Mediated Deliberation in Social Media: The Case of The Constitutional Referendum in Turkey

A liberal democratic regime is characterised by constitutionality, participation and rational choice. In ‘ideal-type’ democratic societies, it is suggested the certain functions of the communication media: the ‘watchdog’ role of journalism, informed citizens of what is happening around them, being a platform for public political discourse, and serving as a channel for the advocacy of political viewpoints. If these functions are performed adequately, it will be assumed that a real ‘public sphere’ exists. In short, democracy presumes ‘an open state in which people are allowed to participate in decision-making, and are given access to the media, and other information networks. In this context, it is thought that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have become the principal sources of news for people all over the world, and the tools of political freedom (McNair, 2018). Deliberative democracy is based on a normative ideal in which free and equal citizens publicly exchange their reasons with each other to reaching a consensus about the political system. It means that the voice of each counts equally and that each participant has an equal opportunity to influence the outcome (Shorten, 2016). Gastil (2008) draws attention to the concept of mediated deliberation. This includes the media's responsibility for identifying a broad range of solutions on the public issues and providing diverse perspectives. In this context, we will focus on the constitutional referendum of 2017 held in Turkey. Turkey’s ruling party (AKP) introduced a constitutional reform bill that would shift governing system from parliamentary to presidential. In the wake of this, a constitutional referendum was held throughout Turkey on 16 April 2017, which aims to have the Turkish citizens approve 18 proposed amendments to the Turkish constitution. During the referendum campaign, the public debate about the proposed constitutional changes was the weak and not related to the contents of the package. In particular, the political conversations and discussions were limited to the polemics and slogans accusing of each other and did not allow figuring out the core of the content. In order to evaluate the deliberative contributions of social media, we will analyse Twitter coverage of the constitutional amendment debate for two months from February 2017 until April 2017, over these categories: the balanced mix of viewpoints, diversity of voices, expert reporting, and media bias. This study analyses how the social media shape the public debate. We will examine the Twitter accounts of the established media organisations such as CNN Türk, Hürriyet, Sabah, Milliyet, Cumhuriyet, Birgün, and the alternative media in order to reveal mediated deliberation in the context of the theories of mediated public debate and digital politics. Furthermore, we will attempt to explore the potential contributions of Twitter to mediated deliberation and to analyse whether the tweets of the media organisations include a deliberative and pluralistic perspective on the Constitutional Amendment.