Although theories of partisanship were developed for the democratic context, partisanship can be important in electoral autocracies as well. We use survey data to analyze partisanship in an electoral autocracy, Turkey, and find that partisanship is pervasive, strong, and consequential. Using the Partisan Identity Scale to measure partisanship, we show that, like in democracies, partisanship strength is associated with political attitudes and action. Unlike in democracies, however, the ruling party’s superior ability to mobilize supporters through clientelistic linkages makes the association between partisanship and political action weaker for ruling party partisans. We find that partisan identities are tightly connected to the perception that other parties may threaten one’s well-being, and that such fears are widespread on both sides of the political divide. We interpret our findings in light of the autocratization process Turkey went through. Our contribution highlights the potential of integrating regime dynamics in studies of partisanship.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of us elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22.
2.
AhlquistJ. S.IchinoN.WittenbergJ.ZiblattD. (2018). How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections. Journal of Comparative Economics, 46(4), 906–919.
3.
AkkoyunluK.ÖktemK. (2016). Existential insecurity and the making of a weak authoritarian regime in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4), 505–527.
4.
AngusC.ConverseP.MillerW.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Michigan Press.
5.
Ark-YıldırımC. (2017). Political parties and grassroots clientelist strategies in urban Turkey: One neighbourhood at a time. South European Society and Politics, 22(4), 473–490.
6.
AytaçS. E. (2014). Distributive politics in a multiparty system: The conditional cash transfer program in Turkey. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1211–1237.
7.
AytaçS. E.ÇarkoğluA.YıldırımK. (2017). Taking sides: Determinants of support for a presidential system in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 22(1), 1–20.
8.
BakerA.RennoL. (2019). Nonpartisans as false negatives: The mismeasurement of party identification in public opinion surveys. Journal of Politics, 81, 906–922.
9.
BakerA.SokheyA. E.AmesB.RennoL. R. (2016). The dynamics of partisan identification when party brands change: The case of the Workers Party in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 197–213.
10.
BakinerO. (2018). A key to Turkish politics? The center–periphery framework revisited. Turkish Studies, 19(4), 503–522.
11.
BankertA.HuddyL.RosemaM. (2017). Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Political Behavior, 39(1), 103–132.
12.
BaranZ. (2013). Torn country: Turkey between secularism and Islamism. Hoover Press.
13.
BartleJ.BellucciP. (2014). Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes. Routledge.
14.
BermeoN. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19.
15.
BlaisA.GidengilE.NadeauR.NevitteN. (2001). Measuring party identification: Britain, Canada, and the United States. Political Behavior, 23(1), 5–22.
16.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A. (2001). The emergence of mass partisanship in Russia, 1993-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 69–83.
17.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A. (2009). What’s left behind when the party’s over: Survey experiments on the effects of partisan cues in Putin’s Russia. Politics & Policy, 37(4), 843–868.
18.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A. (2018). Unreflective partisans? Policy information and evaluation in the development of partisanship. Political Psychology, 39, 137–157.
19.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A.DuellD. (2013). Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46(11), 1485–1517.
20.
BullockJ. G.GerberA. S.HillS. J.HuberG. A. (2013). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
ÇakırS. (2019). Polarized partisanship, over-stability and partisan bias in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 1–27.
22.
ÇarkoğluA.AytaçS. E. (2015). Who gets targeted for vote-buying? Evidence from an augmented list experiment in Turkey. European Political Science Review, 7(4), 547–566.
23.
ÇarkoğluA.ErgenI. (2002). The rise of right-of-center parties and the nationalization of electoral forces in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 26, 95–137.
24.
CarlsonE. (2016). Finding partisanship where we least expect it: Evidence of partisan bias in a new African democracy. Political Behavior, 38(1), 129–154.
25.
ClarkeH. D.SandersD.StewartM. C.WhiteleyP. F. (2009). Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge University Press.
26.
ConverseP. E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2(2), 139–171.
27.
CorralesJ. (2011). Why polarize? Advantages and disadvantages of a rational-choice analysis of government-opposition relations under Hugo Chávez. In PonniahT.EastwoodJ. (Eds.), The revolution in Venezuela: Social and political change under Chávez (pp. 67–97). Harvard University Press.
28.
