Skip to main content
Log in

Regime uncertainty, democratic erosion and resilience, and Turkish opposition actors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Which peculiar uncertainties does democratic erosion (DE) pose to opposition actors? How have these uncertainties influenced the behavior of opposition actors during Turkey’s autocratization since the early 2000s? What can we learn from this case regarding the links between DE and opposition behavior? The latter should be treated as an integral part of explaining DE—the gradual decline in the quality of multiple aspects of democracy under popularly elected governments. We argue that a contextual uncertainty, “regime uncertainty” (RU) challenged Turkish opposition actors, compounding the other and related uncertainties they faced such as institutional and strategic uncertainties and affecting their resilience against DE. RU concerns the ambivalence that DE’s inherent qualities generate about what the regime is, or is becoming. The resulting intra-opposition divisions and indecisions raise the question of whether the primary context, frame and end of opposition politics should be issue- and party-based competitive politics or defending democracy against an imminent threat. Hence, RU generates recurring rifts over “normal” versus “extraordinary” politics. We analyze the Turkish experience and intra-opposition politics in four sub-periods (nascent DE, consolidation of erosive power, advanced DE, breakdown and post-breakdown opposition experimentation). Turkish opposition actors’ RU perceptions and resulting behaviors evolved on highly non-linear paths. We offer novel analytical/theoretical tools and argue that the agency and capacity of oppositions to overcome RU in a country, alongside their ability to surmount other challenges, should be considered an integral part of democratic resilience against erosion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By using V‑Dem’s liberal democracy, ROW (regimes of the world), and coup indicators: https://v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/.

  2. As we will see below, as part of the bureaucratic opposition actors but not democratic checks and balances, one can also include the military, which acted as a praetorian-authoritarian veto player against the government until the AKP and its allies truncated the military’s authorities and political powers through politicized trials and a crucial referendum in 2010 (Somer 2014; Gürsoy 2017).

  3. “Why A Colorado Court Just Knocked Trump off the Ballot,” The Daily: New York Times, December 20, 2023.

  4. A 2007 online ultimatum by the military chief of staff was a major intervention in civilian politics short of a coup, as we discuss below. In turn, we do not consider the failed military coup in 2016 against the AKP as “opposition” for reasons explained in our main narrative below.

  5. NTV MSNBC, 24 April 2002. http://arsiv.ntv.com.tr/news/148495.asp <accessed on 7 April 2022.>.

  6. Takvim, 25 August 2004. http://arsiv.takvim.com.tr/2004/08/25/gnb104.html; Bağımsız İletişim Ağı, 22 February 2018. https://m.bianet.org/bianet/insan-haklari/194571-akp-2004-te-suc-haline-getiremedigi-zinayi-yeniden-gundemine-aldi <accessed on 17 November 2022.>.

  7. Hürriyet, 19 February 2005. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/mumcu-icin-akp-den-istifa-edecekler-38689007; Milliyet, 30 September 2005. https://www.milliyet.com.tr/siyaset/anap-gruba-dogru-129977 <accessed on 24 November 2022.>.

  8. BBC Turkish, 18 May 2006. https://www.bbc.co.uk/turkish/europe/story/2006/05/060518_turkey_protests.shtml <accessed on 19 November 2022.>.

  9. Hürriyet, 19 May 2006. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/bakanlar-polis-kordonuyla-kacti-4438804 <accessed on 19 November 2022.>.

  10. BBC Turkish, 19 May 2006. https://www.bbc.co.uk/turkish/europe/story/2006/05/060519_erdogan.shtml <accessed on 19 November 2022.>.

  11. The AKP’s legal team argued that no such threshold was necessary. BirGün, 27 December 2006. https://www.birgun.net/haber/kosk-yolunda-simdi-de-367-tartismasi-30702 <accessed on 20 November 2022.>.

  12. Author’s interview with a high-ranking CHP official. 6 July 2020, Ankara.

  13. The Guardian, 28 August 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/28/turkey.marktran1.

  14. BBC News, 29 April 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6604643.stm; Reuters, 29 April 2007. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-president/one-million-turks-rally-against-government-idUSL2910950920070429 <accessed on 8 April 2022.>.

