Insult, Charisma, and Legitimacy: Turkey's Transition to Personalist Rule

Över, Defne; Tuncer-Ebetürk, Irem Article — Published Version Insult, Charisma, and Legitimacy: Turkey's Transition to Personalist Rule Social & Legal Studies Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Över, Defne; Tuncer-Ebetürk, Irem (2022) : Insult, Charisma, and Legitimacy: Turkey's Transition to Personalist Rule, Social & Legal Studies, ISSN 1461-7390, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 31, Iss. 5, pp. 773-795, https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211073652 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/251720 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Insult, Charisma, and Legitimacy: Turkey’s Transition to Personalist Rule Defne Över * Texas A&M University Irem Tuncer-Ebetürk * WZB - Berlin Social Science Centre Abstract Scholars exploring transitions to personalist rule focus on coercive power transfer to personalist rulers and argue that forming viable political coalitions, undermining power-sharing agreements, and mobilizing non-democratic institutions play a crucial role in transferring coercive power. However, no regime can rule by coercion alone, and transitions to personalist rule also involve making new frameworks of legitimacy. Exploring the connections between Turkey’s recent transition to personalist rule and the drastic jump in the number of insult proceedings that accompanied the transition, this article finds that insult proceedings play a particular role in making new frameworks of legitimacy in transitions to personalist rule. We argue that insult proceedings work as a coercive method of punishment that curbs dissent while constructing a new framework of legitimacy based on the ruler’s charisma. The study builds on an in-depth examination of insult cases filed during Erdog an’s presidency in Turkey and interviews with legal experts and suspects. It contributes to the understanding of the use of laws and legality in autocratization processes. Keywords authoritarianism, insult laws, personalization, charisma, turkey *Equal authorship Corresponding author: Irem Tuncer-Ebetürk, Research Fellow, WZB - Berlin Social Science Centre, Reichpietschufer 50, Berlin 10785. Email: [email protected] Article Social & Legal Studies 2022, Vol. 31(5) 773–795 © The Author(s) 2022 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/09646639211073652 journals.sagepub.com/home/sls Introduction In Turkey, Article 299 of the criminal code punishes insults to the president by up to four years in prison. Viewing the president as a symbol of the state, Article 299 categorizes insults against the president as offences against the state. It thus offers protection to the president not only for insults to his duties but also his personality and personal relationships (Demir, 2017). In March 2016, Turkey’s Minister of Justice declared that since Tayyip Erdog an became the president in August 2014, 1845 insult cases were opened against celebrities, journalists, and even school children (Guardian, 2016). Some of these cases were so absurd that people would be put on trial for comparing the president to Gollum, a Lord of the Rings character. Compared to 20 cases opened in 2006 during Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s presidency and 175 cases opened in 2011 during Abdullah Gül’s presidency, 1845 cases opened in the first one-and-a-half-year rule of Erdog an, indicated a controversial break with the national past, and given the absurdity in many cases, not only a quantitative but also a qualitative break was set in motion. Why was Erdog an’s presidency accompanied by such a sudden shift in the implementation of Article 299? In this article, we turn our attention to the personalization of power and present how Article 299’s implementation in Turkey became a strategy in the country’s transition to personalist rule. Transitions to authoritarianism involve faltering institutions that curtail the chief executive (Mouzelis, 1985; Slater, 2003). In cases where such faltering involves personalization of power, decision-making and coercive power are increasingly centralized in one person’s hands, unfettered by a party central committee or institutionalized military decision-making process (Geddes, 2004). The recent shift in Turkey’s political system is a spot-on example. In 2018, after seventy-three years of oscillation between democracy and military intervention, the long-standing parliamentary system left its place to a heavily centralized executive presidency. The prime minister’soffice was abolished while the president attained a wide range of new powers, including prerogatives regarding the budget, the selection and dismissal of ministers, and the power to dissolve the parliament—confirming the personalist direction in Turkey’s authoritarian journey (Esen and Gümüsçü, 2016, Somer, 2016, Öktem and Akkoyunlu, 2016, Tas, 2015, Tziarras, 2018). Transitions to personalist rule do not happen overnight. They are products of a long process that scholars tend to explain by reference to several different strategies. Among these are forming viable coalitions with lieutenants (Geddes, 2004), undermining power-sharing agreements with antagonistic factions in the military (Barros, 2002), and mobilizing non-democratic institutions such as packing, rigging, and circumventing (Slater, 2003). While these works focus on coercive power transfer, no regime can rule by coercion alone (Gerschewski, 2013). Like other forms of authoritarianism, personalist rulers also seek legitimacy. In asserting it, they draw on several frameworks ranging from economic performance, nationalism, religion, ideology, and external threats to leaders’ charisma (Gerschewski, 2013; March, 2003; Omelicheva, 2016). Transitions to personalist rule, therefore, also involve the constitution of new frameworks of legitimacy. Through an in-depth examination of insult cases filed during Erdog an’s presidency, we argue that Article 299 proceedings work as a strategy in both ways: First, they work as a coercive method of curbing dissent, ensuring loyal law enforcement and a silent 774 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) public. Second, they work to manufacture charisma, granting the regime a new framework of legitimacy to draw on. Recently, political scientists argued that coups lost their relevance in contemporary democratic backsliding processes as executive aggrandizement has gained prominence (Bermeo, 2016). In this context, laws, legal processes and concepts have acquired particular importance as devices of democratic backsliding (Sadurski, 2019, Kelemen and Pech, 2019). Studying specifically the Turkish case, scholars have shown that legal processes were crucial in centralizing coercive power in the hands of President Erdog an (Arslanalp and Erkmen, 2020; Tas, 2015; Yılmaz, 