¹ See, for instance, Stegel, Frank A., MacDonald, David B., and Waters, Dirk (eds), Populism and World Politics: Exploring Inter- and Transnational Dimensions (London and New York: Palgrave, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Joseph, Jonathan, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Yalvaç, Faruk, ‘Strategic depth or hegemonic depth: a critical realist analysis of Turkey's position in the world system’, International Relations, 26:2 (2012), pp. 165–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yalvaç, Faruk, ‘A historical materialist analysis of Turkish foreign policy: Class, state, and hegemony’, Uluslararası İlişkiler [International Relations], 13:52 (2016), p. 10Google Scholar.

⁴ Jessop, Bob, State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place (Cambridge: Polity, 1990), p. 208Google Scholar.

⁵ Our use of hegemony in this article derives from Gramsci and is different from a purely political understanding of the concept. For instance, Bashirov and Lancaster define the AKP as a ‘hegemony-seeking party whose primary goal is to achieve political hegemony’. AKP in this view has now transformed itself into a hegemonic party that ‘does not allow for fair electoral competition’, has ‘clear authoritarian tendencies’ and possesses ‘governmental hegemony’. See Bashirov, Galib and Lancaster, Caroline, ‘End of moderation: the radicalization of the AKP in Turkey’, Democratization, 25:7 (2018), pp. 1214–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Panizza, Francesco, ‘Introduction’, in Panizza, Francesco (ed.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (London: Verso, 2005), p. 26Google Scholar.

⁷ Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira, Populism: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Chantal Mouffe, ‘The populist moment’, democraciaAbierta (21 November 2016).

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ernesto Laclau, ‘Populism: What's in a name’, in Panizza (ed.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, p. 38.

¹¹ Mudde and Kaltwasser, Populism, p. 6.

¹² Laclau, Ernesto, On Populist Reason (London: Verso, 2005), p. 117Google Scholar, emphases in original.

¹³ Ibid., p. 116.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 226.

¹⁵ Laclau, ‘Populism: What's in a name', p. 43.

¹⁶ Vedi R. Hadiz refers to the necessity to analyse the ‘social bases of the New Islamic Populism’ as opposed to the ideational approaches of, for instance, Mudde and Taggart, but does not himself deal with the issue theoretically. Hadiz, Vedi R., ‘A new Islamic populism and the contradictions of development’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44:1 (2014), pp. 130, 133–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Dinçşahin, Şakir, ‘A symptomatic analysis of the Justice and Development Party's populism in Turkey, 2007–2010’, Government and Opposition, 47:4 (2012), p. 625CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 640.

¹⁹ Joseph, Jonathan, ‘A realist theory of hegemony’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30:2 (2000), pp. 179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Hegemony and the structure agency problem in international relations: a scientific realist contribution’, Review of International Studies, 34:1 (2008), pp. 109–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ See Türk, H. Bahadır, ‘“Populism as a medium of mass mobilization”: the case of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’, International Area Studies Review, 21:2 (2018), pp. 154CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 158. Türk's reference to ideological state apparatuses and mass clientelism in the construction of populism as a ‘medium of mass mobilization’ does not deal with populism itself as a social phenomenon which has underlying causes.

²¹ Selçuk, Orçun, ‘Strong presidents and weak institutions: Populism in Turkey, Venezuela and Ecuador’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16:4 (2016), p. 574CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Hall, Stuart, ‘Authoritarian populism: a reply to Jessop et al.’, New Left Review I/151 (May–June 1985), pp. 115–24Google Scholar; Yıldırım, Deniz, ‘AKP ve Neoliberal Popülizm [AKP and Neoliberal Populism]’, in İlhan Uzgel and Bülent Duru (eds), AKP: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (Ankara: Phoenix, 2009), pp. 66–107Google Scholar follows a similar line of Gramscian argument.

²³ Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The limits of governmentality: Social theory and the international’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010), p. 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Bulmer, Simon and Joseph, Jonathan, ‘European integration in crisis? Of supranational integration, hegemonic projects and domestic politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 22:4 (2015), pp. 725–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

²⁵ Bieler, Andreas, ‘Class struggle over the EU model of capitalism: Neo-Gramscian perspectives and the analysis of European integration’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8:4 (2005), pp. 513–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Jessop, State Theory, pp. 196–220.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 208.

