Turkey’s Identity Crisis: The Cyclical Struggle Shaping Its Domestic Instability
Written by Avi Gotskind; Edited by Andrew Ma
Published on May 20th, 2025
Introduction
For much of the 20th century, Turkey was defined by a precarious duality—straddling Europe and Asia, secularism and Islam, democracy and authoritarianism. Today, however, Turkey is no longer just a bridge between worlds; it is an assertive regional power reshaping the geopolitical landscape. However, beneath this ascent lies a deeper struggle—one not just about power, but identity. As Turkey expands its influence abroad, it remains divided at home, caught between competing visions of its future. Understanding this internal conflict is key to making sense of the forces shaping Turkey today.
Turkey’s current domestic insecurity and instability stem from its deeply rooted identity conflicts—whether eastern or western, Islamic or secular, liberal or conservative, national or ethnic. These competing identities fuel a continuous cycle of political reversals, institutional struggles, and societal polarization, preventing the emergence of a stable and unified national vision.
Section one of this essay provides a historical and sociopolitical context for Turkey’s identity struggles, tracing its transformation from the Ottoman Empire to a modern secular republic and highlighting the tensions that emerged from rapid modernization and shifting geopolitical alignments. Section two then examines the interwoven nature of Turkey’s identity conflicts, identifying key parallels and distinctions between them and exploring how they shape Turkey’s domestic insecurity and instability. The conclusion assesses the broader implications of these intersecting identity crises, considering both short- and long-term consequences, identifying additional sources of domestic instability, and proposing a path to mitigate the cycle of political reversals and polarization that define Turkey’s modern landscape.
Historical and Sociopolitical Context
Turkey’s modern history begins with the birth of the Republic in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, whose sweeping reforms aimed to sever the new state from its Ottoman past. Central to this project was the drive for westernization, reflected in the adoption of the Latin alphabet, the abolition of the caliphate, and the institution of a secular legal code. Atatürk’s vision of a secular republic positioned the military as the self-appointed “guardian” of these reforms—a role it would periodically assert through interventions and coups whenever it perceived that the secular foundations of the state were under threat from communists, Islamists, or other non-Kamalist movements.
The transition from the Ottoman Empire to a Kemalist republic also signaled a profound redefinition of national identity. Where the empire had once been multi-ethnic and multi-religious, Turkey now sought to consolidate a unitary nation-state predicated on a homogenous Turkish identity. This shift created tensions between religious tradition and the newly imposed secular norms, as many of the empire’s former subjects struggled to align themselves with a state apparatus that increasingly emphasized Turkish nationalism over diverse cultural or religious affiliations.
Further complicating these identity shifts were the stark spatial cleavages that emerged in the course of rapid modernization. Urban centers, such as Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, and Edirne, became hubs of economic development and social liberalization. At the same time, rural areas in eastern Anatolia retained more traditional values and faced persistent economic disparities.
These domestic evolutions took place against a backdrop of shifting geopolitical alignments. Turkey’s early membership in NATO and later candidacy for EU accession signaled a desire to anchor itself firmly within the Western sphere. At the same time, calls for a “Neo-Ottoman” foreign policy—emphasizing historical and cultural ties to former Ottoman territories—suggest a pull in the opposite direction, rooted in a sense of civilizational continuity. These competing impulses shape Turkey’s international posture and reverberate through its domestic politics, fueling debates over whether Turkey should look primarily to the West or reclaim a leadership role in the Middle East and beyond.
The Interwoven Nature of Turkey’s Identity Conflicts
At the core of Turkey’s domestic instability is the unresolved tension between competing visions of its national identity. While these conflicts take distinct forms, they all stem from the country’s foundational struggle to reconcile modernization with deeply rooted traditions. The failure to establish a stable consensus on these identity questions has resulted in persistent political volatility, social polarization, and institutional instability. Though each conflict contributes to instability in unique ways, they share underlying patterns that reinforce one another, ensuring that no single vision of Turkey’s future can remain uncontested.
A key parallel across these conflicts is the cyclical nature of policy reversals and ideological power struggles, where different factions gain influence, only to see their policies overturned when the opposing side resurfaces. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Islamic vs. secular and conservative vs. liberal divides, where governance and public policy swing between competing ideologies. The headscarf controversy is emblematic of this instability. Initially banned in public institutions under secularist governments, the policy was later reversed under conservative leadership, demonstrating how shifts in power lead to sudden and dramatic changes in governance. A similar back-and-forth pattern is evident in Turkey’s approach to press freedom. In the early 2000s, the AKP initially promoted a more open media environment, loosening restrictions imposed by previous secularist governments. However, as Erdoğan consolidated power, media freedoms reversed course, with widespread censorship, journalist arrests, and government takeovers of opposition outlets. This oscillation between periods of liberalization and repression highlights how competing factions shape the landscape of rights and freedoms, preventing a stable political order from taking root.