2020). We suggest that insult proceedings are part of this broader trend of using “legality”in autocratization. Among all the other tactics, the utilization of Article 299 is the most directly related one to the personalization of power, and specifically, to the creation of a new framework of legitimacy based on Erdog an’s charisma. Insult proceedings can assign rulers special qualities and force the public to see rulers from this perspective. This capacity renders them a particular means of making a new framework of legitimacy for the regime. In what follows, we first discuss how sociology and political science explore legal processes’role in transitions to personalist rule and present our argument’s conceptual pillars. Next, we describe the methods used to gather data, contextualize the law’s revival in contemporary Turkey, and present our argument with empirical data. We conclude the article with a summary of findings, a discussion on the public reception of this strategy, and the argument’s implications for studying other cases of authoritarian transition in contemporary times. Personalization of Power, Law & Charisma Much of the existing literature on the relationship between authoritarian regimes and legal processes explores the construction of this relationship and its outcomes for regime durability and contestation. In one research strain, for instance, scholars have focused on how courts become the focal point of state-society contention in authoritarian regimes and have shown how courts suppress opposition in this contentious relationship (Ginsburg and Moustafa, 2008; Gomez, 2006; Moustafa, 2007; Moustafa, 2014). In another strain, scholarship has centred on the relationship between authoritarian regimes, laws and legality. Studying cases of domestic legitimacy crises such as the case of Nasser’s Egypt (Moustafa, 2007) or post-Maoist China (Landry, 2008) scholars have shown that authoritarian regimes appeal to “the rule of law”as a legitimation strategy (Ginsburg and Moustafa, 2008; Peerenboom, 2002). Similarly, exploring the case of Thailand, scholars have shown that Lese Majeste laws act as a legal means for sacralizing the regime and always at the cost of popular sovereignty (Preechasilpakul and Streckfuss, 2008). There are, however, fewer studies that explore legal processes in the context of authoritarian transitions. Explorations of the recent authoritarian transition processes in Singapore, Venezuela, Turkey, Poland, and Hungary are among the few examples. These works generally focus on two major aspects of the relationship between legal processes and autocratization, namely how legal processes become a strategy in suppressing the opposition; and how they confer legality to autocratization. Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 775 In the context of the suppression of the opposition, exploring the case of Singapore, Rajah (2012), for instance, has argued that laws have been a crucial tool in dismantling free media and civil society in the country. Defamation laws in Singapore have similarly been addressed in terms of how they worked to silence the opposition (Sim, 2011). On the legality of autocratization Corrales (2015) has shown that through use, abuse and non-use of laws, laws have been enacted constitutionally in Venezuela’s authoritarian turn. In this context, increased penalties for insulting government officials have been pointed as an example of the use of laws, while creating a “communicational hegemony”and electoral irregularities were cited as examples for the abuse and non-use of laws. Studies on the Turkish case advanced this debate by noting that in Turkey first “decretismo”(Tas, 2015), then the declaration of the state of emergency and constitutional amendments (Yılmaz, 2020) became the legal means of bypassing democratic decision-making processes. Sadurski (2019) challenged these arguments on the legality of recent autocratization processes by pointing at how the government in Poland used statutory amendments and outright breaches of the constitution. He depicted Poland as a unique case of disregard for its own formal constitutional rules. Kelemen and Pech (2019)’s study of the Polish and Hungarian cases however suggested that legality in the sense of drawing on legal concepts in justifying rulers’attempts to dismantle the checks on their power was also the case in Poland. They have shown that Hungarian and Polish governments used the legal concepts of constitutional pluralism and constitutional identity to shield themselves against potential EU interventions. Hungary violated the EU asylum acquis and refused to recognize the primacy of EU law in this domain by claiming that control over migration is part of its constitutional identity. Poland attacked the independence of the judiciary, claiming that such matters fall within the exclusive bounds of its authority. Our focus on the instrumentalization of insult proceedings in Turkey’s autocratization process resembles these studies that address law, legal processes and legal concepts as a strategy of authoritarian transition. On the one hand, we address insult proceedings in terms of how they are instrumentalized in suppressing the opposition within law enforcement and among the people. On the other, analogous to those who study the legality of autocratization processes, we address insult proceedings as a legal means of transferring power to autocrats. As different from those who only focus on the transfer of coercive power in transitions to personalist rule, however, through the case of insult proceedings, we suggest that laws may also play a role in constructing a new framework of legitimacy in autocratization processes. Max Weber distinguishes between three types of authority: rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic. In the former, obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order. In the second, it is owed to the traditionally sanctioned position of authority, and in the third, obedience is produced based on personal qualities. In this third type of authority, based on these qualities, “the individual concerned is treated as a leader” (Weber, 1922 [1968]: 241). Weber’s idea of charisma is akin to Durkheim’s idea of sacredness, where sacred individuals or objects “strike the individual as superior to him or her, and inspire feelings of deep respect, awe, love and even dread in people” (Garland, 1990). According to Weber, the gift of charisma is not heaven-sent. It is instead a quality that followers ascribe to leaders (Joosse, 2014: 271). There is an 776 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) interactional element in this understanding of charisma (Joosse, 2014, 2017, 2018). Charisma is produced and received within the interactions of the leader and the followers. No leader can be charismatic without followers attributing charisma