  15. BBC Turkish, 27 April 2007. https://www.bbc.co.uk/turkish/news/story/2007/04/printable/070427_turkey_vote.shtml <accessed on 20 November 2022.>.

  16. Hürriyet, 28 April 2007. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/katilmadilar-6420720 <accessed on 20 November 2022.>.

  17. Hürriyet, 27 April 2007. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/mecliste-368-kisi-var-iddiasi-6414928 <accessed on 8 April 2022.>.

  18. MyNet, 12 April 2015. https://www.mynet.com/27-nisan-e-muhtirasi-tam-metni-110102212559 <accessed on 26 November 2022.>.

  19. Cumhuriyet, 8 August 2014. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/iste-gulun-kosk-karnesi-geleni-onaylamis-103255 <accessed on 26 February 2023.>.

  20. BBC Turkish, 19 February 2014. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2014/02/140219_gul_internet <accessed on 18 March 2023.>.

  21. Bağımsız İletişim Ağı, 11 February 2008. https://m.bianet.org/bianet/religion/104792-constitutional-change-for-headscarf-at-university-passed-in-parliament <accessed on 21 November 2022.>.

  22. https://anayasa.gov.tr/tr/mahkeme-gundemi/genel-kurul/5-haziran-2008-genel-kurul-gundemi-ve-sonuclari/.

  23. Yeni Şafak, 8 June 2008. https://www.yenisafak.com/yerel/hasan-celal-guzel-turkiye-demokrasi-degil-yargiclar-sistemi-var-122233 <accessed 17 March 2023.>.

  24. https://www.gazetevatan.com/yazarlar/reha-muhtar/thy-yaziya-ne-cevap-verdi-204640 <accessed on 26 November 2022.>.

  25. https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yazarlar/guneri-civaoglu/eksik-anayasa-506559 <accessed on 21 November 2022.>.

  26. Hasan Celal Güzel, Radikal, 18 March; 22 April 2008.

  27. Milliyet, 28 October 2008. https://www.milliyet.com.tr/gundem/2455-sayfalik-iddianame-okunuyor-1008742 <accessed on 9 April 2022.>.

  28. “86 on trial in Turkish coup case,” The New York Times, 20 September 2008.

  29. Cumhuriyet, 10 April 2011. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/ogrenciler-kalem-kirdi-237708 <accessed on 26 November 2022.>.

  30. Cumhuriyet, 13 March 2011. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/beyoglunda-hes-protestosu-229616 <accessed on 26 November 2022.>.

  31. Haber Ekspres, 31 January 2011. https://www.haberekspres.com.tr/gundem/alkol-sinirlamasini-boyle-protesto-ettiler-h8518.html; Sendika, 2 June 2012. <accessed on 26 November 2022.>.

  32. CNN Turk, 11 September 2012. https://www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/4-4-4-protestosuna-sert-mudahale <accessed on 26 November 2022.>.

  33. “Emek Theater protestors face court; cinema circles condemn police violence,” Hürriyet Daily News, 8 April 2013.

  34. Sözcü, 27 January 2023. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2023/gundem/icisleri-bakanliginin-metin-lokumcu-raporu-ortaya-cikti-polisler-hatali-gaz-kullandi-7571183/.

  35. CNN World. 29 October 2012. https://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/29/world/europe/turkey-holiday-clash/ <accessed on 30 May 2022.>.

  36. En Son Haber, 18 December 2012. https://www.ensonhaber.com/gundem/odtude-basbakan-erdogana-protesto-2012-12-18 <accessed on 27 November 2022.>.

  37. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/events/?id=3388#:~:text=The%20Venice%20Commission%20has%20also,would%20go%20against%20European%20standards.

  38. Deutsche Welle, 18 April 2017, https://www.dw.com/tr/ysk-m%C3%BCh%C3%BCrs%C3%BCz-oy-gerek%C3%A7esini-a%C3%A7%C4%B1klad%C4%B1/a-38478270 <accessed 15 November 2023.>.