These identity crises, while often jointly contributing to cases such as the headscarf controversy, also manifest in distinct, unique ways. While secularism vs. Islamism has been a primary driver of popular sentiment, it has also served as a political vehicle for leaders to consolidate power, secure military backing, or gain favor with key segments of society. A key example is how the manipulation of ideological divides has fueled repeated military interventions, as different factions sought to leverage these conflicts to justify seizing control. Since the mid-20th century, the military, viewing itself as the guardian of Kemalist secularism, has staged multiple coups—including those in 1960, 1980, 1997, and 2016—oftentimes targeting governments it deemed too Islamist, but also responding to political instability, economic crises, and ideological extremism. The 1997 coup, known as the “postmodern coup”, was the most explicit attempt to suppress political Islam, forcing Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan to resign due to his Islamist agenda. However, each intervention only temporarily suppressed political Islam, which later resurged with greater force. The most dramatic example was the 2016 coup attempt, which differed from past military takeovers in that it was not a secularist intervention but a power struggle between Erdoğan and the Gülenist movement. The coup’s failure led to mass purges of secularist and opposition figures, permanently shifting the balance of power in favor of Erdoğan and demonstrating how each attempt to suppress one faction results in a decisive swing in the opposite direction. In addition, the widespread purges significantly weakened the military as an institution, eroding its historical role as the bastion of secularism and accelerating the Islamization of the armed forces under Erdoğan’s government.
The conservative vs. liberal divide follows the same pattern of oscillation that defines Turkey’s broader identity struggles. When conservative-nationalist factions gain power, they implement policies that restrict civil liberties, promote nationalist values, and strengthen government control over institutions. However, when liberal movements push back, often through protests or political mobilization, temporary reforms may occur—only to be reversed again when conservatives regain control. This dynamic is particularly evident in Turkey’s approach to the judiciary and press freedoms. The 2010 constitutional referendum, for example, was initially framed as a democratic reform that would limit military influence and strengthen civil liberties. However, over time, it enabled Erdoğan’s government to consolidate control over the judiciary, weakening checks and balances and reducing press freedom.
Similarly, Turkey’s eastern vs. western divide has led to erratic foreign policy decisions and weakened institutional trust through a history of inconsistency and rebound policy. While economic and strategic concerns push Turkey toward deeper integration with the West, nationalist and Islamist factions reject Western influence, framing it as a threat to Turkish sovereignty. This results in unpredictable diplomatic engagements, such as the fluctuating EU accession process, where reform efforts are repeatedly initiated and abandoned depending on the political climate. Beyond the EU, Turkey’s oscillation between cooperation and confrontation with NATO allies, Russia, and regional actors reflects the broader uncertainty about its geopolitical identity, which in turn fuels internal, domestic divisions between those who see Turkey’s future in alignment with Western democracies and those who advocate for greater regional autonomy.
The national vs. ethnic divide causes a similar predicament, in which military crackdowns and political suppression often follow attempts at political reconciliation with Kurdish groups. The Kurdish conflict, which has fueled decades of violence between the Turkish government and the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), is not just an ethnic dispute but a reflection of Turkey’s broader struggle with pluralism. Unlike ideological conflicts that shift with election cycles, this conflict is deeply entrenched, ensuring that military operations and security crackdowns remain a permanent feature of Turkish governance while political parties like the MHP take advantage of the situation to attack the AKP politically. The state’s repression of pro-Kurdish movements not only exacerbates domestic unrest but also complicates Turkey’s international position, particularly in Syria and Iraq, where concerns over Kurdish autonomy influence foreign policy decisions.
Conclusion
Turkey’s ongoing identity struggles are not merely political debates or cultural disagreements; they form the backbone of the country’s domestic instability. The oscillating nature of its identity conflicts—whether between secularism and Islamism, liberalism and conservatism, Western alignment and regional autonomy, or Turkish nationalism and ethnic pluralism—has created a political system defined by constant reversals, institutional purges, and deep societal polarization. This short-term instability manifests in unpredictable governance, mass protests, and fluctuating foreign policy, while long-term instability threatens Turkey’s economic future, social cohesion, and democratic resilience.
One of the most immediate consequences of these identity struggles is their effect on governance. Turkey’s political institutions remain fragile, as each faction’s attempt to consolidate power is met with resistance and eventual reversal. This cyclical instability weakens state institutions and erodes public trust in governance, leading to growing political apathy and disillusionment. Meanwhile, security challenges—particularly related to Kurdish separatism—persist as nationalist policies continue to fuel ethnic grievances. The longer Turkey remains trapped in this cycle, the harder it will be to foster a sense of national unity inclusive of all its diverse populations.
Beyond identity politics, other factors exacerbate domestic instability, including economic volatility, demographic shifts, and technological change. The tension between modernity and tradition fuels polarization, as urban centers push for progressive reforms while rural communities resist, seeking to preserve traditional values. Similarly, the clash between Turkish nationalism, Neo-Ottomanism, and Western European credentials creates geopolitical uncertainty, with factions divided between pursuing European integration or asserting regional dominance. Meanwhile, economic fragility, worsened by inflation and policy unpredictability, amplifies social discontent and mass protests. Demographic divides lead to younger, urban populations favoring liberalization while older, rural communities remain conservative and reinforce polarization. Additionally, digital activism and alternative media deepen ideological divisions, allowing factions to entrench their narratives rather than fostering national dialogue, ensuring instability persists. How is this to be addressed?
Given the depth and persistence of these identity struggles, a complete resolution may be unrealistic in the short term. However, a pragmatic approach to mitigating their destabilizing effects lies in fostering institutional resilience and political pluralism. Rather than relying on the winner-takes-all model that defines Turkey’s power transitions, reforms should focus on strengthening democratic institutions, ensuring judicial independence, and fostering a political culture that accommodates ideological diversity. Education and civic engagement initiatives that promote historical nuance and mutual understanding could help weaken the zero-sum mentality that fuels Turkey’s polarization.
Ultimately, Turkey’s long-term stability depends on its ability to move beyond identity-based governance. Until its competing factions recognize that no single vision can permanently define the country, Turkey will continue to experience instability, preventing it from realizing its full potential as a stable, influential regional power.