to him. Actual personal qualities that trigger these ascriptions are, therefore, of secondary importance: “What alone is important is how the individual is regarded by those subject to charismatic authority, by his ‘followers’or ‘disciples’“ (Weber, 1922 [1968]: 242). Charisma in Weber is thus not about the leaders themselves but how the leader’s charisma is performed by the disciples (Joosse, 2017). Similarly, for Durkheim, the fact that “[a] rock, a tree, a spring…in a word, anything, can be sacred”(Durkheim, 1965: 35; Eliade, 1959) tells us that it is not an inherent or even objective property of the objects perceived to possess it. Instead, it is a projection, superimposed upon an object by some observer(s), and as such, a property of those observers rather than the objects themselves (Marshall, 2010). Weber and Durkheim’s emphasis on interaction and others’perception has been advanced by later scholarship that approached the study of charisma or sacredness as closely attached to the study of power (Geertz, 1977; Shils, 1965). Later scholarship has suggested that people’s attribution of charisma/sacredness to a leader is a consequence of the practices and self-representations of the ruling elites and power holders (Garland, 1990). This meant that leaders in awareness that charisma is an important source of authority demanded from the public to be seen as charismatic. In other words, through the instruments at their disposal, they steered society towards seeing themselves as charismatic. For this reason, if we are to understand sacralization, we need to investigate the powerholders’behaviours that project sacredness and charisma on a person or an object. Charismatic leaders strive to derive charisma from various domains of social life, among which media and public performances in mass gatherings are the most well-known. In a similar vein, we argue that domains conventionally considered as domains of rational-legal authority can also be domains through which charismatic authority is constructed. Thus, in this study, we argue that per the demand of the leader, powerholders use the law to derive charisma for Erdog an. We adopt the interactional perspective of Weber on charisma and contextualize it in contemporary power relationships in Turkey. The penal policy is a politically motivated undertaking often unrelated to crime control efforts (Wacquant, 2009). Through penal laws and punishment, powerholders attempt to construct and organize social relationships. They seek to teach the public what to feel, how to reach, and which sentiments should be called for in similar situations (Geertz, 1977). Political punishments and show-case trials are relayed by the media to represent the meaning of justice and symbolically assert order and authority (Garland, 1990). These instances aim at organizing people’s perceptions and structuring discourses, practices of blaming, holding responsible, and thinking about deviance (Garland, 1990). We suggest that in the case of insult proceedings, the courts’goal goes beyond crime control and the outright suppression of the opposition. The Turkish case illustrates that courts punish suspects to demonstrate how Erdog an has to be seen. As the law fulfils its capacity as a coercive tool silencing dissent, it deems Erdog an untouchable, assigning him the qualities of a special ruler. Insult proceedings Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 777 thus work to reinstate that there is only one ruler in Turkey and that his criticism is not appropriate. Methods and Data Collection The argument of this article is derived from qualitative research conducted between 2018 and 2020. Data collection involved the gathering of court cases and judicial statistics and conducting interviews. To track the cases of Article 299, we examined newspaper archives, documents produced by NGOs, official statistics, and reports. In identifying cases, we referred to two primary sources that have been collecting cases of Article 299 semi-systematically: Zeit Magazine’s“The Defendant People”(DavalıHalk) section, and the online news portal, Diken’s, “Today in Insults against Erdog an” (Erdog an’a Hakarette Bugün) section. We supported these two sources with the data available on the Court of Cassation website and other news outlets, including Sözcü, Hürriyet, Cumhuriyet, and T24. The Ministry of Justice and the General Directorate of Statistics websites granted us access to judicial statistics on the implementation of laws. To contextualize the cases, we conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with lawyers, academics, journalists, and those who were put on trial for insulting the president. Interviews with academics and journalists were conducted in 2019 in Ankara. These were expert interviews intended to gather information on the actors and the intricacies of legal proceedings. Interviewees were selected based on their expertise in the field. Two academics interviewed are known for their work on free speech in Turkey. The two journalist interviewees were chosen amongst those who were following news stories on insult cases. Interviews with people who had an insult proceeding were conducted in 2020. Some of the interviewees had only a complaint that did not turn into a case; others were found guilty and had appealed the decision. Interviewees were selected from a convenience sample. Given the topic’s sensitivity, our status as professional researchers and reaching out to them through our personal networks increased interviewees’trust levels. To protect the interviewees, before starting the interviews, we ensured that their identities would be kept anonymized. In the text, actual names of those who faced a complaint or trial for insulting the president were mentioned only if data were gathered from publicly available sources. In analyzing the cases, we adopted an inductive theory-building approach. First, we examined trends in Article 299 proceedings in terms of frequency, decisions, and content. Next, the data gathered from the cases were put into perspective with the interviews. The interviews specifically presented an account of how the legal process worked and how it affected the stance of law enforcement and the defendants vis-a-vis the presidential system. In going back to our cases, we sought to understand how Article 299 related to the broader project of personalization of power. This iterative approach allowed us to identify the two main components of our argument: curbing dissent and creating a framework of legitimacy. We then theorized the connections between curbing dissent, charisma, legitimacy, and personalization of power. 