The Wolf and the Fist: The Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and the Gezi Protests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last week of May 2013, a series of mass demonstrations began in Taksim Square, Istanbul, and quickly spread all over Turkey. The demonstrations were initiated by a group declaring their opposition to the removal of some trees as part of an urban modernization project in the city centre. A severe security intervention triggered massive reactions from residents of Istanbul and, later, other Turkish cities: shortly after this intervention, an estimated 2.5 million people joined the demonstrations nationwide. Sustained in its most active form for nearly a month, the demonstrations left behind several deaths, many injuries, and inestimable property damage. Known as the “Gezi events,” they had a tsunami effect on Turkish politics, reshaping the political networks, redesigning ideological positions, and disorganizing the political agenda. This article focuses on the politics of Gezi protests in relation to the Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, MHP), one of three opposition parties in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Founded more than 50 years ago, the MHP is known for its far-right nationalist views. Unlike the main opposition party, the Republican People's Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, CHP), the MHP did not exploit the Gezi protests against the ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP). The authors analyze the MHP's discourses and actions regarding the Gezi protests and conclude that, more than ever, the Kurdish question is the key battleground for the MHP, and that since the 1990s the MHP has successfully transformed nationalist reactions to the Kurdish question into political fuel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".