  39. Haberturk, 1 January 2017, https://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/1359033-aylin-nazliakadan-mecliste-kelepceli-protesto/10 <accessed 22 December 2023.>.

  40. Haber 7, 24 April 2023 https://video.haber7.com/video-galeri/237163-davutoglundan-oy-itirafi-halasini-bile-ikna-edemedi <accessed 15 November 2023.>.

  41. Politik Yol, 24 December 2022 https://www.politikyol.com/deva-lideri-babacan-keske-2017de-avaz-avaz-bagirip-bu-yanlis-baskanlik-sistemi-referandumuna-evet-demeyin-deseydim/ <accessed 15 November 2023.>.

References

  • Arango, Tim. 2014. Turkish leader, using conflicts, cements power. The New York Times, Oct. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atasoy, Yıldız. 2009. Islam’s marriage with neoliberalism: state transformation in Turkey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Axiarlis, Evangelia. 2014. Political İslam and the secular state in Turkey: Democracy, reform and the Justice and Development Party. New York: I.B. Tauris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ayan Musil, Pelin. 2024. How opposition parties unite in competitive authoritarian regimes: the role of an intermediary party. Democratization 31(1):210–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2260762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydemir, Sevilay, and M.Ç. Özdemir. 2016. Council of Higher Education (CoHE) presidents and a general evaluation of criticisms on the CoHE implementations. YÜKSEKÖĞRETİM DERGİSİ 6(3):117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydın-Düzgit, Senem, Mustafa Kutlay, and E. Fuat Keyman. 2023. How Erdoğan rules through crisis. Journal of Democracy 34(4):80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aytaç, S. Erdem, and Ziya Öniş. 2014. Varieties of populism in a changing global context: the divergent paths of Erdoğan and Kirchnerismo. Comparative Politics 47(1):41–59.

  • Aytaç, S. Erdem. 2021. Effectiveness of incumbent’s strategic communication during economic crisis under electoral authoritarianism: evidence from Turkey. American Political Science Review 115(4):1517–1523.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bakıner, Onur. 2017. How did we get here? Turkey’s slow shift to authoritarianism. In Authoritarian politics in Turkey, ed. Bahar Başer, A.E. Öztürk, 21–46. London: I.B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayat, Asef. 2005. Islamism and social movement theory. Third World Quarterly 26(6):891–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermeo, Nancy. 2016. On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy 27(1):5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermeo, Nancy. 2022. Questioning backsliding. Journal of Democracy 33(4):155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagaptay, Soner. 2020. Erdogan’s empire: Turkey and the politics of the Middle East. London: I.B. Tauris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, M.A. 1998. Self-coups: Peru, Guatemala, and Russia. Journal of Democracy 9(1):125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrión, Julio F. 2022. A dynamic theory of populism in power: the Andes in comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cassani, Andrea, and Luca Tomini. 2019. Autocratization in post-Cold War regimes. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, Matthew R., and Aykut Öztürk. 2022. When does backsliding lead to breakdown? Uncertainty and opposition strategies in democracies at risk. Perspectives on Politics 20(1):205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael. 2017. Eroding regimes: what, where, and when? (November 2017). V‑Dem working paper series: 57. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3066677.

  • Dorlach, Tim. 2015. The prospects of egalitarian capitalism in the global South: Turkish social neoliberalism in comparative perspective.Economy and Society 44(4):519–544.

  • Esen, Berk, and Şebnem Gümüşçü. 2016. Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly 37(9):1581–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esen, Berk, and Şebnem Gümüşçü. 2017. A small yes for presidentialism: the Turkish constitutional referendum of April 2017. South European Society and Politics 22(3):303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esen, Berk, and Şebnem Gümüşçü. 2019. Killing competitive authoritarianism softly: the 2019 local elections in Turkey. South European Society and Politics 24(3):317–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esen, Berk, and Şebnem Gümüşçü. 2023. How Erdoğan’s populism won again. Journal of Democracy 34(3):21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, Paul, Jennifer McCoy, Rachel Beatty Riedl, Kenneth Roberts, and Murat Somer. 2023. DRG center learning agenda opening up democratic spaces original research: summary report. USAID. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA02166K.pdf.