778 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) Insult Laws As a Strategy of Personalization of Power After the 1980 coup d’état and the drafting of the 1982 constitution, the military interveners in Turkey maintained parliamentarianism while at the same time setting up a more than symbolic presidency system. In this system, the president attained an active and powerful role. However, the instances in which s/he could act alone pertained to his capacity not as the chief executive but as the head of state. The president’soffice also lacked the legitimacy accorded by popular elections (Heper and Çınar, 1996; Özbudun, 1988). Presidents came to be elected by popular vote after the amendments to the constitution in 2007 (Tas, 2015). In April 2010, months before the referendum that resulted in the reconfiguration of high courts in Turkey, Erdog an conveyed his eagerness for a presidential system. The discussion intensified in late 2012 when his party submitted a proposal to this effect to the Constitution Conciliation Commission, a parliamentary body for drafting the new constitution. By extending broad, unchecked powers to the president, this system was inclined towards “ultra-presidentialism.”Two years later, during the 2014 presidential elections, Erdog an openly declared his intention to establish a presidential system (Tas, 2015). The jump in insult proceedings accompanied Erdog an’s election as the president and the following switch to a presidential system. Studies on law and authoritarianism in Turkey established that authoritarian spaces already existed within the Turkish state structure (Miller, 2005, Parslow, 2015, 2018). Turkey also has a long tradition of regulating and suppressing free speech. About 16% of all the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions on free speech between 1959 and 2017 relate to Turkey’s violation of rights. In violating norms of free speech, Turkish courts have historically relied on the anti-terror law (Law No 3713, Article 6 and 7), the articles of the criminal code on incitement of hatred (Law No 765, Article 312; Law No 5237, Articles 215 and 216), denigration of the Turkish nation, republic, parliament or the state (Law No 765, Article 159; Law No 5237, Article 301), and the law concerning crimes committed against Atatürk (Law No 5816). After AKP’s rise to power in 2002, most of these historically used articles retained their place in regulating public speech, while the anti-terror law attained special prominence in curbing opposition. Following Erdog an’s presidency in 2014 and the coup attempt in 2016, however, new articles came to be commonly used in suppressing speech; in particular, the articles of the criminal code that regulate the crimes committed against the constitutional order and the functioning of this order (Law No 5237, Articles 309–316) and Article 299 of the criminal code that regulates insults against the president (see Figure 1) (Akdeniz and Altıparmak, 2018). Turkey experienced a special peak in cases opened for insulting the president following Erdog an’s election as president in 2014. The number of insult cases for which an investigation was started in 2014 was 682–the highest between 2009 and 2014. After 2014 this number increased to 7216 in 2015, 38,254 in 2016, 20.539 in 2017, and 26.115 in 2018. Of the 17,034 cases opened between 2009–2018, 16,236 were opened after 2014 (See Figure 2.). Of the 1640 imprisonment decisions between 2009–2018, 1575 were made after 2014 (See Figure 3.). Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 779 Figure 1. Number of investigations opened for violating articles 216, 299, 301, 309–313. Source: Judicial Statistics 2009–2018 http://www.adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/Home/SayfaDetay/adaletistatistikleri-yayin-arsivi. Figure 2. Article 299 decisions made at the chief public prosecutor’soffice. Source: Judicial Statistics 2009–2018 http://www.adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/Home/SayfaDetay/adaletistatistikleri-yayin-arsivi. 780 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) should be perceived, what is an insult against him, and who is an opponent. Such construction of what is to be accepted as a “fact”legitimizes Erdog an’s actions while at the same time sacralizing him as immune to criticism. Since 2014, Erdog an has been criticized on three major grounds: rising authoritarianism in Turkey, engaging in concealed relationships with ISIS, and corruption. Common slogans for which people were accused of insulting the president thus described Erdog an as a thief or killer, depicted him as Hitler or as a dictator, and alleged that he had ties to ISIS or was involved in corruption (Zeit, 2016). In explaining how courts construct “facts”about Erdog an, and how these “facts”sacralize Erdog an, we focus on cases that specifically deal with speech acts on Erdog an’s involvement in corruption. At the end of 2013, the Turkish police arrested the sons of three cabinet ministers and at least 34 others in orchestrated raids on the grounds of corruption. In the following days, records of phone calls between ministers and Erdog an, and Erdog an and his family members were leaked. Allegedly these were phone calls made during the police operation and were proof of the Erdog an family’s involvement in corruption. In one of these phone calls, Erdog an was alleged to ask his son to move all the money hidden in the shoeboxes away from home before the police arrived. This incident and the following arrests led to a big crisis in Turkey. Eventually, the police officers that detained people in the operation were fired or jailed, and Erdog an claimed records of phone calls to be fake and the entire operation to be a conspiracy undertaken to topple down the AKP government. An insult case opened during Erdog an’s presidency involved a slogan that reads, “We said we are hardly keeping millions at home; you did not believe”. The slogan was a slightly changed version of what Erdog an had said during the 2013 Gezi Protests, the mass protest event in Turkey’s history demanding the resignation of Erdog an’s government. During the protests, in response to millions of people protesting his government, Erdog an had claimed that he had millions of supporters whom he hardly kept home from challenging the protesters on the street. In the trial, the slogan was sentenced for appearing next to a picture of Erdog an and a picture of loads of money in shoeboxes. In its decision, the court claimed that by bringing these pictures and the expression together, suspects tried to create the impression that the president unlawfully obtained millions of money and hid this amount in shoeboxes. The court’s decision that depicted corruption as an insult confirmed Erdog an’s statements on fake phone calls and established Erdog an’s claims as “facts.” This case is not alone in making a statement on what has actually happened in a controversial event. In another trial, a lawyer, who wrote a petition to appeal for his client’s case of insulting the president, was accused of