The historical responsibility of civil society in Turkey

It is quite difficult to explain the concept of ‘civil society’ in general terms. This concept, which has Western origins, transformed and gained different meanings in Europe between the 15th and 18th centuries. From a sociological perspective, civil society is an analytical tool for understanding the ‘quality’ of state-society relations, containing both positive and negative dynamics. For example, while Hegel praised ‘civil society’ as the success of the modern world and the foundational sphere of freedom, Marx analyzed it as a structure where class domination is reproduced.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) are the guarantee of democracy to the extent that they remain independent from the state. These organizations transform individuals from passive subjects into active citizens who seek their rights. A strong sense of citizenship ensures that social demands are imposed on the state. CSOs balance the authoritarian tendencies of the state and expand the public sphere. This dynamic relationship transforms the state by stripping it of its top-down structure, moving it toward a more participatory and democratic framework. In short, the autonomy and political subjectivity of civil society are the primary engines of a pluralistic democracy.

POLITICAL HEGEMONY

Unlike the examples in the West, civil society in Turkey has developed in the shadow of a strong and centralist state tradition. In the process extending from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic, the state's decisive position over society has limited the development and institutionalization of independent social organizations. The fact that civil society in Turkey has remained stunted stems not only from legal or institutional deficiencies but also from historical, social, and political culture.

Within the oppressive political atmosphere created by the 1980 coup in Turkey, the concept of civil society emerged as a space for seeking rights outside the state, limiting the state, developing autonomy, and producing social legitimacy. During this period, in the face of the state's decisive position encompassing the social sphere, Islamist groups, as well as various political movements, embraced civil society and evaluated it as the fundamental social space that would protect the individual against the state and force the state to democratize. For this reason, all political movements on the left or right saw the quantitative and qualitative development of civil society as a prerequisite for the formation of a democratic political culture and supported it.

Especially since the 2000s, the discourse of civil society has served to push back military-bureaucratic tutelage and carry conservative-religious social dynamics into the public sphere. In this context, various religious communities were legitimized and received political support as “Islamic civil society” actors that produced ‘social consent’ through education, charity, and foundation activities, mobilized large masses, and established hegemonic power in the public sphere. At this point, as Gramsci emphasized, civil society is not only a space for social organization; it is also a ground where political power produces consent and establishes hegemony. In this process, institutions such as the media, academia, the judiciary, and trade union structures functioned as effective ideological apparatuses in the socialization of the dominant political discourse, as expressed by Althusser.

THE PARADOX OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN TURKEY

Today, Turkey is going through a critical process of democratic regression in which the 150-year parliamentary tradition and experience are suspended, the principle of separation of powers has become dysfunctional, and the rule of law and judicial independence have suffered structural damage. The main determinants of this period are the weakening of constitutional and institutional guarantees, the narrowing of fundamental rights and freedoms, the practice of appointing trustees to elected local governments, and an acute political polarization that divides the social fabric. The current picture reveals that the country is experiencing not only an administrative crisis but also a deep rupture in the ground of democratic legitimacy and institutional stability.

In this fragile conjuncture where political, legal, and bureaucratic mechanisms are blocked, the spiral of silence exhibited by massive civil society organizations representing millions of members constitutes the deepest structural paradox of the civil sphere. As Foucault pointed out, these massive, large-scale CSOs, which cannot maintain an independent stance against the disciplinary power of the state and prefer a state-centered conformity, are insufficient in carrying society's demands for rights into the public sphere.

In the face of deepening socio-political crises, civil society in Turkey can assume a historical role not only as a balancing element but as a constituent subject capable of rebuilding the democratic order. The extreme polarization and institutional erosion in the current political structure make it necessary for the civil sphere to assume a more effective, autonomous, and restorative role. In this framework, the primary function of civil society organizations is not to be a part of political competition, but to build a new ground for consensus around social peace and democratic norms. Moreover, in a political competition that has become harsher and increasingly destructive with the change of regime, civil society forces can unite and assume a mediator-arbitrator role.

THE TUNISIAN EXPERIENCE AND THE ‘NATIONAL DIALOGUE QUARTET’

For example, the Tunisian experience on the other side of the Mediterranean in 2015 is quite instructive in this context. In Tunisia, which was dragged into deep political chaos during the Arab Spring process, the constituent role that civil society can assume in such moments of crisis was made empirically visible. The “National Dialogue Quartet,” formed by organizations operating in the fields of labor, capital, law, and human rights, acted as a mediator between the parties as a non-state actor with high institutional legitimacy. This structure overcame the political deadlock, paved the way for a constitutional consensus process, and made the democratic transition possible. This quartet was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015 for their critical contribution to democracy and social peace.

In Turkey, however, it is observed that civil society has not been able to sufficiently develop a similar mediation and guiding capacity. This situation leads to the narrowing of the public dialogue space and the progression of political tension on a more fragile ground. Yet, civil society organizations, based on the principles of impartiality and autonomy, can assume a historical responsibility by acting as a bridge that forces social actors to negotiate.

In conclusion, the democratic reconstruction process in Turkey depends not only on political actors but also on a strong, independent, and highly legitimate civil society. The historical responsibility of civil society organizations is to contribute to the construction of a new social contract perspective that will overcome the current political deadlock and to assume a constituent role that will restore social peace.