Paradox of optimism: opposition coordination against autocratic incumbents in Turkey’s 2019 and 2023 elections

References

• Abdullah, A. 2019. Electoral violence in Bangladesh: A study of rural local government elections from 2009 to 2016. Dynamics of Public Administration 36, no. 1: 12–19.
   Google Scholar
• Abdullah, W.J. 2018. The Mahathir effect in Malaysia’s 2018 election: The role of credible personalities in regime transitions. Democratization 26, no. 3: 521–36. doi:10.1080/13510347.2018.1552943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, D.M. 2003. Briefing: Kenya’s elections 2002: The dawning of a new Era? African Affairs 102, no. 407: 331–42. doi:10.1093/afraf/adg007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., and E. Balta. 2019. When elites polarize over polarization: Framing the polarization debate in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey 60: 153–76. doi:10.1017/npt.2018.15.
   Google Scholar
• Balta, E. 2023. Populist radical right beyond Europe: The case of Islamic nativism in Turkey. Journal of Language and Politics 22, no. 3: 378–95. doi:10.1075/jlp.22130.bal.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balta, E., S. Demiralp, and S. Demiralp. 2023. Debating voter defection in Turkey. Turkish Studies 24, no. 5: 1–25. doi:10.1080/14683849.2023.2200941.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunce, V.J., and S.L. Wolchik. 2010. Defeating dictators: Electoral change and stability in competitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics 62, no. 1: 43–86. doi:10.1017/S0043887109990207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunce, V.J., and S.L. Wolchik. 2011. Defeating authoritarian leaders in post communist countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cavatorta, F. 2009. Divided they stand, divided they fail: Opposition politics in Morocco. Democratization 16, no. 1: 137–56. doi:10.1080/13510340802575882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrales, J. 2004. The gatekeeper state: Limited economic reforms and regime survival in Cuba, 1989-2002. Latin American Research Review 39, no. 2: 35–65. doi:10.1353/lar.2004.0025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demiralp, S., and E. Balta. 2021. Defeating Populists: The case of 2019 Istanbul elections. South European Society & Politics 26, no. 1: 1–26. doi:10.1080/13608746.2021.1923639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai, R.M., A. Olofsgård, and T.M. Yousef. 2009. The logic of authoritarian bargains. Economics & Politics 21, no. 1: 93–125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0343.2008.00337.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunning, T., and L. Wirpsa. 2004. Oil and the political economy of conflict in Colombia and beyond: A linkages approach. Geopolitics 9, no. 1: 81–108. doi:10.1080/14650040412331307842.
   Google Scholar
• Esen, B., and S. Gumuscu. 2016. Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly 37, no. 9: 1581–606. doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esen, B., and S. Gumuscu. 2019. Killing competitive authoritarianism softly: The 2019 local elections in Turkey. South European Society & Politics 24, no. 3: 317–42. doi:10.1080/13608746.2019.1691318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandhi, J., and O.J. Reuter. 2008 August. Opposition coordination in legislative elections under authoritarianism. Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Gandhi, J., and O.J. Reuter. 2013. The incentives for pre-electoral coalitions in non-democratic elections. Democratization 20, no. 1: 137–59. doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.738865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geddes, B. 1999. What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science 2, no. 1: 115–44. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geddes, B., and J. Zaller. 1989. Sources of popular support for authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science 33, no. 2: 319–47. doi:10.2307/2111150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, K.F. 2007. Why dominant parties lose: Mexico’s democratization in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grzymala-Busse, A.M. 2002. Redeeming the communist past: The regeneration of communist parties in East central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Günaydın, A. 2023. “Muhalefet için tekli mi yoksa çoklu aday mı daha avantajlı? (Is single or multiple candidates better for the opposition?” Turkish Indy. https://www.indyturk.com/node/594876/siyaset/muhalefet-i%C3%A7in-tekli-mi-yoksa-%C3%A7oklu-aday-m%C4%B1-daha-avantajl%C4%B1.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, H., and T. Colton. 2017. Who defects? Unpacking a defection cascade from Russia’s dominant party 2008–12. The American Political Science Review 111, no. 2: 322–37. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higashijima, M. 2022. The dictator’s Dilemma at the ballot box: Electoral manipulation, economic maneuvering, and political order in autocracies. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hostrup Haugbølle, R., and F. Cavatorta. 2011. Will the real Tunisian opposition please stand up? Opposition coordination failures under authoritarian constraints. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 38, no. 3: 323–41. doi:10.1080/13530194.2011.621696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez, M. 2023. Contesting autocracy: Repression and opposition coordination in Venezuela. Political Studies 71, no. 1: 47–68. doi:10.1177/0032321721999975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S., and J. Loxton. 2013. Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization 20, no. 1: 107–36. doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.738864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S., and L.A. Way. 2002. The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 13, no. 2: 51–65. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupu, N., and R.B. Riedl. 2013. Political parties and uncertainty in developing democracies. Comparative Political Studies 46, no. 11: 1339–65. doi:10.1177/0010414012453445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lust-Okar, E. 2004. Divided they rule: The management and manipulation of political opposition. Comparative Politics 36, no. 2: 159–79. doi:10.2307/4150141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lust-Okar, E. 2006. Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan. Democratization 13, no. 3: 456–71. doi:10.1080/13510340600579359.