insulting the president. According to the indictment prepared by Ankara West Courthouse Chief Public Prosecutor’sOffice, the lawyer had stated in his petition, “in the corruption operations the phone records of AKP Chairman and Prime Minister Erdog an revealed how he stole (sıfırlamak) millions of Turkish Lira and how he engaged in corrupt relations.”The public prosecutor then accused the lawyer of insulting Erdog an with this sentence (Odatv, 2018). Once again, a statement was being made on what the “facts”regarding Erdog an’s involvement in corruption are. In another example related to the 2014 Soma mine disaster–the biggest mine disaster in Turkey’s history that killed over 300 miners–an insult case was opened when a Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 787 journalist criticized Erdog an on a live TV show for slapping a family member of a miner. Shortly after the disaster, Erdog an had visited the town of Soma, and it was reported that during his visit, he had slapped someone in the face by saying, “if you boo the prime minister, you get slapped in the face.”All journalists witnessing the incident had been fired, and addressing the incident had become taboo. The journalist, who criticized Erdog an live on TV, was accused of insulting the president. By categorizing the criticisms of the slap as an insult, the courts thus claimed that Erdog an had not slapped someone in the face after the Soma mine disaster. Overall, decisions such as these showed how courts used their authority to claim that associations established between Erdog an, on the one hand, and corruption and violence, on the other, are not factual. They confirmed Erdog an’s claims regarding what is factual and what is not. Moreover, they labelled alternative claims on truth as unfounded allegations intended to debase the president. We suggest that through Article 299, courts attempted to establish facts about Erdog an, and in these facts, they presented him as someone who had no involvement in corruption and crime and who therefore cannot and should not be criticized. Article 299 proceedings thus not only rendered Erdog an immune to criticism but also sacralized him as an impeccable leader matching his depiction in popular culture and political campaigns as “a man of the people”,a“lover of God”, and “light of hope for the millions”(Tas, 2015, Karakaya, 2020, Dallı, 2014). Claiming Charisma: Clemency and Amnesty On July 29, 2016, following the coup attempt of July 15, Erdog an declared that he pardoned “all those who engaged in all kinds of disrespectful behaviour towards [his] personality”and withdrew all existing cases through this a one-time-only amnesty. In Turkey, governments traditionally saw amnesty as an “emergency button”against the clogging of the system (Kocasakal, 2010) and used it as a mechanism in dealing with the overburdened criminal justice system and overcrowded prisons (Yıldırım and Kuyucu, 2017). In fact, with 157 amnesties since 1923, 11 of which were general amnesties, the country tops the world in the number of amnesties passed (Ankara Chamber of Commerce, 2004, Cengiz and Gazialem, 2000). After 2002, however, despite the drastic increase in the prison population, the AKP government strongly rejected amnesty in alleviating structural problems in the judiciary (Yıldırım and Kuyucu, 2017). Leading party members have repeatedly claimed that the state will no longer grant amnesty to criminals and that a new general amnesty is entirely out of the question. AKP’s approach stressed that the state can only “pardon”offences committed against itself—political crimes–and should not interfere when the criminal act concerns another person’s right to life or property. Scholars have interpreted this shift in policy as an indication of the end of the paternalistic state that forgives unfortunate citizens pushed to crime and of its replacement with an authoritarian retributive state that can effectively deal with a crime without recourse to extraordinary measures and therefore refuses to forgive offenders (Yıldırım and Kuyucu, 2017). The amnesty extended by Erdog an in 2016 signalled not the return of the paternalistic state but the emergence of Erdog an as the ruler with exceptional authority to pardon crimes. The media presented it to include all suspects of insulting the President. In 788 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) reality, however, the amnesty was granted only to those tried at civil justice courts. Because the crime regulated by Article 299 is not dependent on complaints, it did not include criminal court cases. In presenting the amnesty as inclusive of all suspects, Erdog an’s other moves highlighting his clemency played a crucial role. He invited students, who were arrested for insulting Erdog an and released a month later, to his residence for tea. Similarly, he called the world-renowned pianist Fazıl Say, who was prosecuted for attacking Muslims and had claimed Erdog an to be behind his trial upon his mother’s death. These acts were then framed in proponent outlets as “opening a path for ending social polarization”(Atilla, 2018). In some cases, Erdog an’s clemency was made conditional upon the fulfillment of tasks. Strikingly, these tasks were determined by Erdog an himself without reference to a law or legal documents. For instance, in the case of two 10-year-old children charged with insulting Erdog an on social media, the conditions to be pardoned were: memorizing the 10-stanza national anthem for one child and memorizing a 34-stanza poem by a conservative poet for the other. These two children were pardoned after proving they could read these poems by heart and apologising to Erdog an. Given this broader context of Erdog an’s clemency, we suggest that the amnesty extended to suspects of insult should be interpreted as indicating the end to the paternalistic state and its replacement, not only with a retributive but also a personalist power structure. Kirchheimer (1961) notes that clemency acts are deeply immersed in the structure of politics, its campaigns and strategies, its assumptions, and symbols. In particular, the extension of amnesty is a means of obtaining the foe’s submission in that the power holder asks the suspect to accept his authority to pardon. In the Turkish case, the amnesty extended in the context of insult cases when complemented with Erdog an’s other moves of clemency made it possible for Erdog an to claim the authority to pardon personally. Support for this argument is found in the claims of suspects who find Erdog an’s pardoning patronizing. Ayhan Erdog an, who was put on trial for insulting the President and remained under arrest for 55 days, wrote in a blog post that he finds the President’s claim to give amnesty once as “nerve-racking”. He asks, “if it is not disturbing for someone who legally should not actually be able to put people on trial for an insult to hold the status of pardoner.”