The Democracy-Authoritarianism Cleavage and the Opposition Coordination

• In Event: Poster Session: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries I

Abstract

What explains the coordination of ideologically diverse groups of opposition parties in autocracies? In countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Jordan, and Turkey, opposition parties successfully coordinate against incumbent authoritarian regimes through forming official alliances, nominating joint candidates, dividing up the districts, supporting each other in the runoff, and agreeing to establish a coalition government. To explain the opposition coordination, the existing literature mainly points out to institutional factors, incumbent economic performance, and the extent of grievances. In this paper, we propose an alternative explanation from the perspective of social and political cleavages. We argue that opposition coordination is more likely in countries where democracy-authoritarianism cleavage becomes more salient at the expense of ethnic, religious, and class cleavages. In other words, when the opposition perceives the incumbent party or leader as anti-democratic, they tend to deemphasize their ideological differences and coordinate in the name of defeating, if not undermining, the authoritarian regime. To illustrate this theoretical argument, this paper examines the dynamics of opposition coordination in Turkey under Erdoğan and Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Between 2017 and 2019, political parties in Turkey participated in a series of electoral contests: a referendum, presidential, parliamentary, and local elections as well as a rerun of Istanbul elections. During these high-stakes events, the ruling AKP formed a coalition with the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) to maintain its predominance. As an alternative to AKP-MHP bloc, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) coordinated opposition parties from diverse backgrounds “to fight for democracy.” During the referendum and elections, the opposition parties framed their campaign over defeating authoritarianism and restoring democracy while pre-existing religious and ethnic cleavages were of secondary importance. Besides the campaign message, they successfully coordinated in terms of nominating joint candidates and promising to support each other in a possible runoff. In a bipolar system, even during local elections, the opposition organized to defeat the AKP-MHP candidates for a democratic cause. The democracy-authoritarianism cleavage in Turkey especially became salient during the rerun of Istanbul municipal elections. In response to the National Electoral Council’s controversial decision to repeat the elections, İmamoğlu received the support of secular, Islamist, nationalist, and Kurdish parties and became a symbol of resistance against authoritarianism.

Authors

• Orçun Selçuk, Luther College

• Dilara Hekimci, Florida International University