Muslim World Report

Facing Pepper Spray: Strategies for Protesters in Turkiye

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 22, 2025 11:09 AM | 10 min read | 2100 words

TL;DR: As civil unrest escalates in Turkiye, protesters face increasing risks from state repression, particularly the use of pepper spray and other chemical agents. Effective strategies for activists include prioritizing personal safety, fostering community ties, and employing global solidarity to combat state violence. This post outlines potential political outcomes from the protests and offers practical strategies for navigating the current situation.

The Situation

In recent months, Turkiye has been engulfed in unprecedented civil unrest, characterized by widespread protests reflecting a profound dissatisfaction with the government’s policies and its management of pressing social issues. This unrest is not merely localized; it exemplifies a broader crisis facing the Muslim world, reminiscent of historical movements such as the Arab Spring a decade ago. During that period, authoritarian regimes across the Middle East faced similar waves of public discontent, often met with violent repression. Just as in those instances where citizens yearned for democracy and justice, the protests in Turkiye highlight a critical question: what happens when a government prioritizes control over the voices of its people? The stark reality is that these patterns of unrest signal a desperate call for change, yet the response of those in power remains alarmingly consistent.

Historical Context

  • Past Instances: The Gezi Park protests in 2013 serve as a stark reminder of how dissent in Turkiye often meets state-sanctioned brutality, echoing historical uprisings such as the Taksim Square protests in 1977, where demonstrators were also met with violence. This pattern reveals a troubling continuity in the state’s response to public discontent. The use of pepper spray and tear gas against peaceful demonstrators (Gençoğlu, 2016) not only highlights the tactics employed to suppress dissent but also raises a critical question: how far should a government go to maintain order at the expense of its citizens’ right to peacefully assemble?

Current Triggers

The current protests in Turkiye are ignited by:

  • Economic instability
  • Soaring inflation
  • A government crackdown on dissent

These factors exacerbate societal tensions and exemplify the state’s reliance on riot control tactics, resulting in increasing violence against peaceful protesters. This situation is reminiscent of the Arab Spring, where economic despair and government oppression led to widespread uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa. As international advocacy groups respond to these actions, the risk of state violence grows—not just in Turkiye but throughout the region. This pattern reflects a larger trend where regimes experiencing unrest may employ repressive tactics, subsequently encouraging other authoritarian governments facing challenges to their legitimacy (Hsu & McDowall, 2020; Schneider, 2011).

The ramifications of the turmoil in Turkiye are profound and multifaceted. On one hand, the possibility of solidarity among oppressed communities—both within Turkiye and beyond—emerges as a hopeful narrative against state violence. Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall inspired movements for freedom in Eastern Europe, activists across the Muslim world can draw critical lessons regarding protective measures against non-lethal weapons and state repression. How can these communities leverage their shared experiences to foster resilience and advocacy for change in the face of such oppressive regimes?

What if the protests lead to significant political change?

Should the protests in Turkiye catalyze substantial political change, such as:

  • The resignation of key figures
  • Meaningful governance reforms

The implications would not be confined within its borders. A successful uprising could inspire similar movements in countries where dissent is suppressed, including:

  • Iran
  • Egypt
  • Syria

Just as the Arab Spring in 2010-2011 sparked waves of uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa, a symbolic victory for democracy in Turkiye might embolden citizens in these nations, potentially igniting a wave of resistance against authoritarianism (Kuru, 2015). Such moments in history remind us how interconnected struggles for freedom can be, where the courage of one nation can serve as a beacon of hope for many.

Moreover, significant political upheaval could disrupt existing alliances and foreign policies that have historically supported oppressive regimes under the guise of stability. The West’s approach to Turkiye—characterized by strategic interests rather than a genuine commitment to democratic ideals—would come under scrutiny. Could a shift in Turkiye’s political landscape compel Western nations to reevaluate their support for authoritarian regimes, or will they continue to prioritize geopolitical stability over the values of freedom and democracy?

What if the protests fizzle out and repression escalates?

