Hate Speech as a Political Strategy – The Case of Turkey
HATE SPEECH AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY – THE CASE OF TURKEY
INTRODUCTION
The institution of politics, as old as the history of humanity itself, has always shaped the history of states and nations through the harmony—or disharmony—between the desire for power and governance and ethical concerns and virtues. Politics, from Ancient Greece to the Roman era and later in modern Eastern and Western societies, has always been a subject of philosophical discourse, attempting to define the relationship between the state and society. In the 21st century, one could argue that there are as many definitions or understandings of politics as there are states in the world. Each society, with its own unique history and culture, determines how it wishes to be governed, shaping its political philosophy and state structure accordingly. Hence, the question politics constantly seeks to answer—“How should the state be governed?”—has never had a single, definitive answer.
Political history helps us observe and interpret behavioral patterns among individuals, societies, and states, offering many examples from which we can learn. In societies where democracy has not fully developed, politics, even if framed within religious or ideological ethics, has often become a tool for manipulating moral norms, with power-seeking individuals imposing these manipulated values on the public to maintain control. Politics has also proven to be a powerful means for generating public consent or manufacturing it, particularly in the marginalization and even extermination of “the other,” whether by majority or minority rule. Thus, the ethical boundaries of politics are determined—or altered—by the moral limits of those who hold political office.
Politicians constantly face the moral dilemma of balancing personal/party interests with societal/state interests. Maintaining this balance requires inner reflection and difficult decisions, often demanding personal sacrifice and the abandonment of comfort zones. This is where the real challenge lies. In societies where democracy has not become a cultural norm, political life is turbulent, and this moral dilemma arises more frequently.
Politicians caught in this dilemma shape their political identity, ideology, and public image through the choices they make, marketing themselves accordingly. Their marketing strategy transforms into propaganda aligned with their political decisions—pleasing allies while instilling fear in enemies. In politics, where speech lacks ethical restraint, the potential power of language is limited only by the speaker’s imagination. One of the most brutal examples is the hate-filled propaganda used against Jews during the Nazi era in Germany.
In this context, hate speech emerges as the most dangerous tool used by corrupt politicians, under the guise of political discourse, to justify marginalization and even genocide.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) defines hate crimes as:
“Generally motivated by prejudice and biased views, and can be defined as intolerance or hate directed at a specific group defined by characteristics such as race, ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability, or other fundamental traits. Hate crimes may involve threats, property damage, assault, murder, or other criminal acts. They do not only affect individuals but may also target human rights defenders, community centers, or places of worship associated with the targeted group.”
Thus, any trait that marks human diversity (e.g., race, religion, gender, language, ethnicity, etc.) becomes a potential starting point for hate crimes when politicians deliberately target or label these traits.
In societies where democratic values are not internalized, hate speech resembles the parasitic fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis in nature. This fungus infects carpenter ants, disrupting their central nervous system, leading them to behave like zombies—leaving their colonies, climbing trees, biting leaves, and dying in a position favorable for the fungus to grow.
This parasitic fungus is a metaphor for hate speech in politics: it infects minds, controls actions, and turns society into unthinking participants in division and destruction. This is akin to the current situation in Turkey.
AKP, ERDOĞAN, AND HATE SPEECH
This study aims to analyze how Turkey’s ruling AKP regime and its leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have utilized politics as a tool for social transformation—specifically through the use of hate speech. Erdoğan has employed hate speech strategically, much like a psychological warfare technique.
After the 2002 elections, Erdoğan’s AKP rose to power with the support of a population weary of secular, statist pressures. Rather than being a successful political party in the conventional sense, AKP emerged as a political reaction, capitalizing on public frustration and resentment—especially among conservative and religious segments. Promising justice and development, AKP gained support by invoking past grievances like headscarf bans and university restrictions, leveraging them for long-term political gain.
Even 23 years later, Erdoğan still uses these historical traumas to consolidate his base, portraying himself as a perennial victim. Opposition parties’ failure to present a strategic counter-narrative has only helped keep these traumas alive.
1. November 2002 – December 2013: Struggle Against Military Tutelage and Legal Gains
In its early years, AKP seemingly promoted legal reforms and democratization as a means of overcoming military tutelage. However, it later became clear that these reforms were paving the way for Erdoğan’s authoritarian ambitions. While the legal establishment and patriotic officials fought for democracy, Erdoğan built a web of loyal media and businessmen, forming a network of mutual benefit.
