Opening the box of parties and party systems under autocratization: evidence from Turkey

ABSTRACT

Party institutionalization (PI) and party system institutionalization (PSI) are critical for processes of democratization and democratic consolidation, yet their impact and relationship have not been explored under conditions of autocratization. How does autocratization relate to party and party system stability, and how does that link manifest itself? To answer those questions, we draw evidence from Turkey to demonstrate that when autocratization occurs, stabilization at the systemic level can go hand in hand with declining levels of PI. We also conceptualize the process of stabilization at the systemic level alongside unit-level de-institutionalization as a form of systemic ossification. Ossified party systems appear stable but are continuously subject to the possibility of de-stabilization, or even implosion, due to the under-institutionalization of incumbent parties. Driving factors of such (de)stabilization are: (1) the increasing unevenness of party competition and (2) increasing levels of societal and political polarization resulting from autocratization.

KEYWORDS:

• Political parties
• institutionalization
• autocratization
• ossification
• Turkey

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. There is by now a wide typology in the relevant literature regarding the erosion of democratic political systems. Following Lührmann and Lindberg (2019) we adopt the term ‘autocratization’ as an overarching concept that denotes ‘any move from full democracy’ to denote developments in Turkey. This better captures the process of regime change in Turkey from a defective democracy to a competitive authoritarian regime (Esen and Gumuscu 2016; Levitsky and Way 2020).

2. Where appropriate and to enhance the explanatory power of our case study, we compare Turkey with Hungary. The latter is also often regarded as a typical form of contemporary autocratization and categorized under competitive authoritarian regime type (Levitsky and Way 2020). Further, comparing the evolution of the AKP in Turkey and in line with our variables with that of the governing Fidesz in Hungary facilitates a better understanding of systemic ossification under autocratization.

3. For routinization, see Levitsky (1998) and Harmel et al. (2018).

4. ESS (2008) round survey results indicate that 64% of the respondents have low trust for political parties while moderate trust is 24.1% and high trust is 11.6% (ESS 2008; Yardımcı-Geyikçi 2015, 534).

5. The minimal conceptualizations of PI, instead of increasing the intensity of the concept, focus more on its extensity. To this end, some scholars propose some benchmarks for a party to be considered institutionalized. These include party age, the territorial presence and effective candidate supply of the party as well as the record of competition over at least three electoral cycles (For a review of these approaches, see Harmel et al. 2018).

6. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-41632586, https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-41632586.

7. For a general review of the research on clientelism and patronage in Turkey, see Sayarı (2014).

8. The third party is İyi Parti (the Good Party) which is a new party established in 2017. It split from the ultra-nationalist MHP and its origins lie in dissatisfaction with the direction that the MHP has taken in recent years, not least the party’s alliance with the AKP.

9. Several studies also show that economy is one of the most prominent issues that determine the preferences of AKP voters throughout its incumbency along with conservatism and security concerns, see Çarkoğlu 2008, 2012; Aytaç and Çarkoğlu (2019); Kalaycıoğlu (2017) among others.

10. Recent efforts by the AKP leadership to block some of the policies of opposition- led municipalities are also indicative of the importance of local governments for its clientelistic party-voter linkages.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hakan Yavuzyılmaz

Hakan Yavuzyılmaz, PhD is teaching at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Baskent University, Turkey. He is also Research and Policy Development Coordinator at Checks and Balances Network, Istanbul Policy Center, Sabancı University, Turkey. Previously, he was a post-doctoral researcher at Politics & International Relations Department, University of Nottingham, UK and Research Fellow at Research Center for Political Parties and Democracy (REPRESENT), UK. His research primarily focuses on political regimes, political parties, and party systems. His research has been published in Party Politics and Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies.

Dimitris Tsarouhas

Dimitris Tsarouhas, PhD is Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations, Bilkent University, Turkey and a Visiting Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science and the Center for European Union, Transatlantic Relations and Trans-European Space Studies at Virginia Tech University. He is a Non-Resident Senior Research Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) and a Scientific Council Member of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) in Brussels. Tsarouhas is Associate Editor of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies as well as Uluslararasi İlişkiler Dergisi/Journal of International Relations. He is the co-editor (with Owen Parker) of Crisis in the Eurozone Periphery: The Political Economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland (London: Palgrave 2018), author of Social Democracy in Sweden: the Threat from a Globalized World (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2008) and co-editor of Bridging the Real Divide: Social and Regional Policy in Turkey’s EU Accession Process (METU Press 2007). His research has been published in Regulation & Governance, New Political Economy, Journal of European Integration, Public Administration, Comparative European Politics, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Social Politics, Social Policy & Administration, Political Studies Review, Armed Forces & Society, European Journal of Industrial Relations and Southeast European and Black Sea Studies.