   Google Scholar
• Magaloni, B. 2006. Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McLellan, R. 2022. Local control: How opposition support constrains electoral autocrats. Governance and Local Development Institute Working Paper No. 59.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, Y.L. 2012. The era of electoral authoritarianism. World Politics 64, no. 1: 161–98. doi:10.1017/S0043887111000281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musil, P.A. 2024. How opposition parties unite in competitive authoritarian regimes: The role of an intermediary party. Democratization 31, no. 1: 210–32. doi:10.1080/13510347.2023.2260762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ong, E. 2021. What are we voting for? Opposition alliance joint campaigns in electoral autocracies. Party Politics 28, no. 5: 954–67. doi:10.1177/13540688211032367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ong, E. 2022. Opposing power: Building opposition alliances in electoral autocracies. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Özel, S. 2023. Seçime Doğru. Politikyol. March 15. https://www.politikyol.com/secime-dogru/.
   Google Scholar
• Rakner, L., and N. Van de Walle. 2009. Democratization by elections? Opposition weakness in Africa. Journal of Democracy 20, no. 3: 108–21. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schedler, A. 2013. The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Selçuk, O., and D. Hekimci. 2020. The rise of the democracy–authoritarianism cleavage and opposition coordination in Turkey (2014–2019). Democratization 27, no. 8: 1496–514. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1803841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer, M. 2016. Understanding Turkey’s democratic breakdown: Old vs. new and indigenous vs. global authoritarianism. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 16, no. 4: 481–503. doi:10.1080/14683857.2016.1246548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sözen, Y. 2019. Competition in a populist authoritarian regime: The June 2018 dual elections in Turkey. South European Society & Politics 24, no. 3: 287–315. doi:10.1080/13608746.2019.1688515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sözen, Y., and E. Balta 2019. Paths to competitive authoritarianism: Russia and Turkey. paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Conference, Toronto. 28 March.
   Google Scholar
• Ufen, A. 2020. Opposition in transition: Pre-electoral coalitions and the 2018 electoral breakthrough in Malaysia. Democratization 27, no. 2: 167–84. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1666266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ugur-Cinar, M. 2023. Elections and democracy in Turkey: Reconsidering competitive authoritarianism in the age of democratic backsliding. The Political Quarterly 94, no. 3: 445–51. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahman, M. 2011. Offices and policies–Why do oppositional parties form pre-electoral coalitions in competitive authoritarian regimes? Electoral Studies 30, no. 4: 642–57. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2011.05.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahman, M. 2013. Opposition coalitions and democratization by Election1. Government and Opposition 48, no. 1: 3–32. doi:10.1017/gov.2012.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahman, M. 2016. Opposition coordination in Africa. APSA Comparative Democratization Newsletter 14, no. 1: 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2023. Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation. Report. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099022723021250141/pdf/P1788430aeb62f08009b2302bd4074030fb.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Yagcı, A.H., and C. Oyvat. 2020. Partisanship, media and the objective economy: Sources of individual-level economic assessments. Electoral Studies 66: 102–35. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerka, P. 2023. Message in a ballot: What Poland’s election means for Europe. ECFR EU. https://ecfr.eu/article/message-in-a-ballot-what-polands-election-means-for-europe/.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegfeld, A., and M. Tudor. 2017. How opposition parties sustain single-party dominance: Lessons from India. Party Politics 23, no. 3: 262–73. doi:10.1177/1354068815593455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar