The political reverberations of the Gezi protests.

• Author: Ete, Hatem
• Position: COMMENTARY - Essay

In June 2013, a wave of protests that have come to be known as the Gezi protests swept through Turkey. The Turkish political scene, unacquainted with this type of protest, had difficulty interpreting the events of Gezi protests. What had begun as a low-key protest against the urban planning project which included cutting down the trees at Taksim's Gezi Park--and fueled by the use of excessive police force and the administration's misdiagnosis of the events--turned into a wide-spread movement in a short period of time. During the three weeks the protests continued, the composition of the protesters, as well as their motivation and justification, evolved. Protestors, who were initially mobilized out of environmental concerns, were soon joined by diverse groups whose contradictory motivations could not be reconciled. New waves of protestors ranged from those who sought to become political actors to those who were angered by having lost their status as political actors; from those who demanded a more participatory democracy to those who felt threatened by Turkey's democratization; from those who wanted to make their voices heard to those who wanted to oust a democratically elected government.

The meaning attributed to the Gezi protests continued to evolve even after the demonstrations themselves ended. As more time passed, both the meaning attributed to the events and their political reverberations mutated. Gradually, the real identity of the protestors and their original motivations came to mean less, while their political reflections came to mean more. As such, it would be beneficial to set aside the knee-jerk reactions and reflex interventions that caused the events to intensify and discuss the real consequences of these protests and what they will mean for the future of Turkey.

Dynamics Behind the Protests

Such a discussion should begin with an evaluation of the dynamics that led the protestors to take to the streets. There is no question about what happened. The excessive use of police force during a low-key environmental protest, and the administration's misdiagnosis and mishandling of the events caused the protest to explode into a wide-spread movement. The Prime Minister's strong and terse language and the excessive use of police force, without a doubt, functioned as trigger mechanisms. However, these two factors only explain how the existing tensions exploded in the form of protests, but fail to explain what caused such tensions in the first place. Therefore, when analyzing the dynamics behind the protests, it would be beneficial to distinguish the triggers from the causes of the deep seated-anger and societal tensions.

Masses take to the streets when they feel repressed, and when they believe they do not have adequate political representation. In other words, they take to streets when they feel discriminated against and helpless that their needs are not being addressed politically. The perception of repression is related to the policies and discourse of the administration and the feeling of hopelessness is related to the performance of the political opposition.

While the AK Party's policies and discourse during its decade-long rule consolidated its base of support in certain segments of the society, it led to discontent in others. The AK Party's efforts to respond to the demands of its constituency--such as democracy, freedom, recognition of identity, active foreign policy, and a more conservative lifestyle--was met with disappointment, discontent, and anger by the opposition constituency.

It is inevitable that in functioning democracies, incumbent parties fail to meet the demands of some segments of society. In such cases, the complaints and demands that fall outside the scope of the executive branch find their way into the political sphere through different channels. Some of these channels include institutions that serve as a check-and-balance mechanism to the executive office, civil society organizations that lobby around these demands, and opposition parties. These channels can prevent the dissenting voices from being drowned out. It seems that the weakening of the checks-and-balances during the AK Party's efforts to prevent the undue influence of tutelary institutions, and the perceived hopelessness of the main opposition party becoming strong enough to counterbalance these aggressive moves were the reasons that precipitated such deep-seated tensions.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

To wit, the vigor and the effectiveness of the relationship between the political bodies and the people depend to a great extent on the strength and the performance of the political opposition. The purpose of the opposition in functioning democracies is to listen to the demands and complaints of the people, translate these voices into a political vocabulary, and then make sure they are represented in the political sphere. When the political opposition functions as it should, the need for the masses to take to the streets disappears. When the opposition does not perform and the peoples' voices are not transformed into viable political demands, the perception of inadequate representation turns into hopelessness, and protests ensue.

This is not the first time masses have felt underrepresented and repressed in Turkey. The repression faced by both the Kurds and the pious conservative populations during the 1990s could not even be compared to the repression the protestors today...