polarization, where political opponents are no longer seen as legitimate rivals, but as enemies. This post argues that this form of polarization in Turkey was not just a result of political conflict, but a central cause of democratic erosion. It gradually weakened institutions, reduced trust, and made democratic cooperation increasingly difficult. This suggests that Turkey is part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding that we can also see in many other countries.

Evidence and Data

This argument draws on Murat Somer’s analysis in Turkey: The Slippery Slope from Reformist to Revolutionary Polarization and Democratic Breakdown (2019), which explains how polarization can evolve from reformist competition into a destructive force that undermines democratic norms and institutions. This theoretical insight is supported by empirical evidence from Freedom House (see Freedom House country report), which documents a clear pattern of democratic backsliding in Turkey, especially after 2014. Turkey has been rated “Not Free,” with declines in civil liberties, institutional independence, and political pluralism.

In addition, data from the V-Dem Institute shows a significant decline in Turkey’s liberal democracy index. This trend is clearly visible in country-level data (see Turkey Liberal Democracy Index data) and broader global comparisons (see V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index), which supports the idea that democratic erosion can be observed not only qualitatively but also through systematic measurement. At a broader level, How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt provides a useful framework. They argue that democratic erosion often occurs gradually through the weakening of norms such as mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, rather than sudden collapse.

What Happened in Turkey?

To understand Turkey, we first need to understand pernicious polarization. This is not simply disagreement between political groups. Instead, it refers to a situation where society is divided into two opposing camps that increasingly distrust and delegitimize each other.

In Turkey, this process developed gradually. When the Justice and Development Party (AKP) first came to power in 2002, political competition was more balanced, and there was still some space for cooperation. However, after 2007, political tensions increased. Conflicts over the presidency and constitutional issues deepened the divide between secular groups and religious conservatives. Over time, this division became more extreme. By the 2010s, politics had become highly polarized, with citizens forced to choose between supporting Recep Tayyip Erdoğan or opposing him. This also suggests that Turkey cannot be understood as fully democratic or fully authoritarian, but rather as existing somewhere along a regime spectrum. This reflects this type of polarization, as political opponents were no longer seen as legitimate competitors, but rather as threats to the nation.

As argued in How Democracies Die, democracy depends on norms such as mutual toleration. In Turkey, these norms weakened significantly, which made compromise and cooperation much more difficult. As a result, polarization did not just divide society. It also reshaped democratic institutions and weakened the functioning of democracy. This shows that polarization is not only a social division, but also a structural force behind democratic erosion.

Why Did This Happen?

We can better understand this process by looking at three key elements: elites, institutions, and citizens.

Political Elites

First, political elites played a key role. The AKP used polarization strategically by framing politics as a conflict between “old elites” and a “new Turkey.” However, over time, this strategy became stronger and more aggressive. Moderate voices weakened, and more extreme political actors became dominant. As a result, politics became less about policy and more about identity and loyalty. This is important for democracy because elites began to delegitimize opponents, which is a key feature of this type of polarization and a serious threat to democratic competition.

Institutions

Second, institutions were gradually weakened. Although early reforms appeared democratic, the government later increased control over key institutions, including the judiciary and the media. A major turning point was the 2016 coup attempt, after which the government expanded its authority and removed thousands of judges, journalists, and public officials. This event marked a turning point because it allowed the government to justify expanding executive power and weakening institutional constraints. This reduced checks and balances and contributed to what scholars call executive aggrandizement, meaning the gradual expansion of executive power while maintaining formal democratic institutions. From a comparative politics perspective, this also shows how the “rules of the game” can be gradually reshaped. In addition, the 2017 constitutional referendum transformed Turkey into a presidential system, further strengthening executive power. This matters for democracy because once institutions lose credibility, they can no longer effectively constrain power, which accelerates democratic erosion. This reflects a classic case of democratic erosion through institutional weakening, a key concept in comparative politics.

Citizens

Third, citizens were also deeply affected. As polarization increased, people became more emotionally attached to their political side. This is known as negative partisanship. In this situation, people do not just support their own side, but also strongly reject and distrust the opposing side. In Turkey, this led to lower social trust and reduced willingness to compromise. This matters for democracy because democratic systems require cooperation and tolerance, but polarization makes these conditions difficult to maintain.

The Authoritarian Spiral

These elements together created what can be described as an authoritarian spiral, meaning a cycle where polarization and institutional weakening reinforce each other. Political elites used polarization to gain support, which weakened institutions. As institutions weakened, society became more divided. In response, elites relied on even stronger polarization. This cycle continued and became self-reinforcing over time. From a theoretical perspective, this reflects how pernicious polarization can transform democratic competition into a destructive process. Once this cycle begins, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse, making democracy more fragile over time. This suggests that democratic breakdown is not just one sudden event, but something that builds up over time through political and social changes.

Conclusion

The Turkish case shows that democratic decline does not always happen through sudden crises. Instead, it can occur gradually through everyday political strategies. In this case, polarization was initially used as a political tool, but over time it became a central force that weakened democracy. This leads to an important insight: polarization is not only a consequence of democratic problems, but also a cause of them. As this case demonstrates, when polarization becomes extreme, it weakens democratic norms, institutions, and political cooperation.

More broadly, this case reflects a key insight from comparative politics: democracy is not a fixed system, but one that can gradually change as institutions and norms weaken over time. This case highlights a key lesson from comparative politics: democracy is not static, but can erode gradually through institutional and political processes. Therefore, managing polarization is not just important, but essential for the survival of modern democracies.

In addition, the Turkish case also has broader implications beyond a single country. Similar patterns of polarization and democratic erosion can be observed in other parts of the world, suggesting that this is not an isolated case but part of a wider global trend. This shows how easily democratic systems can weaken when political divisions become too deep. In this sense, the case of Turkey helps us better understand why protecting democratic norms and institutions is not only a domestic issue, but also a global challenge that requires continuous attention and institutional protection.