²⁸ Joseph, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis.

²⁹ Vedi R. Hadiz and Angelos Chryssogelos, ‘Populism in world politics: a comparative cross-regional perspective’, International Political Science Review, 38:4 (2017), p. 407.

³⁰ Poulantzas, Nicos, State, Power, Socialism (London: Verso, 1978), p. 239Google Scholar.

³¹ Jessop, State Theory, p. 34.

³² Bray, Michael, ‘Rearticulating contemporary populism: Class, state and neoliberal society’, Historical Materialism, 23: (2015), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ There were three previous attempts to form Islamic parties in Turkey following the principles of what is known as the National Outlook (Milli Görüş): The National Order Party (Milli Nizam Partisi) banned in 1971 by the Constitutional Court; National Salvation Party (Milli Selamet Partisi) banned in 1981; and the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) also banned in 1998 for violating the secular principles of the state. The AKP was formed in 2001 from a split in Virtue Party (Fazilet Partisi), which was formed after the Welfare Party was closed. AKP initially declared itself to be the representative of moderate Islamism with a conservative democratic ideology. However, it switched to a form of authoritarianism as it started to lose its hegemonic depth.

³⁴ Kipper, Stefan and Parastou, , ‘The time and spaces of right populism: From Paris to Toronto’, in Socialist Register 2016 (London: Merlin Press, 2015), p. 313Google Scholar.

³⁵ Hadiz and Chryssogelos, ‘Populism in world politics’, p .400.

³⁶ See Hall, Stuart, ‘Popular democratic vs. authoritarian populism: Two ways of taking democracy seriously’, in Hunt, Alan (ed.), Marxism and Democracy (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1980)Google Scholar; also Hall, ‘Authoritarian populism’, pp. 115–24.

³⁷ Poulantzas, State Power and Socialism, pp. 203–04. Normal forms are liberal democracy and authoritarian statism (the ‘new’ normal form of the post-1970s financial capitalist state). Exceptional states are fascism and dictatorship and emerge after a crisis of hegemony. Exceptional states resort to increased coercion of the dominated classes.

³⁸ See Tansel, Cemal Burak, ‘Authoritarian neoliberalism: Towards a new research agenda’, in Tansel, Cemal Burak (ed.), States of Discipline: Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested Reproduction of Capitalist Order (London: Rowman and Littlefield International, 2017), pp. 1–28Google Scholar for the analysis of this continuity.

³⁹ Mouffe, Chantal, On the Political (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 20Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 20–1.

⁴¹ See Gülalp, Haldun, ‘Patterns of capital accumulation and state-society relations in Turkey’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 15:3 (1985), pp. 329–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² For a review of the ideological uses of nationalism, see Öztan, Güven Gürkan, ‘The struggle for hegemony between Turkish nationalisms in the neoliberal era’, in Akça, İsmet et al. (eds), Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal Hegemony (London: Pluto Press, 2014)Google Scholar. See also Şen, Mustafa, ‘Transformation of Turkish Islamism and the rise of the Justice and Development Party’, Turkish Studies, 11:1 (2010), pp. 59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar for an analysis of Turkish-Islamic synthesis.

⁴³ See Saracoğlu, C. and Demirkol, O., ‘Nationalism and foreign policy discourse in Turkey under the AKP rule: Geography, history and national identity’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 42:3 (2015), pp. 301–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ See Ahmet Berkmen, ‘State and capital in Turkey during the neoliberal era’, in Akça et al. (eds), Turkey Reframed, pp. 49–50, 62 and also passim for a review of state/capital relations in Turkey.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 54–5.

⁴⁶ Tuğal, Cihan, Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), p. 1Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See Soner Cağaptay, ‘European Union Reforms Diminish the Role of the Turkish Military: Ankara Knocking on Brussels' Door’, The Washington Institute, Policywatch 781 (12 August 2003).