  • Gamboa, Laura. 2017. Opposition at the margins: strategies against the erosion of democracy in Colombia and Venezuela. Comparative Politics 49(4):457–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa, Laura. 2022. Resisting backsliding: opposition strategies against the erosion of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grillo, Edoardo, and Carlo Prato. 2023. Reference points and democratic backsliding. American Journal of Political Science 67(1):71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürsoy, Yaprak. 2017. Between Military Rule and Democracy: Regime Consolidation in Greece, Turkey, and Beyond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  • Haggard, Stephan, and Robert Kaufman. 2021. Backsliding: democratic regress in the contemporary world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, William, and Ergun Özbudun. 2010. Islamism, democracy, and liberalism in Turkey: the case of the AKP. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Kirk A. 2010. Venezuela’s Chavismo and populism in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heper, Metin. 2005. The Justice and Development Party government and the military in Turkey. Turkish Studies 6(2):215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintz, Lisel. 2016. Adding insult to injury: vilification as counter-mobilization strategy in Turkey’s Gezi protests. Project on Middle East Political Science Studies, vol. 20.

  • Ilonszki, G., and A. Dudzińska. 2021. Opposition behaviour against the third wave of autocratisation: Hungary and Poland compared. European Political Science 20:603–616.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne. 2021. Unravelling democratic erosion: who drives the slow death of democracy, and how? Democratization 28(8):1442–1462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lührman, Anna, and S.I. Lindberg. 2019. A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it? Democratization 26(7):1095–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lust, Ellen, and David Waldner. 2015. Unwelcome change: understanding, evaluating, and extending theories of democratic backsliding. Washington: USAID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seraphine F. Maerz, Anna Lührmann, Sebastian Hellmeier, Sandra Grahn, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2020. State of the world 2019: autocratization surges – resistance grows. Democratization 27(6):909–927.

  • Mainwaring, Scott. 2003. Party objectives in authoritarian regimes with elections or fragile democracies: a dual game. In Christian Democracy in Latin America: electoral competition and regime conflicts, ed. Scott Mainwaring, Timothy R. Scully, 3–29. Stanford: University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Jan-Werner. 2012. Militant democracy. In The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law, ed. Michel Rosenfeld, András Sajó, 1253–1269. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 2007. The Perpetual Crises of Democracy. Journal of Democracy 18(1):5–11.

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo A., and Philippe C. Schmitter. 2013. Transitions from authoritarian rule. Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Öktem, Kerem, and Karabekir Akkoyunlu. 2017. Exit from democracy: illiberal governance in Turkey and beyond. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, Elvin Jiayun. 2022. Opposing power: building opposition alliances in electoral autocracies. University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Özbudun, Ergun. 2014. AKP at the crossroads: Erdoğan’s majoritarian drift. South European Society and Politics 19(2):155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, Marcie J. 2006. The economic policies of Turkey’s AKP government: rabbits from a hat? Middle East Journal 60(3):513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes-Purdy, Matthew, Rachel Navarre, and Stephen Utych. 2023. The age of discontent: populism, extremism, and conspiracy theories in contemporary democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, Dani. 2011. Sledgehammer: building or undermining the rule of law? Turkish Policy Quarterly 10(1):99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarfati, Yusuf. 2017. How Turkey’s slide to authoritarianism defies modernization theory. Turkish Studies 18(3):395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. 2001. Taking uncertainty seriously: the blurred boundaries of democratic transition and consolidation. Democratization 8(4):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. 2002. The nested game of democratization by elections. International Political Science Review 23(1):103–122.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. 2013. The politics of uncertainty: sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2018. Autocratic legalism. The University of Chicago Law Review 85(2):545–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2022. How Viktor Orbán wins. Journal of Democracy 33(3):45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selçuk, Orçun, and Dilara Hekimci. 2020. The rise of the democracy—authoritarianism cleavage and opposition coordination in Turkey (2014–2019). Democratization 27(8):1496–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selçuk, Orçun, Dilara Hekimci, and Onur Erpul. 2019. The Erdoğanization of Turkish politics and the role of the opposition. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 19(4):541–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2019.1689902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2007. Moderate Islam and secularist opposition in Turkey: implications for the world, Muslims and secular democracy. Third World Quarterly 28(7):1271–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2010. Democratization, Clashing Narratives, and ‘Twin Tolerations’ between Islamic-Conservative and Pro-Secular Actors. In Nationalisms and Politics in Turkey: Political Islam, Kemalism and the Kurdish Issue, eds., Marlies Casier and Joost Jongerden, 28-47. New York: Routledge.