Though Erdoğan made occasional references to minorities and different belief systems, he did not heavily rely on hate speech in this period. Instead, he began consolidating control over media and capital, using promises for the public and privileges for his allies. This went on until the security bureaucracy uncovered the massive corruption and bribery networks.
2. December 17, 2013 – July 15, 2016: Corruption Scandals and the Rise of a Climate of Fear
The corruption investigations of December 17/25, 2013 revealed a vast bribery network involving ministers, their families, and business elites. This shook the nation and marked a turning point for both Erdoğan and Turkish democracy. Rather than accepting responsibility, Erdoğan launched a propaganda campaign, blaming “foreign powers,” “parallel structures,” and “jealous enemies.”
Erdoğan’s rhetoric grew harsher, feeding off hatred and division. When the 2014 local elections still brought him victory, he saw the power of hate-fueled narratives and doubled down. Investigating police officers were arrested and labeled as agents of a “parallel state.”
From this point forward, Erdoğan openly declared: “Those not with us are against us.” This marked the beginning of social disintegration and deep-rooted institutional corruption. Citizens lost faith in justice, and fear of arrest for even minor criticisms became widespread. The phrase “Silivri is cold” emerged as a euphemism for being jailed for tweets or social media posts critical of the government.
Freedom House reported that by 2015, Erdoğan had sued critics for defamation on average once every four days. While Erdoğan publicly hurled insults like “traitor,” “agent,” “parasite,” and “virus,” any mild criticism against him could lead to imprisonment under “insulting the President” laws.
3. July 15, 2016 Coup Attempt and the Turn Toward Autocracy
The failed July 15 coup attempt became a milestone in Erdoğan’s quest for unchallenged power. Regardless of the unanswered questions surrounding its origin, the coup gave Erdoğan the perfect pretext to implement all the authoritarian measures he had long envisioned.
Erdoğan systematically targeted all real or potential rivals. He labeled the Gülen Movement as “terrorist” and branded followers as traitors and enemies through state-controlled media, the judiciary, and police. Using vague legal terms like “affiliation” or “aiding the organization,” many were detained without direct links to any crime.
The long-standing trauma of military coups in Turkish society helped Erdoğan portray himself again as the victim-turned-hero. Under emergency rule and a new presidential system, he amassed unprecedented power. Hate speech, repeated on TV and in social media, turned into a collective obsession, with the public indoctrinated to see anyone associated with the Gülen Movement—or even those ideologically distant from Erdoğan—as existential threats.
Families disowned children, employers were threatened for hiring the blacklisted, and “Traitor Cemeteries” were proposed. Institutions like the UN, OSCE, EU, and the Council of Europe condemned Turkey and issued several advisories.
Between 2015 and 2020, Turkish media produced:
- 3,088 honor-violating statements
- 159,835 incitements to hostility
- 10,927 intolerant remarks
- 685 incitements to crimes against humanity
- 149,781 hate-related news items
- 159,923 hate-filled publications
- 10,125 hate-opinion columns
- 917,048 hate expressions in total.
Top offenders:
- Sabah newspaper: 215,610 hate expressions
- Yeni Şafak: 126,867
- Hürriyet: 113,263
The most repeated term across all sources was “FETÖ” — the derogatory label used against the Gülen Movement.
CONCLUSION
Hate speech has historically been one of the most effective propaganda tools used by political powers to shape societies and ensure their own survival. As in the past, it continues today to marginalize opposition, silence dissent, and strengthen authoritarian regimes.
In Turkey, hate speech has been employed systematically by the ruling party, particularly during politically sensitive periods such as the 17-25 December corruption probes and the July 15 coup attempt. Hate speech not only polarized the public but also accelerated the erosion of democratic norms.
Reinforced by media propaganda and legal suppression, it has resulted in deep societal fractures, loss of trust in justice, and degradation of democratic values. Going forward, it is crucial to clearly delineate the boundaries between freedom of expression and hate speech, ensure the independence of the judiciary, and raise public awareness against divisive politics.
Adopting a political approach rooted in democratic values is essential for restoring social peace and ensuring justice in governance.