⁴⁸ ‘Definitionally, then, a passive revolution can be a technique of statecraft which an emergent bourgeois class may deploy by drawing in subaltern social classes while establishing a new state on the basis of the institution of capitalism’ or ‘the expansion of capitalism as a mode of production’. Adam David Morton, ‘What is this thing called passive revolution’, From the Desk Drawer (11 July 2012); also Morton, Adam David, ‘The continuum of passive revolution’, Capital and Class, 34:3 (2010), pp. 315–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), p. 366Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Joseph, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis, p. 125.

⁵¹ Morton, ‘What is this thing’, p. 4.

⁵² Hale, William, ‘Christian democracy and the AKP: Parallels and contrasts’, Turkish Studies, 6:2 (2005), pp. 293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ Bozkurt, Umut, ‘Neoliberalism with a human face: Making sense of the Justice and Development Party's neoliberal populism in Turkey’, Science & Society, 77:3 (2013), p. 380CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The concept of neo-nationalist bourgeoisie is also used. See Kaya, Yasin, ‘“Turkey's turn to the East” and the intra-class contradictions in Turkey’, Global Discourse, 2:2 (2011), pp. 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 83.

⁵⁴ Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, p. 239.

⁵⁵ Cihan Tuğal, ‘Nato's Islamists’, New Left Review, 44 (March/April 2007), available at: {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq76VHkhDNE}.

⁵⁶ Tuğal, End of the Turkish Model, p. 275.

⁵⁷ Yalvaç, ‘A historical materialist analysis of Turkish foreign policy’, pp. 8–10.

⁵⁸ See Yalvaç, ‘Strategic depth or hegemonic depth’ for further elaboration.

⁵⁹ Poulantzas, State, Power and Socialism, p. 137.

⁶⁰ Mudde and Kaltwasser, Populism, p. 79.

⁶¹ Aytaç, S. and Öniş, Ziya, ‘Varieties of populism in a changing global context: the divergent paths of Erdogan and Kirchnerismo’, Comparative Politics, 47:1 (2014), pp. 41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Aytaç and Öniş argue that unlike Argentina, which had a left-wing populism seeking to redress social inequalities, Erdoğan's policies, in line with the principles of ‘regulatory neoliberalism’ represent a right-wing populism due to ‘(1) the retreat of the state to a primarily regulatory function; (2) the emphasis on pro-capital policies and a general neglect of labour interests, and (3) a rather reactive and conservative macroeconomic policy- making.’ Ibid., pp. 4–45; see also Ümit Akçay, ‘Neoliberal Populism in Turkey and its Crisis’, Working Paper No. 100 (Hohschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin/Institute for International Political Economy Berlin, 2008), p. 3.

⁶³ See Weyland, Kurt, ‘Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America: How much affinity?’, Third World Quarterly, 24:6 (2003), pp. 1095–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ See Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The limits of governmentality: Social theory and the international’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010), p. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Öniş, Ziya, ‘The triumph of conservative globalism: the political economy of the AKP era’, Turkish Studies, 13:2 (2012), pp. 135–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Dorlach, Tim, ‘The prospects of egalitarian capitalism in the global South: Turkish social neoliberalism in comparative perspective’, Economy and Society, 44:4 (2015), pp. 519–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ Aytaç, S. Erdem, ‘Distributive politics in a multiparty system: the conditional cash transfer program in Turkey’, Comparative Politics, 47:9 (2014), pp. 1211–37Google Scholar; Özden, Barış Alp and Bekmen, Ahmet, ‘Rebelling against neoliberal populist regimes’, in David, Isabel and Toktamıs, Kumru (eds), Everwhere Taksim: Sowing the Seeds for a New Turkey at Gezi (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 2009), pp. 89–104Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Akçay, ‘Neoliberal populism’, pp. 10–12.

⁶⁸ Some scholars argue that there was a transition from authoritarian statism to fascism as an exceptional form of state after 2011. See, among others, Haldun Gülalp, ‘Askeri Darbe, Sivil Faşizm [Military coup, civilian fascism]’, Birikim (17 October 2015); C. Kaptanoğlu, ‘Türk Tipi Faşizm [Turkish type fascism]’, Yarın (4 February 2016); Oğuz, ‘Yeni Türkiye'nin Siyasal Rejimi’, pp. 96–7.

