Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Government of the Russian Federation

National Research University

"Higher School of Economics"

The Department of Public Policy

Master Thesis

Protest Publics in Authoritarian Regimes: Defining New Democratic Practices (Cases of Turkey 2013-2015 and Russia 2011-2015)

Master Student

Tatiana Davtyan (Zagumennaya)

(Full Name)

Thesis Advisor

PH.D of Political Science,

Dmitry Gennadievich Zaytsev

(Degree, Occupation, Full name)

Moscow, 2016

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. Concepts and Theoretical Scheme

1.1 Defining the Social Movement Theory

1.2 Concept of Protest Publics

Chapter 2. Protest Publics in Russia and Turkey

2.1 Protest Publics in Turkey in 2013

2.2 Protest Publics in Russia (2011-2015)

Chapter 3. Political Changes in Russia and Turkey: Growth of Authoritarian Tendencies and Appearance of New Democratic Practices

3.1. Political Changes in Turkey

3.2. Political Changes in Russia

Chapter 4. Actors and Factors of Political Changes in Russia and Turkey (2011-2015)

4.1 Factors of Political Changes in Turkey

4.2 Factors of Political Changes in Russia

4.3 Actors of political changes in Russia and Turkey

Conclusion

Bibliography



Introduction

arab spring protest public

This paper is an attempt to make a contribution to research of a new phenomenon protest publics, which has shown its worth especially during the Arab spring. Moreover, current term paper is a part of HSE research project (led by PhD in Political Science Dmitriy G. Zaytsev) devoted to the study of protests around the world. Mass political protests of recent years, starting with the Arab Spring in 2010-2011 when protesters swept the Middle East and North Africa and up to the latest developments in Ukraine can become not only a factor but also an actor of political changes in modern polities. Once emerged, protests go on and preserve their influence on political changes in the United States and Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Turkey, Egypt, Thailand and many other countries all over the world. This allows some researchers to talk about the emergence of a new phenomenon - the phenomenon of protest groups of citizens or protest publics. (Anufriev A.I., Zaytsev D.G., 2016)

Literature Review

In order to investigate the topic from different angles, to make a complete picture of the protests and to find out gap in the literature that current work is supposed to fill, a great variety of literature was used. It can be divided into two parts: general theoretic literature about protest publics and social movements and the literature which contains factological material on protests in the Middle East countries. The last one can be divided into three groups by linguistic principle, I appealed to the sources in English, Turkish and Russian.

Protest publics are becoming not only factors but also actors of political changes in modern polities that require clarification of the existing methodological approaches and tools for political change research, and the role of the different drivers (actors and factors) in this process.

Articles “Mass political protest: problems of conceptualization and methodology of analysis” (Zaytsev D., 2014) written by D.Zaytsev and «Protest Public as a Social Actor: from mosaic of "issue based groups" to the unity of "the other world possible"» (Belyaeva N., 2014) by N. Belyaeva can be considered as a basis for our research design. N. Belyaeva in her work is exploring theoretical foundations of perceiving self-organized publics as collective social actors with their unique features and capacities. Author claims that it is impossible to consider mass protests appeared at the beginning of 21st century in the framework of the concept of social movement, consequently, she proposed the concept of protest publics, which can be considered as one phenomenon as those mass street actions been driven by different reasons, addressing different targets, have a lot of common features. (Belyaeva N., 2014) Actually, current term paper attempt to deep research of the phenomenon of protest publics.

D. Zaytsev proposed a methodological model, for analyzing of protest publics' contribution into mechanism of political changes using following parameters: the role of activeness of protest publics in comparison with other factors of political changes; the extent of protest publics `consolidation (uses in current paper) ; the extent of political autonomy of protest publics; the extent of protest public's impact on situational changes; the extent of protest public's impact on policy changes; the extent of protest public's impact on institutional changes. The synthesis of two methodological approaches - actor and institutional - enables to retrace impact of collective subjects of political process on political changes. (Zaytsev D., 2014)

As far as other authors, despite the fact that there is a great variety of researches and literature on protests, few authors are trying to understand their impact on political changes. Social movement theory considers protests as internal phenomenon not as driver of political changes. (Tilly and Tarrow) Usually researchers in the framework of social movement theory study reasons of protests, social structure, goals of protesters, resources and do not pay attention to how protests change democratic practices and institutions.

Democratization theories do not consider protests as actors which may influence on political changes. Within the framework of modernization theory democratization seen as one of the processes along with the secularization, urbanization and industrialization as well as national and industrial revolution without isolation of the special role of civil actors. Particular importance was given to the impact on the democratization of social structures and institutions (the market economy, universal education, middle class etc.)

Donatella Della Porta (Della Porta D., 2014) in her work “Mobilizing for Democracy” possesses a detailed theoretical framework that seeks to explain why mobilization from below produces different outcomes. In this book mass protests are researched in the framework of democratization theory and social movement concept. This book adopts a historical comparative approach to systematically investigate the circumstances and processes that enable `democratization from below', or democratic reforms moved by non-institutional actors. (Della Porta D., 2014) Donatella Della Porta raised the question of the role of the protest movements in the democratization process.