DaltonR. J.WeldonS. (2007). Partisanship and party system institutionalization. Party Politics, 13(2), 179–196.
29.
DiamondL. (2002). Elections without democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.
30.
DixR. H. (1989). Cleavage structures and party systems in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 22(1), 23–37.
DoğanS. (2016). Mahalledeki AKP: Parti işleyişi, taban mobilizasyonu ve siyasal yabancılaşma [AKP in the Neighborhood: Party Functioning, Grassroots Mobilization, and Political Alienation]. İletişim Yayınları.
33.
ErdoğanE. (2016). Turkey: Divided we stand. German Marshall Fund.
34.
ErisenC. (2018). Political behavior and the emotional citizen. Springer.
35.
EsenB.GumuscuS. (2016). Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1581–1606.
36.
EsenB.GumuscuS. (2017). Turkey: How the coup failed. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 59–73.
37.
EsmerY. (2002). At the ballot box: Determinants of voting behavior. In SayariS.EsmerY. (Eds.), Politics, parties, and elections in Turkey (pp. 91–114). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
38.
FiorinaM. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale University Press.
39.
GilbertL.MohseniP. (2011). Beyond authoritarianism: The conceptualization of hybrid regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46(3), 270.
40.
GourlayW. (2018). Oppression, solidarity, resistance: The forging of Kurdish identity in Turkey. Ethnopolitics, 17(2), 130–146.
41.
GreenD.BaltesS. (2016). Party identification: Meaning and measurement. In ArzheimerK.EvansJ.Lewis-BeckM. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of electoral behaviour (p. 287). Sage.
42.
GreenJ.JenningsW. (2017). The politics of competence: Parties, public opinion and voters. Cambridge University Press.
43.
GreeneK. (2010). The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance. Comparative Political Studies, 43(7), 807–834.
44.
GreeneS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.
45.
HaleH. E. (2010). Eurasian polities as hybrid regimes: The case of Putin’s Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 1(1), 33–41.
46.
HandlinS. (2018). The logic of polarizing populism: State crises and polarization in South America. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 75–91.
47.
HardingR.MichelitchK. (2019). Candidate coethnicity, rural/urban divides, and partisanship in Africa. Party Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819893669
HuddyL. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 737–773). Oxford University Press.
50.
HuddyL.BankertA.DaviesC. (2018). Expressive versus instrumental partisanship in multiparty European systems. Political Psychology, 39, 173–199.
51.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.
52.
HutchesonD. S.McAllisterI. (2017). Explaining party support in the 2016 Russian State Duma election. Russian Politics, 2(4), 454–481.
53.
IshiyamaJ.FoxK. (2006). What affects the strength of partisan identity in Sub-Saharan Africa?Politics & Policy, 34(4), 748–773.
54.
JohnstonR. (2006). Party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences?Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 329–351.
55.
KalaycıoğluE. (2012). Kulturkampf in Turkey: The constitutional referendum of 12 September 2010. South European Society and Politics, 17(1), 1–22.
56.
KalaycioğluE. (2008). Attitudinal orientation to party organizations in Turkey in the 2000s. Turkish Studies, 9(2), 297–316.
57.
KayaA. (2015). Islamisation of Turkey under the AKP rule: Empowering family, faith and charity. South European Society and Politics, 20(1), 47–69.
58.
LaukaA.McCoyJ.FiratR. B. (2018). Mass partisan polarization: Measuring a relational concept. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 107–126.
59.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press.
60.
LetsaN. W. (2019a). Expressive voting in autocracies: A theory of non-economic participation with evidence from cameroon. Perspectives on Politics, 1–15.
61.
LetsaN. W. (2019b). The political geography of electoral autocracies: The influence of party strongholds on political beliefs in Africa. Electoral Studies, 60, 102047.
62.
LevitskyS.LoxtonJ. (2013). Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization, 20(1), 107–136.
63.
LevitskyS.LoxtonJ.Van DyckB.DomínguezJ. I. (2016). Challenges of party-building in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
64.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
65.
LinzJ. J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
LisiM. (2014). The sources of mass partisanship in newer democracies: Social identities or performance evaluations? Southern Europe in comparative perspective. International Political Science Review, 35(5), 505–522.
68.
LührmannA.LindbergS. I. (2019). A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it?Democratization, 26(7), 1095–1113.