⁶⁹ ‘A hegemonic bloc is a ‘broader ensemble of national popular forces mobilised behind a specific hegemonic project’ based on a durable alliance organised by a class or class fraction.’ Jessop, The State Theory, p. 74.

⁷⁰ Aktay, Yasin, ‘Politics at home, politics in the world: the return of the political in Turkish foreign policy’, Mediterranean Quarterly, 21:1 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yavuz, Hakan, ‘Turkish identity and foreign policy in flux: the rise of neo-Ottomanism’, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 7:12 (1998), p. 30Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Savran, Sunger, ‘Islamcilik, AKP, Burjuvazinin İç Savaşı [Islamism, AKP, the internal war of the bourgeoisie]’, in Balkan, E., Balkan, N., and Oncu, A. (eds), Neoliberalizm, Islamci Sermayenin Yukselisi ve AKP [Neoliberalism, the Rise of Islamic Capital and the AKP] (Istanbul: Yordam, 2014), pp. 53–142Google Scholar.

⁷² Jessop, Bob, ‘Poulantzas's state, power, socialism as a modern classic’, in Bretthauer, L. et al. (eds), Reading Poulantzas (London: Merlin, 2011), p. 47Google Scholar.

⁷³ Erik Meyersson, ‘Has the AKP facilitated cronyism through public procurement reforms in Turkey?’, Erik Meyersson Blog (31 March 2016).

⁷⁴ See Kaygusuz, Özlem, ‘Authoritarian neoliberalism and regime security in Turkey: Moving to an “exceptional state” under AKP’, South European Society and Politics, 23:2 (2018), pp. 281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ According to Boukalas, what Agamben defines as the ‘permament state of exception’ corresponds to the latest stage of authoritarian statism. Boukalas, C., ‘Olağanüstülük Yok: Otoriter Devletçilik: Agamben, Poulantzas ve İç Güvenlik’, trans. Aygen, A., Praksis, 40 (2016), pp. 41–66Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Poulantzas, State Power, Socialism, p. 211.

⁷⁷ Ibid.

⁷⁸ de Cleen, Benjamin and Stavrakakis, Yannis, ‘Distinctions and articulations: a discourse theoretical framework for the study of populism and nationalism’, Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 24:4 (2017), pp. 301–19Google Scholar (p. 312) mention this in the context of political projects. We see this as part of a broader hegemonic project linking class interests with domestic and international structures. The authors distinguish populism and nationalism ‘as different ways of discursively constructing and claiming to represent “the people”’ (p. 302). Following Laclau, they argue that ‘a discourse-theoretical approach to populism and nationalism … shifts away from “mainly sociological categories” … to the underlying logics that make these categories possible’ (p. 305). In our analysis, the underlying logic precisely refers to those sociological categories that pertain to social structures and class relations.

⁷⁹ Saracoğlu and Demirkol, ‘Nationalism and foreign policy discourse’, p. 301.

⁸⁰ Poulantzas, Nicos, ‘The nation’, in Brenner, Neil et al. (eds), State/Space: A Reader (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), p. 79Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Ibid.

⁸² Çağaptay, Soner, Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk? (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 15Google Scholar; Çetinsaya, Gökhan, ‘Rethinking nationalism and Islam: Some preliminary notes on the roots of Turkish-Islamic synthesis in modern Turkish political thought’, The Muslim World, 89:3–4 (1999), pp. 362–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ See Açıkel, ‘İslamcılığın üç ideolojik ve üç politik dönüşümü’, passim.

⁸⁴ Jessop, Bob, Nicos Poulantzas: Marxist Theory and Political Strategy (London: Macmillan, 1985), p. 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ See Brubaker, Rogers, ‘Between nationalism and civilizationism: the European populist moment in comparative perspective’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40:8 (2007), pp. 1191–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar for this distinction.

⁸⁶ Davutoğlu, Ahmet, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye'nin Uluslararası Konumu (İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004), p. 96Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ See Callinicos, Alex, ‘Does capitalism need the state system?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20:4 (2007), pp. 539–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁸ See Yalvaç, ‘Strategic depth or hegemonic depth’.

