The Populism-Elite Paradox: Is Erdoğan Anti-Elite by Discourse, but Elite by Performance?

Are populist leaders truly opposed to elites, or do they represent a unique type of elite authority themselves? This paper provides a clear response: populist leaders are not outside threats to elite governance but key participants in the processes of elite restructuring and reinforcement, especially in the digital era. Employing Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a case study, the paper illustrates how populism, in a non-democratic context, can function more as a method for generating a new ruling elite than as a break with elite politics, all while presenting an image of anti-elitism. Utilizing Ostiguy’s socio-cultural model of populism, the analysis indicates that Erdoğan’s leadership exhibits a dual dynamic. Discursively, he builds a moralized contrast between the "genuine populace" and the corrupt secular, technocratic, and Westernized elites. In practice, his principle is based on the establishment of a closely knit elite network made up of party officials, government bureaucrats, religious leaders, supportive business factions, and media figures aligned with his agenda. Theoretically, it enhances the idea of populist elite development, contending that populism acts as a means of legitimizing elites instead of rejecting them. By addressing the populism-elite paradox, the study adds to discussions on digital leadership, democratic accountability, and the evolution of political elites in modern democracies.