Is There Hope for Turkey?

In any functioning democracy, collective organization (the ability of individuals to form groups, join associations, and pursue political, social, or cultural objectives) is not a privilege but a fundamental right. Freedom of association lies at the heart of pluralistic societies. It is the very infrastructure of democratic accountability. Yet, across the globe -and notably in Turkey- this freedom is increasingly under siege.

By reflecting on the constitutional evolution and jurisprudential development of freedom of association in the United States, this article explores why this right is essential to democratic survival. Using Turkey as a cautionary case study, I examine the consequences of criminalizing association and offer pathways for recovery of the country. 

Freedom of Association in the U.S.: A Constitutional Inference with Democratic Power

Freedom of association has been interpreted as an essential element of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and petition. The logic is simple: you cannot speak freely if you cannot gather freely with others who share your concerns. (1)

NAACP v. Alabama (1958): This landmark case arose when Alabama demanded that the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) reveal its membership list. The Court ruled this demand unconstitutional, arguing it would chill political expression and put members at risk of harassment and violence. This case established that association is not merely an administrative right but a shield for minority voices. (2)

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984): Here, the Court ruled that states may not force a private group to alter its composition in ways that would compromise its message. (3)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000): In this case, the Court ruled that the Boy Scouts could exclude a gay scoutmaster because his presence was seen to interfere with the group’s expressive purpose. The ruling affirmed that expressive autonomy is vital to the integrity of associations, even when that autonomy is contested. (4)

These three rulings reveal a critical truth: in American constitutional tradition, associations are more than gatherings; they are vehicles for protected expression and civic power. As legal scholar Robert Post writes: “Democratic self-government requires the ability of individuals to band together to advocate for change.” (5) As in these cases, freedom of association in the United States protects all kinds of collective organizations even when -or especially when- they challenge dominant power structures.

Beyond legal precedent, the right to associate plays a vital sociopolitical role in American democracy and democratic culture. First, it facilitates dissent and advocacy. Second, it enables marginalized voices to build power collectively. Third, it safeguards pluralism by allowing ideologically diverse groups to flourish.

Within this framework, from civil rights to labor movements to LGBTQ+ advocacy, the sociopolitical progress of the U.S. has often depended not on individuals alone but on the strength of their associations.

Turkey’s Path: Legal Suppression and the Fear of Association

In stark contrast, Turkey has never been a paradise for associational freedom. Various periods of military rule, judicial overreach, and ideological polarization have recurrently suppressed civil society. Yet, in recent years -particularly since the 2016 coup attempt- this repression has intensified drastically. The country has witnessed a growing criminalization of association.

Under the pretext of maintaining public order and combating terrorism, the government has shut down 1,400 associations and foundations via emergency decrees without judicial oversight (6). Courts have acted more as enforcers of executive power than as defenders of rights (7). And, overbroad anti-terror laws have been frequently used to target peaceful activism and dissent (8). 

Additionally, activities as benign as using a mobile app, subscribing to a newspaper, or attending discussion groups (sohbets) have been construed as criminal evidence under vague and expansive anti-terror laws. Individuals are often prosecuted merely for participating in a group deemed “subversive.” Human rights defenders, journalists, academics, and political opponents have been prosecuted not for their actions, but for their associations. This is a form of “guilt by association” that directly contradicts both democratic norms and international law. 

Most troublingly, labeling associations as threats to national security creates a chilling effect that extends far beyond the targeted groups; it signals that the mere act of organizing is suspicious.

These conditions have deeply eroded Turkey’s democratic legitimacy internationally. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe warned in 2017 that Turkey’s emergency laws “lack adequate legal safeguards and violate the principle of proportionality” (9). Similarly, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association has warned that Turkey is “creating a climate of fear and repression” through vague and overly broad security legislation. (10)

The Chilling Consequences

Suppressing freedom of association leads to both immediate and systemic harm:

• Self-censorship: Citizens avoid public engagement to avoid scrutiny.
• Collapse of civil society: NGOs lose capacity, funding, and legitimacy.
• Vanishing political alternatives: Opposition parties and groups cannot organize.
• Judicial weaponization: The judiciary becomes a tool of control.
• Psychological trauma: Civic distrust and isolation replace democratic hope.

When associational freedom shrinks -as in Turkey- the damage is not only legal but psychological. Citizens begin to distrust public life, avoid engagement, and internalize censorship. Research published in Turkish Studies shows that over 60% of Turkish Civil Society Organizations report worsened legal environments since 2015 (11). Many now operate informally, in exile, or underground, forming what some call a “diaspora of dissent.”

Restoring Associational Life in Turkey: What Needs to Change

Turkey’s crisis is not only legal but also cultural and political. Courts alone cannot safeguard associational rights unless society at large accepts pluralism, and tolerates dissent. The U.S. model, though not perfect, offers several lessons. In the U.S., associational life is protected not only by courts but also by a public consensus that dissent is legitimate. In Turkey, by contrast, dissent is frequently portrayed as disloyal or foreign-backed. Here are my suggestions for recovery:

• Repeal overly broad anti-terror laws used to criminalize peaceful association.
• Encourage the return and reintegration of civil society actors currently marginalized.
• Recognize peaceful association as a democratic duty, not a criminal threat.
• Protect expressive associations regardless of ideology, including government critics.
• Rebuild judicial independence and insulate courts from executive pressure.

Without these changes, unfortunately, Turkey faces a grim future: more oppression domestically, and increasing populist aggression abroad, as it isolates itself diplomatically and ideologically.

Conclusion

Freedom of association is more than a legal right; it is a thermometer for democratic legitimacy. Where it is criminalized, civic death follows.

The U.S. experience, though it has imperfections, offers valuable lessons. It illustrates how associational culture and judicial protection of “freedom of association” enables social progress. For Turkey, to restore democratic credibility and foster long-term stability, it must re-affirm the right of its citizens to freely associate without fear of criminalization. Turkey’s regression, meanwhile, is a cautionary tale: when association is silenced, democracy fades into authoritarianism. Turkey’s backslide into solid authoritarianism is a visible warning collapsing the country politically, sociologically, and economically.

Turkey’s future depends on whether its citizens can once again organize without fear. Is it possible? That remains an open question, and perhaps best left for another article.

References

1. Emerson, T. I. (1964). Freedom of Association and Freedom of Expression. Yale Law Journal, 74(1), 1–35.  
2. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). 
3. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).
4. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). 
5. Post, R. (2000). Democracy and Equality. Harvard Law Review, 115(5), 1401–1448.  
6. Human Rights Watch. (2018). Silencing Turkey’s Civil Society. 
7. Özbudun, E. (2015). Turkey’s Judiciary and the Drift Toward Authoritarianism. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 15(4), 529–541. 
8. Amnesty International. (2020). Tangled Web: The Prosecution of Rights Defenders in Turkey. 
9. Venice Commission. (2017). Emergency Decrees and Rule of Law in Turkey. 
10. UN OHCHR. (2021). Report on the Right to Freedom of Association in Turkey. 
11. Bayram, A. B., & Şahin, E. (2023). Civil Society in Turkey: Shrinking Spaces, Growing Challenges. Turkish Studies, 24(2), 215–232.