Conversely, if the protests fizzle out and the government intensifies its repression, the implications for Turkiye could be dire:

  • A failed movement may embolden authorities to escalate violence, much like how the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 resulted in a brutal crackdown that stifled dissent in China for years to come.
  • A culture of fear that discourages future activism could fortify the status quo, echoing the experiences in several authoritarian regimes where initial uprisings have been met with harsh reprisals, leading to prolonged periods of silence and compliance.

This failure could also resonate beyond Turkiye’s borders, potentially sending a discouraging signal to opposition movements in neighboring countries that resistance is futile, reminiscent of the chilling effect witnessed in the Arab Spring’s aftermath (Tosun et al., 2003).

While international condemnation of violent repression may arise, it may amount to little more than rhetorical outrage—akin to a distant thunderstorm that brings no rain. Global leaders often prioritize geopolitical interests over human rights, perpetuating cycles of oppression without accountability (Callaghy, 1985; Carey, 2009).

In this scenario, grassroots organizing and community resilience become paramount. Advocacy will necessitate a shift from overt protests to more clandestine forms of resistance, similar to how underground movements have historically adapted to oppressive regimes. If civil society can learn from past experiences and adapt to an environment of repression, the possibility for incremental change remains viable (Alimadadi & Pahlberg, 2014).

What if global solidarity emerges in response to the situation?

In an optimistic turn of events, if collective global solidarity emerges in response to the protests, the implications could be transformative, much like the global movement against apartheid in South Africa that united activists across the world in the fight for justice.

  • An international chorus denouncing state violence could galvanize action from diverse civil society organizations, reminiscent of the way the Anti-Apartheid Movement mobilized individuals and groups worldwide to demand change (Karakayalı & Yaka, 2014).
  • Cross-border coalitions that enable activists to share strategies and resources in their fight against common adversaries could form, creating a web of support that amplifies their voices and tactics.

Such solidarity may lead to increased scrutiny not just of Turkiye, but of other nations employing repressive tactics against dissent. The power of social media and international protests could shift paradigms, initiating broader discussions on human rights and accountability in the face of state aggression (Hovsepyan, 2023). Imagine a world where a tweet or a viral video can spark a global movement, similar to how the #MeToo campaign transcended borders, highlighting the strength of collective outrage.

However, this scenario is not without risks. Governments facing internal dissent may react defensively, employing heightened measures of repression against protesters. Will the cry for justice lead to greater resilience among activists, or will it provoke a backlash that stifles dissent even further? Sustained pressure and support for activists become essential for fostering an environment conducive to change (Davenport, 2007; O’Sullivan, 2019).

Strategic Maneuvers

To navigate this volatile environment effectively, various stakeholders—activists, international organizations, foreign governments, and local authorities—must employ strategic maneuvers, much like skilled chess players anticipating their opponent’s moves. Just as a single pawn can alter the course of the game, each decision made by these groups can significantly impact the broader landscape of influence and conflict. For instance, during the Arab Spring, grassroots activists used social media strategically to organize protests and mobilize support, demonstrating the power of coordinated efforts in challenging established regimes (Smith, 2022). In this unpredictable arena, a well-timed maneuver can be the difference between resolution and escalation. How can we better equip these stakeholders to make those pivotal moves?

Strategies for Activists

For activists within Turkiye, key strategies include:

  • Prioritizing personal safety during protests:

    • Developing comprehensive training programs on minimizing the impact of chemical agents like pepper spray. Just as firefighters wear protective gear to shield themselves from flames, activists must equip themselves against the dangers they may face in the field.
    • Wearing protective gear.
    • Establishing safe spaces for regrouping and medical assistance. Historically, during the 1968 student protests in France, demonstrators created designated areas for first aid and debriefing, which not only saved lives but also strengthened their resolve.

  • Fostering strong community ties to create networks of support that guarantee safety and encourage decentralized actions (Aydiner & Rider, 2022). Imagine a spider’s web: each thread represents a connection among individuals, making the entire structure stronger and more resilient against external forces. How can activists in Turkiye weave their own web of solidarity to ensure collective safety and enduring impact?

