When is Protest Repression Acceptable? Public Attitudes toward Protest Bans in Istanbul

While there is a great deal of research that studies the relationship between repression and mobilization – that is, the repression-dissent nexus – this research presents conflicting findings when it comes to effects of repression on mobilization. Existing literature demonstrates that while repression can quell protest mobilization, it can also lead to more people joining in the protests, ie. backlash mobilization. In explaining these dynamics, newer studies have pointed to the importance of public opinion, underlining how the way outsiders perceive protests and their repression might matter when it comes to the repression-dissent nexus. They also emphasized that protest repression can be perceived differently and hence have differential effects depending on the identity of the outsiders. While incorporating the opinions of those who are not necessarily part of the protests in analysing the repression-dissent nexus, this literature, however, does not differentiate between different forms of protest repression, focusing mainly on police violence. In this paper, emphasising the varied mechanisms through which protest repression can happen, we hypothesize that the public might perceive legal forms of repression differently than police repression. We specifically wonder how the enactment of a legal ban prior to a protest can shape public attitudes towards repression and the repressed. We explore this question through the case of Turkey where in the last decade under a profound process of authoritarian transformation protests have faced increasing and varied forms of repression. Notably, protest bans, which are legal forms of repression issued by provincial authorities, constituted an important part of this repression. In this paper, using an original survey and a survey experiment we conducted in Istanbul during 2020 with a sample of 1003 people, we explore how the public in Istanbul perceives the right to protest and its repression, specifically asking whether different forms of repression affect the public differentially. How does the enactment of a prior legal ban shape public attitudes toward protests and their repression? Do these public reactions differ according to the issue or the organizers of the protest? Do they vary according to the political identifications of the respondents? What kind of justifications for repression resonate with the public?  Our results show that while most citizens admit the importance of the right to protest, they also support its limitation for various reasons. There is a great deal of cross-partisan acceptance when it comes to repression of protests via protest bans. The “emergency” justifications used by officials to limit the right to protest, such as public security, public health, and public sensibilities resonate with the public. Yet we also encounter significant variations in public opinion. The issue/organizers of protests as well as the partisan identity of respondents matter. This paper contributes to studies of how law, protests, and authoritarian governance interact, using original data from a country of the global south.