  • Somer, Murat. 2011. Does it take democrats to democratize?: Lessons from Islamic and secular elite values in Turkey. Comparative Political Studies 44(5):511–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2014. Moderation of religious and secular politics, a country’s ‘center’ and democratization. Democratization 21(2):244–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2015. Whither with secularism or just undemocratic Laiklik? The evolution and future of secularism under the AKP. In The uncertain path of the ‘new Turkey’, ed. Valeria Talbot, 23–49. Milan: ISPI, Instituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2019. Turkey: the slippery slope from reformist to revolutionary polarization and democratic breakdown. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681(1):42–61.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2021. Siyasal Rejim Nedir Ne Değildir?: Kavram Karmaşası Kademeli Otokratikleşmenin İçsel Bir Mekanizması Olabilir mi? (What is and is not a political regime?: can conceptual confusion be an endogenous mechanism of incremental autocratization?). Toplum ve Bilim 158:6–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat. 2022. Return to point zero: the Turkish-Kurdish question and how politics and ideas (re)make empires, nations and states. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat, and Jennifer McCoy. 2019. Transformations through polarizations and global threats to democracy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681(1):8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat, and Alper Yilmaz. 2023. Old autocracy or something new?: Conceptualizing and measuring democratic erosion and overcoming it. APSA preprints. https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2023-sshrp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somer, Murat, Jennifer L. McCoy, and Russell E. Luke. 2021. Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies. Democratization 28(5):929–948.

  • Somer, Murat, Jennifer McCoy, and Ozlem Tuncel. 2022. Toward a new transition theory: opposition dilemmas and countering democratic erosion. APSA preprints. https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2022-nr4mz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sözen, Yunus. 2008. Turkey between tutelary democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Private View 13:78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sözen, Yunus. 2020. Studying autocratization in Turkey: political institutions, populism, and neoliberalism. New Perspectives on Turkey 63:209–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepe, Sultan. 2005. Turkey’s AKP: a model ‘Muslim-democratic’ party? Journal of Democracy 16(3):69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, Gönül. 2023. Turkey’s ‘Gandhi’ sets his sights on strongman Erdoğan. Politico, March 9.

  • Tuğal, Cihan. 2016. ‘Resistance everywhere’: the Gezi revolt in global perspective. New Perspectives on Turkey 49:157–172.

  • Türk, Bahadır. 2018. Populism as a medium of mass mobilization: the case of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Current Perspectives 21(2):150–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuthrich, Michael F., and Melvyn Ingleby. 2020. The pushback against populism: running on ‘radical love’ in Turkey. Journal of Democracy 31(2):24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yardımcı-Geyikçi, Şebnem. 2014. Gezi Park protests in Turkey: a party politics view. The Political Quarterly 85:445–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yavuz, M. Hakan, and Bayram Balcı. 2018. Turkey’s July 15th coup: what happened and why. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Somer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. Somer and M. Tekinırk declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Somer, M., Tekinırk, M. Regime uncertainty, democratic erosion and resilience, and Turkish opposition actors. Z Vgl Polit Wiss (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-024-00595-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-024-00595-x

Keywords

Navigation