⁸⁹ Tuğal, The Fall of the Turkish Model, p. 188.

⁹⁰ Özbudun, Ergun, ‘From political Islam to conservative democracy: the case of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey’, South European Society and Politics, 11:3–4 (2006), p. 547CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ Turkey's political system after 2011 has witnessed increased authoritarianism especially after the Gezi Protests of 2013 and the coup attempt of July 2016. Different concepts have been deployed to describe the AKP's modality of governance since 2011 such as ‘competitive authoritarianism’. Esen, Berk and Gumuscu, Sebnem, ‘Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey’, Third World Quarterly, 37:9 (2016), pp. 1581–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Özbudun, Ergun, ‘AKP at the crossroads: Erdoğan's majoritarian drift’, South European Society and Politics, 19:2 ((2014), pp. 155–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murat Somer, ‘Türkiye Eksik Demokrasiden Rekabetçi Otoriterizme Mi Kayıyor? [Is Turkey Shifting from Incomplete Democracy to Competitive Authoritarianism?]’, available at: {http://t24.com.tr/yazarlar/bilinmeyen/turkiye-eksik-demokrasiden-rekabetci-otoriterizme-mikayiyor,9002}; ‘a drift towards hegemonic authoritarianism’ where ‘elections are manipulated and rigged to prevent any surprises at the ballot box’, Esen and Gümüşçü, ‘Rising competitive authoritarianism’, pp. 1596, 1598; ‘unconsolidated democracy’, Müftüler-Baç, Meltem and Keyman, Fuat, ‘The era of dominant-party politics’, Journal of Democracy, 23:1 (2012), pp. 85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘delegative democracy’, Hakki Taş, ‘Turkey – from tutelary to delegative democracy’, Third World Quarterly, 36:4 (2015), pp. 776–91; Özbudun, ‘AKP at the crossroads’, pp. 162–3; ‘“hybrid” regime’, Öniş, Ziya, ‘Turkey's two elections: the AKP comes back’, Journal of Democracy, 27:2 (2016), pp. 141–54 (p. 141)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘new authoritarianism’, Murat Somer, ‘Understanding Turkey's democratic breakdown: Old vs. new and indigenous vs. global authoritarianism’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (2016), pp. 1–23, available at: {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2016.1246548}; ‘embedded neopatrimonialism’, which is characterised by a ‘patriarchal discourse that is paternalistic and serves to reinforce personalistic rule, delegitimize opposition, and supress pluralism’, Çınar, Meral-Uğur, ‘Embedded neopatrimonialism: Patriarchy and democracy in Turkey’, Social Politics, 24:3 (2017), p. 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘weak authoritarian regime’, Akkoyunlu, K. and Öktem, K., ‘Existential insecurity and the making of a weak authoritarian regime in Turkey’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16:4 (2016), pp. 505–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These descriptions generally define the current mode of governance as an aspect of ‘illiberal democracy’, as a situation of democratic deficit and majoritarianism and have a politicist understanding ignoring the political-economic dynamics (structures of production, accumulation, and distribution) of what it means to be democratic. As Tansel points out, these descriptive concepts also generally assume a break between an earlier democratic period of AKP rule. However, there was an authoritarian continuity that can be dated back to 1980. Tansel, ‘Authoritarian neoliberalism’, pp. 1–28. We use the concepts of authoritarian statism, authoritarian populism, and populist hegemony in conjunction with the rise of authoritarian liberalism in Turkey.

⁹² As mentioned in the introduction.

⁹³ Panizza, ‘Populism’, p. 18.

⁹⁴ Hall, ‘Authoritarian populism’, p. 36.

⁹⁵ Both the liberal as well as the neo-Schmittian approaches treat the state of emergency as something exceptional to liberal democracy. Poulantzas on the other hand makes a distinction between normal and exceptional, arguing that exceptional state forms are compatible with the functioning of the capitalist mode of production. Neocleous goes one step further arguing that the state of exception is exactly inherent to normal law and is a natural part of liberal democratic rule for managing the social political antagonisms. Neocleous, M., Critique of Security (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.