69.
LührmannA.TannenbergM.LindbergS. I. (2018). Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics & Governance, 6(1).
70.
LüküslüD. (2016). Creating a pious generation: Youth and education policies of the AKP in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4), 637–649.
71.
LupuN. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 49–64.
72.
LupuN.StokesS. (2010). Democracy, interrupted: Regime change and partisanship in twentieth-century Argentina. Electoral Studies, 29(1), 91–104.
73.
Lust-OkarE. (2006). Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan. Democratization, 13(3), 456–471.
74.
MagaloniB. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.
75.
MagaloniB.KricheliR. (2010). Political order and one-party rule. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 123–143.
76.
MainwaringS. (2012). From representative democracy to participatory competitive authoritarianism: Hugo Chávez and Venezuelan politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(4), 955–967.
77.
MardinŞ. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?Daedalus, 102, 169–190.
78.
MasoudT. (2014). Counting Islam: Religion, class, and elections in Egypt. Cambridge University Press.
79.
MedeirosM.NoëlA. (2014). The forgotten side of partisanship: Negative party identification in four Anglo-American democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(7), 1022–1046.
80.
MichelitchK.UtychS. (2018). Electoral cycle fluctuations in partisanship: Global evidence from eighty-six countries. The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 412–427.
81.
MyersD. J. (1998). Venezuela’s political party system: Defining events, reactions and the diluting of structural cleavages. Party Politics, 4(4), 495–521.
82.
NefesT. S. (2017). The impacts of the Turkish government’s conspiratorial framing of the Gezi Park protests. Social Movement Studies, 16(5), 610–622.
83.
NugentE. R. (2020). The psychology of repression and polarization. World Politics72(2), 291–334.
84.
ÖnişZ. (2016). Turkey’s two elections: The AKP comes back. Journal of Democracy, 27(2), 141–154.
85.
ÖzbudunE. (2013). Party politics & social cleavages in Turkey. Lynne Rienner.
86.
ÖzbudunE. (2015). Turkey’s judiciary and the drift toward competitive authoritarianism. The International Spectator, 50(2), 42–55.
87.
PlatasM.RafflerP. (2019). Candidate videos and vote choice in ugandan parliamentary elections. (2019). In DunningT.GrossmanG.HumphreysM.HydeS.McIntoshC.NellisG. (Eds.), Information, accountability, and cumulative learning: Lessons from metaketa I (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics, pp. 156–187). Cambridge University Press.
88.
RobertsonG. (2017). Political orientation, information and perceptions of election fraud: Evidence from Russia. British Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 589–608.
89.
SamuelsD. (2006). Sources of mass partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 1–27.
90.
Sanchez-SibonyO. (2017). Classifying Ecuador’s regime under Correa: A procedural approach. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 9(3), 121–140.
91.
SarfatiY. (2017). How Turkey’s slide to authoritarianism defies modernization theory. Turkish Studies, 18(3), 395–415.
92.
SchafferJ.BakerA. (2015). Clientelism as persuasion-buying: Evidence from Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1093–1126.
93.
SinghS. P.ThorntonJ. R. (2019). Elections activate partisanship across countries. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 248–253.
94.
SomerM. (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.
95.
SomerM.McCoyJ. (2019). Transformations through polarizations and global threats to democracy. Sage.
96.
SvolikM. W. (2019). Polarization versus democracy. Journal of Democracy, 30(3), 20–32.
97.
TeorellJ.BäckH. (2014). The stability of partisanship: Evidence from a Russian panel study. In BartleJ.BellucciP. (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship (pp. 184–201). Routledge.
98.
ToktamisK. F.DavidI. (2018). Repression and resistance–fragments of Kurdish politics in Turkey under the AKP regime. Turkish Studies, 19(5), 661–670.
99.
TrantidisA. (2015). Clientelism and the classification of dominant party systems. Democratization, 22(1), 113–133.
100.
YesilB. (2014). Press censorship in Turkey: Networks of state power, commercial pressures, and self-censorship. Communication, Culture & Critique, 7(2), 154–173.
101.
YilmazZ. (2017). The AKP and the spirit of the “new” Turkey: Imagined victim, reactionary mood, and resentful sovereign. Turkish Studies, 18(3), 482–513.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