(Erdog an, 2016). The decision to pardon is ultimately related to how a government seeks legitimacy. It gives the ruler enormous power in increasing its acceptance among specific constituencies (Yıldırım and Kuyucu, 2017). Especially during times of intense internal conflict and strife, states that are unable to pacify opponents can grant amnesty to those convicted from the opponent group to make coexistence with these groups possible. In the Turkish case, through acts of clemency, Erdog an sought insult suspects’acceptance of his authority as the ultimate ruler in the country and, by that means, pointed to his personality as the basis of legitimate rule in Turkey. Concluding Remarks This article suggests that the sudden jump in the number of insult proceedings in Turkey should be understood in the context of the personalist direction Turkey’s authoritarian turn took. Specifically, the revival of Article 299 works as a strategy in personalization Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 789 of power through the proceedings’capacity to curb dissent while sacralizing the ruler. This argument is based on our findings on four fronts. First, the Justice Ministry’s scrutiny over Article 299 proceedings disciplines law enforcement officers in prioritizing loyalty to Erdog an over judicial duties, thus working to curb dissent among officials. Second, penal measures enacted in the investigation and decision stages of the proceedings limit people’s tendency to make public claims on Erdog an, thus curbing dissent among citizens. Third, courts’authority to distinguish between insult and fact creates a new truth regime where Erdog an is rendered immune to criticism and described as an impeccable leader. Finally, the pardoning and clemency extended in insult proceedings allow Erdog an to claim his personality as the basis of legitimate rule in Turkey. In this manner, insult proceedings become a building block in manufacturing charisma as a new framework of legitimacy. The article’s contribution lies in bringing a political sociology perspective to the study of how legal processes are instrumentalized in authoritarian transition processes. The Turkish case presents that judicial proceedings’role often transcends the penalization of enemies. They carry the potential to restructure state-society relations in the symbolic sense and contribute to constructing a new framework of legitimacy for the regime. This finding advances contemporary political scientists’suggestion that coups lost their relevance in democratic backsliding processes. Adding specifically to the literature that highlights the use, abuse, and non-use of laws (Corrales, 2015) as an instrument of backsliding, we demonstrate that increasing insult proceedings is another method employed in transitions to personalist rule. While this article highlights the use of insult proceedings as a strategy in transitions to personalist rule, social implications of the law, including its success in convincing the society to accept charisma as a legitimate basis of the rule, remain an area for further investigation. Durkheim notes that there are different audiences for penal rituals and different responses to these rituals wherever a community is divided. Therefore, while “some will experience recognition, identity, and reinforcement, for others, the process will reveal coercion rather than authority, an alien power rather than shared belief.” (Garland, 1990). In Turkey, Article 299 proceedings are received in different ways by supporters and opponents of Erdog an. While the law unites his followers around his charisma, opponents perceive the proceedings as an instrument of coercion. Comparative research may inquire into contextual predictors of insult laws’success in making charisma a legitimate basis of the rule. Recently, decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and calls by UNESCO, OSCE, World Bank, and Secretary-General of the Council of Europe emphasized that offering special protection to the head of the state constitutes an apparent contradiction with democracy (Aslan, 2015; OSCE, 2017; Winfield and Mendoza, 2007). They pressed for abolishing laws that granted such protection, in response to which countries such as France and Italy took action by repealing the criminal defamation law (Guardian, 2013) or replacing the jail term with monetary fines (Browne, 2015). However, a reversed trend also appeared as countries such as Indonesia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and Czech Republic introduced or strengthened these laws (Reuters, 2015). In other places, such as Poland, where the law was exceptionally implemented and accepted as a dormant law, developments involved not the changes in the text of the law but its implementation. 790 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) Findings from the Turkish case, where the law regulating insults against the president was also dormant until Erdog an’s presidency, suggest that the developments in the latter two groups of countries should be understood in the context of a potential transition to personalist rule and the effort of manufacturing a new framework of legitimacy. In future explorations of autocratization, special attention may be paid to obsolete laws that acquire importance as penalization and legitimation devices. Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the financial support provided for this research by Göttingen University’s Lichtenberg Kolleg, and Humboldt University Institute for Social Science’s Research Lab “Constitutional Politics in Turkey II”. We are grateful to Ran Hirschl, Kriszta Kovacs, Sylvia von Steinsdorff, Ece Göztepe, Holly A Foster, Jelena Cupac, Hendrik Schopmans, Johannes Gerschewski, and Paul Joosse for their valuable comments on various stages of preparing this article. Earlier versions of the article were presented at the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, “Research Lab: Constitutional Politics in Turkey II”Workshop at Humboldt University, and the 2019 International Conference of Europeanists. We thank the participants for their comments. ORCID iD Irem Tuncer-Ebetürk https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5024-5725 References Akdeniz Y and Altıparmak K (2018) “Türkiye’de Can Çekisen Ifade Özgürlüg ü: OHAL’de Yazarlar, Yayıncılar ve Akademisyenlerle Ilgili Hak Ihlalleri”https://www.englishpen.