Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan's war on social media
Any criticism of the Turkish government is subjected to heavy control and manipulation by the Turkish authorities. The only outlet where people are free to express their opinions is social media. Now the Turkish Prime Minister seeks to control this too with the recent ban on Twitter
By Dilara Kenber
The spark that lit the fire
The smoke started to clear... A woman lay limp outside one of the bars on the back streets of Istikal Street in Taksim Square. Blood trickled across her swollen cheeks and broken nose where she had been beaten by the police just moments ago. Coughing and spluttering, trying to scream for help through the debris of the street; people started to emerge out of their refuge spots to help those not fortunate enough to escape the heavy police raid on the protestors.
The summer of 2013 witnessed the largest anti-government demonstrations that Turkey had seen for a long time. Heavy-handed police brutality ordered by the Turkish government was criticised both internationally and later caused domestic controversy. The protests were widespread across Turkey, sparking more outrage over how the government handled the protests in Gezi Park. Scenes that I had witnessed, as aforementioned, echo a year on in the memories of those who were at the protests and are embedded in amateur videos and photos orbiting the internet.
The Turkish government's response was to carry on using force against anyone whom opposed their regime: a policy which has been internationally criticised for breaking human civil rights on the freedom to protest. The response by the Turkish people was to take to the social media to express their frustration on the government’s non-compliance with basic human civil rights.
Social Media and the Protests
“For every 100.000 protesters, I will bring out a million from my party,” Recip Tayyip Erdogan said.
The Gezi Park protests marked the largest opposition towards a ruling governmental party that Turkey had seen in a long time. During the administration of the AKP it was the first ever demonstration against their policies that they had ever witnessed. Sensing this, Prime Minister Ergogan tried to squash means in which the opposition could convey their message. Turkish national news (which was already censored by the government) was even more controlled so that few stories regarding the mass demonstrations in Turkey would be broadcast/published.
The implications saw many Turkish journalists 'resign' from their posts, but it also meant that the Turkish people sought to not gather information from previously traditional media sources.
The media blackouts reflected the growing dissent of the Turkish population on Twitter and on Facebook. International media only covered the sensational major events, thus the Turkish people had to rely on social networking sites to find information on the protests while they were happening.
Ambulances and basic medical care were not permitted to access areas to aid injured victims from the protests: makeshift first aid tents and certain establishments made room inside their facilities to allow the injured to come and seek refuge. One of these establishments, the Divan Hotel in Taksim Square, was later raided by police, leaving further casualties, which resulted in a few deaths.
The footage of the storming of the Divan Hotel, taken on someone's iPhone, circulated Facebook and Twitter, before it was shown briefly on a few international channels but not permitted on any of the Turkish national media outlets.
Articles written by Turkish journalists, which were banned in Turkish mainstream media, also began to circulate across the social media spectrum, instigating more shock and outrage on how easily the AKP ruling party could dismiss their own citizens’ basic civil rights.
“I don't even look at news channels anymore; my Facebook news feed has more information about what is happening in Turkey than any other news source,” says Dr. B. Kenber, an observer of Turkish politics living abroad.
The protests united the opposition towards the AKP through social media. This spread like wildfire across Turkey, allowing people to express anti-government sentiment on a platform that the government had seemingly no control over.
'The media gave this image of mass support for his party and this made me feel alone – I am one of the minority against the AKP... The protests in Taksim, Facebook groups and Twitter show that I am not alone anymore. I feel proud of the Turkish people, especially the youth, standing up for their rights,” says a protestor in Istikal Caddesi.
A climate of fear
The government then tried to combat this by sacking non-party sympathetic judges and journalists whom tried to report the actual events taking place in Taksim Square, by creating a climate of fear. Distinguished professionals such as Yavuz Baydar, ombudsman of the daily Sabah, and Derya Sazak, editor of Milliyet, were sacked from their posts.
In December 2013, the public collapse of the alliance between the Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and the followers of the exiled Islamic preacher Fethullah Gulen shocked the Turkish public. The alliance seemed un-wavering as both shared a common Islamic agenda. Critics claim that the split from this alliance has enabled the Prime Minister to slowly eradicate any ties holding him back from fulfilling his own agenda.
The reasons behind the feud remain dubious. What is apparent is that the breaking of this alliance created a climate of fear, including widespread self-censorship in the Turkish media. Again the Turkish people took to the social media to express their concerns with the right-wing style polity that the AKP is starting to resemble.
Wiretapped recordings of the inner circle of the AKP started to emerge on the social networking forums. The ruling party therefore had to seek ways in which to control the rebellious platforms in which their opposition was gathering, particularly in the shadow of April’s local elections.
The Ban on Twitter and Youtube
Only a few weeks before the local government elections on March 27th of this year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogn issued a ban on the social media website Twitter.
