The Role of Societal Legitimacy in Policy-Making Processes: A Discussion About Affective Politics
The other day, one of my teachers asked, “How do we feel safe as a citizen?” and I answered with the first thing that came to my mind “By the laws.” It was true on the paper, but she requested another perspective for me to look through. Then she repeated the question and gave me the glimpse of the system of thought: “I mean how do we feel safe?” This memory kept coming to my mind when I was doing research on Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention and it enabled me to capture a wider perspective. Many people who worked on the Istanbul Convention tried to underline the necessity of it by addressing the unprotected -vulnerable- parts of society and claimed that the international obligation of law is not harmful and controversial but rather meaningful and functional. Therefore, in this article, I aim to analyze not the reasons but the feelings behind the withdrawal. To do so, I will elaborate on the importance of societal legitimacy, the notion of fear -the theory of Butler- and, overall, feelings as mechanisms to regulate behavior in society.
The feeling of safety is much more complex and bigger than laws can solely establish because laws are just one of the administrative tools that the governing authority has a certain power over to regulate and operate the behavior in society such as institutions, cultural values, discourse channels and communicative media. It can be said that laws are ensuring a certain level of protection, however it is already a part of the monopoly game. All these administrative systems may eventually address different segments of society in unequal ways. In my discourse analysis of Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention, I observed a similar kind of social division and kept asking myself: How did it happen that a proposed solution to a societal problem—for the increasing need of a greater protection for a segment of society—was perceived by another segment as a threat to cultural and social values, and as something that could harm the family structure and, overall, the society as a whole?
The İstanbul Convention is an obligation of law that “acknowledges that women and girls who suffer from gender-based violence can seek protection in another state when their own fails to prevent persecution or to offer adequate protection and effective remedies.” (2015, pp.83) Therefore this convention basically acknowledges that a person's right to live freely and safely comes before everything else: nation, social and cultural values, regular obligations, political actions, etc. This is beyond politics! “Although much of the political life is anchored on parties, governmental institutions and other explicitly political organizations, a great part of the political action takes place outside these boundaries” (Goldfarb, 2012, p. 29) To sum up, every matter of one’s life is a matter of politics. If we evaluate the convention in its historical context, Turkey's position as the first signatory can be interpreted not so much as a commitment to human rights but rather it is a political move to join in the European Union. Even though the emotional and cultural responses of society are being taken into consideration, political motives remain the primary driving force behind the decision-making process. In addition to that, some European countries such as Romania and Poland gone through a similar contradiction with the IC just as Turkey did in 2020, observed as “the authorities attempt to marginalize the convention” (Çoban Keneş & Kocabay-Şener, 2023, pp.156) Therefore, this historical interpretation is guiding me to clear my point that the authority is constructing the societal legitimacy by addressing the feelings of society to take the action that serves their political direction.
Judith Butler had an interview about their recently published book “Who's Afraid of Gender?” and theorized fear as a new tool to operate people. They mainly discussed the hate messages and threats they received in Brazil as people accused them to represent “something called gender ideology”, how they have been accused as threatening people’s natural beings, serving to capitalism, supporting pedophilia, etc. They took what they experienced not as a personal but rather a collective experience that has a meaning in public life which was the ongoing notion of fear and the people’s feeling of being threatened:
“And what I ended up concluding was that the anti-gender ideology movement gathers and incites a wide range of anxieties people have about their lives, about the durability and persistence of their way of life. I think actually that their lives are being threatened by capitalism and climate destruction and war and new ways of devastating unions and labour conditions.
We can name many reasons for why people are living with such a radical sense of instability. But these right-wing movements appeal to those anxieties and fears. They also stoke and strengthen those anxieties and fears. And they give people a way to blame migrants or critical race theory or gender ideology for their felt sense of insecurity and fear.” (CBC Books, 2025)
Judith Butler suggests that people are often mobilized by the fears and anxieties shaped by how they understand the world around them. This idea helps explain why Türkiye withdrew from the Istanbul Convention. Just as Butler’s theory elaborates the demonization of gender as an ideological framework, The İstanbul Convention is also demonized by conservative groups and internalized as a regulation that will damage the society. While the Convention was originally signed to protect vulnerable groups—such as women, children, and any person who seeks protection regardless of their identity—from gender-based violence, its meaning and purpose were perceived very differently by other some parts of society. “Immediately annul this convention, which aims to destroy our family structure and is far from our values, our faith, and our traditions. Just as you approved it swiftly, annul it in the same way. This responsibility lies with all of you; this burden is on all of you. Revoke this convention—one that legitimizes adultery and undermines our family structure—as quickly as you signed it.” (Diyanet-Sen, 2020) Just as the general president of Diyanet-Sen, Mehmet Bayraktar, wrote for news page, many conservatives viewed the Convention as a threat to traditional family values. They believed it undermined the role of the family and portrayed men as potential criminals simply because of their gender. Over time, even some people who supported the Convention began to feel that their cultural values were being questioned or attacked, largely because of the strong criticisms coming from conservative voices.
In terms of violating the cultural codes, one should address the immunity of family and privacy in the Turkish culture. Gender-based violence occurs in the private sphere is a “private” matter according to Turkish culture but as a feminist thought what is private is also public. Especially the private is dangerous as the individual is under a roof with their perpetrator. Women do not have the protection they need in the streets as well, but when they are under their own roof it is considered the safest they can be possible both from the eyes of public and by the laws. My question here is how a convention that protects women from the ones under her roof can be applied to a culture regards family as sacred and the private sphere as inviolable, shaped by the normative thought that familial matters should remain confined within the family unit. As a result, with the increasing voice of conservatives aimed to address the anxieties of Turkish people, Turkey withdrew from the convention. The convention is reasonable enough and necessary for many matters, however societal legitimacy and cultural implementations are must and prior. For this point, we assert that to enable the application of law in terms of protecting everyone’s right, we must refer to societal legitimacy and how people conceive the İstanbul Convention. Without social acceptance, it is not accomplishable to regulate a certain law, at least in the desired way.
To conclude, the decision to withdraw from the İstanbul Convention cannot be interpreted solely by the legal considerations and political formation but rather related with affective politics. To establish and regulate any kind of policy, the opposition should address and resonate with society’s sense of security and stability. It is necessary to deconstruct the positioning of the convention as a threat to social values and cultural norms. Therefore, one must develop discourses that can counterbalance the fear-driven affective politics fueled by the authoritative power to reconceptualize it. Policies supporting gender equality and women’s rights should be socially embraced not merely as an outside effect such as Western culture but as measures that contribute to the welfare of society and, in contradict with conservative claims, support the structure of family dynamics for new generations. The necessity of greater protection rises from the reliance on the written laws that can be manipulated by those in power for any kind of political purpose. Establishing societal legitimacy creates the basis for the application of an international agreement that can create a certain feeling of safety in social life- regardless of the place where the person feels unsafe, public or private sphere- without being tied to any political ideology, party, or institution.
Bibliography
CBC Books. (2025, Jan 10). Judith Butler breaks down why people fear gender. CBC.
Çoban Keneş, H., & Kocabay‑Şener, N. (2023). İstanbul Sözleşmesi tartışmalarında açık muhalefetten zemin kaydırmaya farklı tutumlar: Sabah ve Sözcü örnekleri. Fe Dergi, 15(2), 153–197.
Diyanet-Sen. (2020, May 17). The Istanbul Convention must be annulled before it destroys the family.
Goldfarb, J. (2012). Reinventing political culture: The power of culture versus the culture of power. Polity Press.
Butler, J. (2021). Who’s afraid of gender? Polity Press.
