In Türkiye, broad segments of society and their representatives have long been labeled with “rigid, stereotyped cliches,” particularly since representative mechanisms began to operate in the modern period. Those who engaged in this labeling were circles opposed to the conservative, traditionalist, religious and even nationalist segments that make up large portions of society.
Because they were literate, these circles presented themselves for a long time as the intelligentsia. They offered their stereotyped labels as if they were reality itself. Naturally, this way of seeing found an audience.
This perspective, instrumentalized for specific political aims and governing techniques, remained dominant for a long time. Because the discourse and the labeling became hegemonic, critiques failed to gain visibility. Its remnants, however, still persist.
The long-term objective of this way of seeing was not only to weaken power holders emerging from the periphery but also to erode the very idea that conservatism could represent a society. When conservative-religious groups gained effectiveness in opposition, they were labeled “dangerous.” When they came to power, they were instead accused of being “corrupt.”
This way of seeing is not limited to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) era alone. Since the Democratic Party came to power, the same rigid cliches of this perspective have been repeatedly reproduced. Whenever conservatives or groups thought to represent them are involved, an individual crime, mistake, moral weakness or legal case is automatically treated as representative.
A wholesale accusation is made, moving from the individual to the community, from the community to a historical identity, and from historical identity to political legitimacy. In other words, singular deviations are transformed into collective indictments of an entire identity. The conservative identity is constantly forced into a position of moral self-defense.
The same does not apply to secular identities or actors. In those cases, moral corruption or weakness is presented as an individual responsibility. It is treated as an exception. This hypocritical mode of reading is ostensibly employed to establish a hierarchy of moral superiority. Ultimately, emotional mobilizations are employed to pursue political objectives.
The most recent example of this was the allegations that emerged during recent judicial proceedings. In drug operations, the names of certain detainees, the schools they attended, or their families’ identities were used to produce sweeping generalizations once again. The debate over whether those close to power were being protected was suddenly withdrawn. In its place, a language of condemnation centered on morality, religiosity and conservatism was preferred.
Those who advance this critique do so to reshape society’s political behavior and to break the self-confidence of conservative segments. However, contemporary society can readily discern the aims behind attributing individual faults to a collective identity. These segments possess both the self-confidence and the intellectual capacity to understand this, far more so than those who engage in such labeling. In fact, they are developing renewed anger toward those who apply these labels. And precisely for this reason, the party and the leader they support have remained in uninterrupted power for 23 years.