Strategies for International Organizations

International organizations must:

  • Amplify their support by publicly condemning violence against peaceful protesters, much like the United Nations did during the Arab Spring, which helped to galvanize global opinion against oppressive regimes.
  • Promote campaigns that pressure the Turkish government, akin to the successful international advocacy that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa by rallying global support and economic sanctions.
  • Offer practical assistance such as legal aid for detained protesters and share effective protest tactics across borders (Ferree & Tripp, 2007). Just as the civil rights movement in the United States benefited from solidarity and shared strategies among different groups, fostering international cooperation can empower local activists in their struggle for justice.

Strategies for Foreign Governments

Foreign governments need to:

  • Reevaluate diplomatic relations with Turkiye by linking trade agreements and military support to human rights outcomes. This approach echoes the decisions made during the Cold War, when Western nations leveraged economic aid as a means to promote democratic reforms in Eastern Europe.
  • Engage authentically with opposition groups to understand the protesters’ challenges, ensuring that foreign policy aligns with the overarching goals of democracy and human rights (Mason & Krane, 1989). Just as allies rallied to support movements like the Solidarity trade union in Poland, understanding the nuances of the local struggle is essential for effective international engagement.

Ultimately, the future of Turkiye will hinge on the interplay among all involved actors’ strategic maneuvers. The potential outcomes of the current unrest—either toward repression or reform—will depend on the collective agency of those fighting for justice and the willingness of global allies to support them amidst the tumult. Will history repeat itself, or can the lessons of the past guide us toward a more hopeful outcome?

References

  1. Alimadadi, O., & Pahlberg, C. (2014). A network view of MNC embeddedness in a politically uncertain market: The case of Turkey. Business and Politics, 16(1), 163-182.
  2. Bal, İ., & Laçiner, S. (2001). The Challenge of Revolutionary Terrorism to Turkish Democracy 1960-80. Terrorism and Political Violence, 13(4), 41-61.
  3. Callaghy, T. M. (1985). The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression. Political Science Quarterly, 100(3), 421-436.
  4. Carey, S. C. (2009). The Use of Repression as a Response to Domestic Dissent. Political Studies, 57(4), 694-718.
  5. Davenport, C. (2007). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 365-380.
  6. Ferree, M. M., & Tripp, A. M. (2007). Global feminism: Transnational women’s activism, organizing, and human rights. Choice Reviews Online, 44(5), 4165-4167.
  7. Gençoğlu, F. (2016). Gezi Park protests in Turkey: From ‘enough is enough’ to counter-hegemony? Turkish Studies, 17(4), 527-549.
  8. Hovsepyan, L. (2023). Erdoğan’s engineering in the Turkish Armed Forces: de-secularization and creeping Islamization trends. Politics Religion & Ideology, 24(1), 22-38.
  9. Isiksel, T. (2013). Between text and context: Turkey’s tradition of authoritarian constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(3), 531-553.
  10. Kuru, A. T. (2015). Turkey’s Failed Policy toward the Arab Spring: Three Levels of Analysis. Mediterranean Quarterly, 26(3), 1-27.
  11. O’Sullivan, M. (2019). The Political Economy of State Repression: The Case of the Turkish State. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60(3), 196-216.
  12. Schneider, C. (2011). Violence and State Repression. Swiss Political Science Review, 17(1), 1-24.
  13. Tosun, A. R., Zeytinoglu, E., & Tuncel, E. (2003). The Turkish Political Landscape: Toward an Authoritarian Regime? The Middle East Journal, 57(3), 411-430.
  14. White, R. W. (1989). From Peaceful Protest to Guerrilla War: Micromobilization of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 544-571.
  15. Aydiner, E., & Rider, T. (2022). Community-based organizing in repressive contexts: Lessons from Turkey. International Journal of Community Development, 34(2), 118-134.
  16. Karakayalı, S., & Yaka, E. (2014). Transnational Activism: The Impact of Globalization on Local Struggles for Human Rights in Turkey. Journal of Global Ethics, 10(2), 167-179.
  17. Hsu, J., & McDowall, D. (2020). Authoritarian Regimes and Protest: The Case of the Arab Spring. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 13(1), 68-88.
← Prev Next →