Civil War and Democratization: A Micro‐Level Analysis

Abstract

Objective In this study we draw on the conflict between the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Turkey to explore how exposure to violence can engender support for democracy at the individual level. Methods We rely on two nationwide representative surveys carried out in Turkey and estimate a series of ordered logistic and logistic regression models. Results We find that exposure to violence during civil war is a significant predictor of embracing positive attitudes toward democracy. Wartime experiences are associated with a conceptualization of democracy that underscores equality and greater tolerance toward others. Conclusion Being a member of a repressed minority is not sufficient to explain support for democracy. The link between wartime experiences and holding positive attitudes toward democracy is conditioned by the degree of exposure to violence or which political party is supported.

Avoiding fallout from terrorist attacks: The role of local politics and governments

“…Terrorism in Turkey has affected democracy (Gurses, Celik & Balta, 2020). In public opinion surveys, over almost all elections in the recent period, terrorism has remained a primary societal concern of the Turkish electorate, ranked as the first or second most important problem of the country by a large share of the electorate (21% in 2007, 13% in 2011, 9% in June 2015, 47% in September 2015) (Carkoglu & Aytac, 2015).…”

Agonistic peace and confronting the past: An analysis of a failed peace process and the role of narratives

“…The definition of a bystander may also include antagonistic minorities who support conflictual acts and antagonistic narratives. However, studies show that in asymmetric conflicts, minorities are mostly supportive of democratic norms, such as equality, liberty, and acceptance of difference (Gürses et al, 2020)—the elements of agonistic peace (Mouffe, 2000). Also, antagonistic narratives of the minorities may not be strongly expressed, especially in countries where the state criminalizes such discourses, leading minorities to refrain from their public expression.…”