'Twitter, scmitter!... I don't care, we will wipe out all of these... The international community can say this, they can say that. I don't care at all. Everyone will see how powerful the Republic of Turkey is,” Erdogan told supporters in the north western province of Bursa.
Turkish national media reported that Erdogan’s online postings, alleged deals and private conversations were recorded. These recordings were seen as a violation of his family’s privacy and freedom of communication, claiming that the material leaked on the sites is part of a 'villainous' plot hatched by his political rivals. He has denied allegations of corruption and says some of the recordings were manipulated in an effort to attack his leadership.
Among dozens of damaging revelations was a purported intelligence agency plan to stage a false flag attack on a Turkish monument in Syria, and a conversation between Erdogan and his family about millions of dollars in cash stashed in his house, according to Bloomberg.
Violation of Freedom of Speech
The ban on twitter and then later Youtube brought a lot of international media attention to Turkey especially due to conflicting policies on civil human rights. The UN declared the ban on Twitter to be a clear violation of Article 10 of the European Covenant of Human Rights under 'fundamental freedoms', which Turkey is a signatory to since 1954.
Furthermore, the Turkish Constitutional Court also ruled against this policy, stating that the decision for the Prime Minister to ban both social media websites on the grounds of personal violation of fundamental freedoms to be illegal. The Turkish Prime Minister appealed this decision, demanding the companies financially compensate him for an infringement on his personal social and civil rights, but this has yet to be determined.
The outcome of this act has caused much debate. Many Turkish people fear that the Prime Minister has become so powerful that even blunders like the ban on Twitter will not affect his political campaign. Indeed the local government’s election results, published in April, indicate a large majority win for AKP candidates across the Turkish nation.
The Turkish youth boast a staggering online user participation and Twitter is one of the most popular forums – hashtags from Turkish people often circulate in global trends according to Twitter. The company also expressed their sadness that the Turkish government felt the need to ban the website, preventing freedom of expression for the Turkey's citizens.
Why can the Turkish Government violate civil and political rights so easily?
One reason as to why the government can get away with its policy towards citizens during the Gezi Park riots and the Twitter ban, without any international sanctions, is a change in Turkey's constitutional law.
In a 2005 article, 301 was provisioned which stated that it was a criminal offence to 'insult Turkishness' , later this was amended in 2008 to only the 'Turkish Nation'. It is this provision that allowed the ruling party to convict those whom violate this law.
The international community has condemned this law as incoherent with Turkey's progress towards democratisation. Moreover, the EU has deferred from allowing Turkey to become a member of the Union if it does not reform this provision.
The notorious Turkish Nobel prize winner of literature, Orhan Pamuk, has been found in violation of this provision for publishing 'anti-Turkish' literature in one of his books, Istanbul, where he mentions government plots to exterminate Greek minorities living in Turkey in the 1950s.
The term 'the Turkish nation' is so vague in itself that the provision has been criticised as easily manipulated by the government in order to silence their opposition. The construction of this provision was conducted by the AKP party.
In 2011, the removal of a clause of the Turkish constitution, which allowed Turkey's armed forces to intervene with governmental affairs if the ruling party did not adhere to the constitution, came into force.
Observers hailed this as a step towards fully democratising Turkey, since previous military coups in Turkey during the 1980s had stumped its growth. However the negative implications of this law far outweigh the positives. It also means that if the ruling party wishes to implement fundamentalist/extreme laws the army will not be able to intervene, which might have severe implications for the secular state.
The war on social media will continue
“The Turkish government's failure to ban social media is just the first hurdle... Social media is the only forum anti-government opposition can fully express their opinions and unite against the government. Erdogan knows this. He is just testing the water. If he wins the presidential election in August it will be easier for him to ban more websites so that he can fully take control of the Turkish people,” according to a Turkish historian whom wishes to remain anonymous.
The recent anniversary of the Gezi Park protests went unheard of in the international and domestic media of Turkey. The same human catastrophes were committed towards peaceful demonstrators, which filled my own Facebook news feed the previous year.
The Gezi Park anniversary was brushed quietly underneath the carpet, however it symbolised a year of injustice towards the Turkish people. The government on countless occasions has demonstrated their disregard to their own people in order to meet their political goals. The war on social media lives on and further talks have been held regarding the ban on Facebook in the country.
The ban on Twitter and Youtube show that the government is afraid of the amount of opposition to their administration. Social media poses a huge threat to their campaign: it is a difficult opponent to beat as it really only exits in the air, yet it captures the heart and minds of people at the click of a button.
Dilara Kenber is a British born journalist, a former editor of the Jutland Station, with an avid interest in Turkish current political affairs as well as the surrounding Middle East.
Photo by Mstyslav Chernov via Wiki Commons.
