Insult, Charisma, and Legitimacy: Turkey's Transition to Personalist Rule

Abstract

Scholars exploring transitions to personalist rule focus on coercive power transfer to personalist rulers and argue that forming viable political coalitions, undermining power-sharing agreements, and mobilizing non-democratic institutions play a crucial role in transferring coercive power. However, no regime can rule by coercion alone, and transitions to personalist rule also involve making new frameworks of legitimacy. Exploring the connections between Turkey's recent transition to personalist rule and the drastic jump in the number of insult proceedings that accompanied the transition, this article finds that insult proceedings play a particular role in making new frameworks of legitimacy in transitions to personalist rule. We argue that insult proceedings work as a coercive method of punishment that curbs dissent while constructing a new framework of legitimacy based on the ruler's charisma. The study builds on an in-depth examination of insult cases filed during Erdoğan's presidency in Turkey and interviews with legal experts and suspects. It contributes to the understanding of the use of laws and legality in autocratization processes.