The Authoritarian Social Contract: Psychological Foundations of Citizen Denunciations in Non-Democratic Regimes

Denunciations are not relics of twentieth-century totalitarianism; they have been revived as essential tools of governance in contemporary non-democracies. This paper examines the social and psychological foundations of authoritarian support by focusing on mass denunciations in Turkey, facilitated by a centralized reporting ecosystem built around the digital petitioning platform CİMER, which absorbs millions of submissions annually. Situating the Turkish case within broader debates on authoritarian resilience, the paper shows how engagement with reporting mechanisms both reproduces and normalizes authoritarian rule, not through coercion alone, but through psychological orientations, emotional rewards, and identity-based narratives. The paper advances a new theoretical and empirical framework for studying denunciations in contemporary autocracies. Building on Kalyvas’s (2006) demand–supply logic and Dimitrov’s (2014) quasi–social contract of informational exchange, it conceptualizes denunciation practices as emerging at the intersection of repression, co-optation, and legitimation. From above, the state mobilizes denunciation through moralized, divisive, and fear-based narratives. They cultivate what we call authoritarian conditioning: a discursive process that primes citizens to view reporting as a civic duty grounded in patriotism and moral obligation. This appeal is not merely rhetorical; it is institutionalized in judicial and bureaucratic practices that reward in-group members through responsiveness and protection while exposing out-groups to scrutiny and punishment. High levels of responsiveness create a reinforcing loop: when citizens see their grievances, ideological or service-related, addressed swiftly, they are encouraged to engage further with the state. From below, engagement with reporting mechanisms generates a sense of responsive empowerment: a feeling of validation and inclusion rooted in perceived problem-solving, protection from bureaucratic misconduct, and the emotional experience of being heard by the state. This affective dimension channels both ideological and personal grievances into participation, sustaining the authoritarian social contract. Methodologically, the paper employs a multi-level research design. Top-down dynamics are examined through discourse analysis of presidential speeches. Meso-level insights are drawn from expert interviews with judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, and trade unionists who detail how denunciations are processed and operationalized. It also includes the analysis of legal and policy texts. Bottom-up perspectives derive from semi-structured interviews with victims of denunciations and users of CİMER, revealing patterns of trust, entitlement, frustration, and emotional gratification. To further corroborate these mechanisms, a cross-national survey experiment in Russia, China, India, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam assesses how non-political characteristics of reported individuals shape citizens’ willingness to denounce and their acceptance of reporting practices. Our results highlight several psychological mechanisms underlying citizen reporting. The reporting system fosters a highly personalized relationship with authority, with many citizens believing that their petitions reach President Erdoğan directly, reinforcing clientelist expectations and entitlement. At the same time, denunciations are frequently driven by personal grievances, ressentiment, and the desire to “let off steam.” These motivations are reframed in ideological terms to heighten state responsiveness and signal loyalty, demonstrating how emotional and psychological processes underpin tolerance for repression and participation in it. The paper demonstrates how psychological orientations and everyday participatory practices sustain authoritarian rule, offering a framework for understanding the mass appeal of authoritarianism beyond coercion.