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Turkey_Freedom_of_Expression_in_Jeopardy_TUR.pdf. Ankara Chamber of Commerce (2004) Affınıza sıgınıyorum, 5 July 2004. Available at: http://www. atonet.org.tr/yeni/index.php?p5198&l51. Aranca A (2015) “Kemal BaytasYazmadıg ıYazıiçin Ifadeye Çag rıldı”https://www.sozcu.com.tr/ 2015/gundem/kemal-baytas-yazmadigi-yazi-icin-ifadeye-cagrildi-941509/. Arslanalp M and Erkmen TD (2020) Mobile emergency rule in Turkey: Legal repression of protests during authoritarian transformation. Democratization 27: 947–969. Aslan M (2015) “Cumhurbaskanına hakaret suçu konusunda avukatlar ne diyorlar?”https://haberguncel.blogspot.com/2015/12/cumhurbaskanina-hakaret-sucu-konusunda-avukatlar-nediyor.html. AtaklıC (2018) “Kafasıbozulan ‘Erdog an’a hakaret etti’suçlamasıyapıyor”Korkusuz. May 21, 2018. Atilla T (2018) “CHP’nin Eylem Plani”Milliyet. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/yazarlar/talat-atilla/ chp-nin-eylem-plani-2755748/. Bakıner O (2017) How did we get here? Turkey’s slow shift to authoritarianism. In: Baser B and Öztürk AE (eds) Authoritarian Politics in Turkey: Elections, Resistance and the AKP. London: I.B. Tauris, 21–46. Barros R (2002) Constitutionalism and Dictatorship: Pinochet, the Junta, and the 1980 Constitution. Vol.4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baturo A (2014) Democracy, Dictatorship, and Term Limits. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bermeo N (2016) On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy 27(1): 5–19. Browne P (2015) “Yes, it’s still a crime to insult Italy’s president„The Local. https://www.thelocal. it/20150615/yes-its-still-a-crime-to-insult-the-president-in-italy. Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 791 BursalıC (2019) “Cumhurbaskanına hakaret davasına bakan hakime ‘yargılama asamalarınıbildirmedig i gerekçesiyle’sorusturma.”Independent Türkçe. https://www.independentturkish.com/ node/102386/haber/cumhurba%C5%9Fkan%C4%B1na-hakaret-davas%C4%B1na-bakanhakime-yarg%C4%B1lama-a%C5%9Famalar%C4%B1n%C4%B1-bildirmedi%C4%9Fi. Canduran H (2015) “Cumhurbaskanına hakaret suçu konusunda avukatlar ne diyorlar?”https:// haberguncel.blogspot.com/2015/12/cumhurbaskanina-hakaret-sucu-konusunda-avukatlar-nediyor.html. Cengiz M and Gazialem Ö (2000) “‘Türkiye’de Dünden Bugüne Af.”Ankara Barosu I nsan Hakları Komisyonu, I nsan HaklarıDizisi 6. CNNTürk (2016) “Hakim Murat Aydın Trabzona AtanmasınıSürgün olarak Niteledi”https:// www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/hakim-murat-aydin-trabzona-atanmasini-surgun-olarak-niteledi. CNNTürk (2020) “AnasınıfıÖg retmeni CumhurbaskanıErdog an’a Hakaret Ettig i Iddiasıyla Görevden AlındıSon Dakika Haberleri I nternet.”2020. https://www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/ anasinifi-ogretmeni-cumhurbaskani-erdogana-hakaret-ettigi-iddiasiyla-gorevden-alindi. Corrales J (2015) Autocratic legalism in Venezuela. Journal of Democracy 26(2): 37–51. DallıCM (2014) “Milletin AdamıSerisi: Basbakan Yesil Sahalarda.”https://www.academia.edu/ 12206411/Milletin_Adam%C4%B1_Serisi_Ba%C5%9Fbakan_Ye%C5%9Fil_Sahalarda. Demir Ö (2017) Uygulamada Cumhurbaskanına Hakaret Suçu ve Ilgili Mevzuat. https:// halitcelenk.org/sites/default/files/odul-alan-yapitlar/2018-birincilik-odulu-ozge-demir.pdf Durkheim E (1965) The elementary forms of the religious life [1912]. na, 1965. Eliade M (1959) The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion (Vol. 81). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Erdog an A (2016) Cumhurbaskanının Hakaret Affına Dair Içeriden Bir Deg erlendirme. Bianet. https://bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/177435-cumhurbaskaninin-hakaret-affina-dair-iceriden-birdegerlendirme. Esen B and Gümüsçü S(2016) Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly 37(9): 1581–1606. Garland D (1990) Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Studies in Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Geddes B (2004) Minimum-Winning Coalitions and Personalization in Authoritarian Regimes. In: In Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago. Geertz C (1977) Centers, kings, and charisma: Reflections on the symbolics of power. In: BenDavid J and Clark TN (eds) Culture and its Creators: Essays in Honor of Edward Shils. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 150–171. Gerschewski J (2013) The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression, and Co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization 20(1): 13–38. Ginsburg T and Moustafa T (eds) (2008) Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Gomez J (2006) Restricting free speech: The impact on opposition parties in Singapore. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies 23(1): 105–131. Guardian (2013) “Insulting the French President No Longer a Criminal Offence | France | The Guardian.”2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/insulting-french-presidentcriminal-offence. Guardian (2016) “1,845 Erdog an Insult Cases Opened in Turkey since 2014. http://www. theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/02/turkeys-justice-minister-defends-allowing-1845-insultcases-to-go-ahead. Habercem (2016, 06/06) “Hangi SavcıNereye Gitti?”http://www.habercem.com/hangi-savcinereye-gitti-_d126700.html. 792 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) Hakan A (2016) Özal'a Alismak ile Erdogan'a Alismak. Hurriyet. June 1. https://www.hurriyet. com.tr/yazarlar/ahmet-hakan/ozala-alismak-ile-erdogana-alismak-40112082 Heper M and Çınar M (1996) Parliamentary government with a strong president: The post-1989 turkish experience. Political Science Quarterly 111(3): 483–502. Joosse P (2014) “Becoming a God: Max Weber and the Social Construction of Charisma https:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468795X14536652. Joosse P (2017) Max Weber’s disciples: Theorizing the charismatic aristocracy. Sociological Theory 35(4): 334–358. Joosse P (2018) Countering Trump: Toward a theory of charismatic counter-roles. Social Forces 97(2): 921–944. Karakaya Y (2020) The conquest of hearts: The central role of Ottoman nostalgia within contemporary Turkish populism. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 8(2): 125–157 Kelemen RD and Pech L (2019) The uses and abuses of constitutional pluralism: Undermining the rule of Law in the name of constitutional identity in Hungary and Poland. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 21(2019): 59–74. Kirchheimer O (1961) Political Justice: The Use of Legal Procedure for Political Ends. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kızık S (2015) Hakaret! Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/serdar-kizik/ hakaret–320575. Klare KE (1998) Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism. South African Journal on Human Rights 14(1): 146–188. Kocasakal U (2010) (No title). In: Kizirog lu SK (eds) Türk Hukukunda Ve Karsılastırılmalı Hukukta Af Sempozyumu. Ankara, Turkey: Es Yayınları,93–98. Kohler-Hausmann J (2015) Guns and butter: The welfare state, the carceral state, and the politics of exclusion in the postwar United States. The Journal of American History 102(1): 87–99. Lüküslü D (2013). Necessary conformism: An art of living for young people in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey 48: 79–100. Landry P (2008) The institutional diffusion of courts in China: Evidence from survey data. In: Ginsburg T and Moustafa T (eds) Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 207–234. March AF (2003) State ideology and the legitimation of authoritarianism: The case of post-soviet Uzbekistan 1. Journal of Political Ideologies 8(2): 209–232. Marshall DA (2010) Temptation, tradition, and taboo: A theory of sacralization. Sociological Theory 28(1): 64–90. Massoud MF (2013) Law’s Fragile State: Colonial, Authoritarian, and Humanitarian Legacies in Sudan. NewYork, USA: Cambridge University Press. Moustafa T (2007) The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt. NewYork, USA: Cambridge University Press. Moustafa T (2014) Law and courts in authoritarian regimes. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10: 281–299. Mouzelis N (1985) On the concept of populism: Populist and clientelist modes of incorporation in semiperipheral polities. Politics & Society 14(3): 329–348. Mynet (2017, 27/11) “Bilgi’liler Akademisyen Zeynep Sayın Balıkçıog lu’na sahip çıkıyor”https:// www.mynet.com/bilgililer-akademisyen-zeynep-sayin-balikciogluna-sahip-cikiyor-110102503145. Miller R (2005) Collective Criminality, Sexual Deviance, and Constructing a National Criminal Law in Turkey. Navaro-Yashin Y (2020) Faces of the state: Secularism and public life in Turkey. In: Faces of the State. Princeton University Press. Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 793 NTV (2015, 13/03) “Twitter’dan devlet adamlarına hakaret edenler için özel ekip kuruldu.”https:// www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/twitterdan-devlet-adamlarina-hakaret-edenler-icin-ozel-ekip-kuruldu, pAMoP3COI0mFYBK7TaGxOQ. Odatv (2018, 11/01) “Temyize Giden Avukata Cumhurbaskanına Hakaret Davası”https://odatv. com/temyize-giden-avukata-cumhurbaskanina-hakaret-davasi-01111800.html. Öktem K and Akkoyunlu K (2016) Exit from democracy: Illiberal governance in Turkey and beyond. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 16(4): 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14683857.2016.1253231. Omelicheva MY (2016) Authoritarian legitimation: Assessing discourses of legitimacy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey 35(4): 481–500. Önderog lu E (2016) “Üç Cumhurbaskanının Hakaret Davaları, Mahkumiyetler ve Uyarılar”http:// bianet.org/bianet/medya/171734-uc-cumhurbaskaninin-hakaret-davalari-mahkumiyetler-ve-uyarilar. OSCE (2017) “Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study.”2017. https://www.osce.org/fom/303181. Över D (2021) Democratic backsliding and the media: The convergence of news narratives in Turkey. Media, Culture & Society 43(2): 343–358. Özbudun E (1988) The Status of the president of the republic under the turkish constitution of 1982: Presidentialism or parliamentarism? In: Heper M and Evin A (eds) State, Democracy and the Military: Turkey in the 1980’s. Berlin, NY: de Gruyter, 37–46. Özgan O (2016) “O Hakim TanıdıkÇıktıYenisafak. https://www.yenisafak.com/gundem/o-hakimtanidik-cikti-2444713. Parslow J (2015) Lawyers on the Barricades: The Politics of Exceptional Law in Turkey 19301980. Unpublished dissertation submitted to the University of Washington. Parslow J (2018) Lawyers against the law: The challenge of Turkish lawyering associations. Anthropology of the Middle East 13(2): 26–42. Peerenboom R (2002) China’s Long March Toward Rule of Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Preechasilpakul S and Streckfuss D (2008) Ramification and re-sacralization of the lèse majesté law in Thailand. 10th International Conference on Thai Studies,9–11. Rajah J (2012) Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore. NewYork, USA: Cambridge University Press. Reuters (2015) “Indonesia Government Aims to Outlaw Insulting President, Sparks Uproar”https:// www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-politics/indonesia-government-aims-to-outlaw-insultingpresident-sparks-uproar-idUSKCN0QA0YN20150805. Sadurski W (2019) Poland’s constitutional breakdown. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shils E (1965) Charisma, order, and status. American Sociological Review 30(2): 199–213. Sim C (2011) The Singapore chill: Political defamation and the normalization of a statist rule of Law. Pac. Rim L. & Pol’yJ20: 319. Siyasi Haber (2018) http://siyasihaber4.org/gazeteci-husnu-mahalliye-4-yil-1-ay-hapis-cezasi. Slater D (2003) Iron cage in an iron fist: Authoritarian institutions and the personalization of power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics 6(1): 81–101. Somer M (2016) Understanding Turkey’s democratic breakdown: Old vs. new and indigenous vs. global authoritarianism. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 16(4): 481–503. Sözcü (2015) “Cumhurbaskanı’na Hakaret Davasında Sasırtan Karar”https://www.sozcu.com.tr/ 2015/gunun-icinden/cumhurbaskanina-hakaret-davasinda-sasirtan-karar-932532/. Stockmann D and Gallagher ME (2011) Remote control: How the Media sustain authoritarian rule in China. Comparative Political Studies 44(4): 436–467. Tamer M (2015) “Demirel’in mahkemeye verdig i tek gazeteci ben miyim?”http://www.milliyet. com.tr/yazarlar/meral-tamer/demirel-in-mahkemeye-verdigi-tek-gazeteci-miyim–2075936/. 794 Social & Legal Studies 31(5) TasH (2015) Turkey–from tutelary to delegative democracy. Third World Quarterly 36(4): 776– 791. Teksen MG (2015) “Cumhurbaskanına hakaret suçu konusunda avukatlar ne diyorlar?”https:// haberguncel.blogspot.com/2015/12/cumhurbaskanina-hakaret-sucu-konusunda-avukatlar-nediyor.html. Tziarras Z (2018) Erdoganist authoritarianism and the ‘new’Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 18(4): 593–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2018.1540408 Wacquant L (2009) Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. In: Punishing the Poor. Duke University Press. Weber M (1968) On Charisma and Institution Building. Vol. 322. London, UK: University of Chicago Press Winfield RN and Mendoza K (2007) The abolition movement: Decriminalizing defamation and insult laws. Comm. Law 25: 7. Yeniakit (2017, 22/2) “Simdi de Bylockçuya Adli Kontrol Verdi”https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/ haber/simdi-de-bylockcuya-adli-kontrol-verdi-282217.html. YıldırımI and Kuyucu T (2017) Neoliberal penality and state legitimacy: Politics of amnesty in Turkey during the AKP period. Law & Society Review 51(4): 859–894. Yılmaz Z (2020) Erdog an’s presidential regime and strategic legalism: Turkish democracy in the twilight zone. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 20(2): 265–287. Zeit (2016, 07/07) “Recep Tayyip Erdog an DavalıHalk”https://www.zeit.de/zeit-magazin/leben/ 2016-07/tuerkiye-recep-tayyip-erdogan-hakaret-dava. Över and Tuncer-Ebetürk 795