As a result, we propose to talk not about the role of protest movements but about influence of protest publics. Moreover, in practice, protests often do not lead to democratization but to exactly the reverse or simply unexpected processes.

It is worth mentioning that articles of such authors as Gezici A., Hatem Ete, Yayla A., Holliday, J., Shah, A., Volkov D., and other scholars contributed to the collecting of factological material and description of the main events happened in the scope of protests in Turkey and Russia.

Research design

Consequently, I would like to raise the research problem of protest publics' role as a driver of political changes in authoritarian regimes and to answer the following research question: how protest publics in authoritarian regimes managed to influence on political changes in countries.

The topic of current master thesis and raised research problem are extremely relevant as in modern globalizing world we faced up with the new phenomena of mass protest events which were already happening in many places before - in Arab World -Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya, and in Europe. As such phenomenon is wide-spread it is necessary to research it and investigate its influence on political changes in countries.

Research goal is to define the role of protest publics in the mechanism of political changes in authoritarian regimes. While reaching this goal we need:

- To prove that protests in Turkey and Russia can be considered as protest publics;

- To define political changes that occurred in Turkey and Russia in the period 2011-2015;

- To define actors and factors that lead to political changes in countries;

- To prove the role of protest publics as “democratic innovators”.

Methodology

As far as methodology is concerned, in order to perform the tasks and reach the goal of the research we will use comparative analysis and interview. Interview is supposed to be obtained with experts from Turkey and Russia studying protest movements that will provide us with independent view on conducting research.

In the first chapter we will concentrate mostly on theoretical aspects of the research. By examining the group of literature on political science and public policy I would like to introduce some basic theoretical concepts of the theme such as definition of what protest publics actually are. After that, it is necessary to consider protest publics in Turkey and Russia as actors and to prove that in these cases we are dealing exactly with protest publics.

The third chapter is devoted to political changes in two countries after and during protests. Moreover, we are going to pay special attention to growth of authoritarian tendencies and appearance of new democratic practices in the countries.

In the fourth chapter a range of political, economic and cultural factors that may lead to political changes in mentioned countries will be analyzed.



Chapter 1. Concepts and Theoretical Scheme

1.1 Defining the Social Movement Theory

The author argues that Theory of Publics has more explanatory power to understand the impact of protests in the mechanism of political changes.

In order to understand why we do not apply social movement theory on protests in Russia in 2011-2015 and Turkey in 2013 we need to consider the main concepts of social movement theory.

Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people made collective claims on 

others (Tilly, 2004). For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle forordinary people's participation in public politics. (Tilly, 2004)

A social movement consists of a sustained challenge to power holders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those power holders by means of public displays of that population's worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment.He argues that there are three major elements to asocial movement (Tilly, 2004):

A campaign is a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on targeted authorities. Unlike a one?time petition, declaration, or mass meeting, a campaign extends beyond any single event-although social movements often include petitions, declarations, and mass meetings. A campaign always links at least three parties: a group of self?designated claimants, some object(s) of claims, and a public of some kind. (Tilly, 2004)

Associational repertoires. People have always come together in associations.

Public self?representation. Movement participants make concerted public representations of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies. (Tilly, 2004)

* worthiness: sober demeanor; neat clothing; presence of clergy, dignitaries, and mothers with children;

* unity: matching badges, headbands, banners, or costumes; marching in ranks; singing and chanting;

* numbers: headcounts, signatures on petitions, messages from constituents, filling streets;

* commitment: braving bad weather; visible participation by the old and

handicapped; resistance to repression; ostentatious sacrifice, subscription, and/or benefaction.

For social movements, creating a self?representation goes much deeper than creating an image. Because they are creating a collective actor, movements do an enormous amount of identity building through their interaction with significant others. (Tilly, Charles; Sidney, Tarrow, 2006) Interaction occurs first among those within the inner core of the movement-whom we can call “activists.” But it also takes place with sympathizers on the margins of the movement, with opponents, and with key third parties like the media, the police, and public authorities. 

“Generally speaking, social movement often employ many different forms of political actions, from petitions to mass rallies and demonstrations, but they always do so through a lot of prior organizational work , including creation of stable organizational structures, or `special purpose coalitions', that can insure `a sustained and organized' manner of collective actions. Participants of social movements are usually clear about their own common identity, as one of the major claims, that they make to the other political actors and to the broader public is on `who we are', or ` `a name for `us' -`Cherokees', `Diamond Cutters' - that are called `standing claims' distinguishing members from non-members, as well as `program claims' that are been addressed to their target audience.” (Belyaeva N., 2014)

It is hard to speak about common identity in Russia or Turkey protests and their emergence is still terra incognita if we analyze it within social movement theory. Protests in Russia and Turkey emerged unexpected to both experts and scholars, and there were no specially organized campaign, as well as prior-organizational work. (Anufriev A.I., Zaytsev D.G., 2016)

Therefore, mass political protests that have emerged in the wake of the crisis of recent years must be perceived as a new social phenomenon, a new political actor, which is characterized by a number of distinctive features. These features include lack of organization as a basis for collective action; a variety of external public self-representation forms in the presence of a complex multi-layered identity; lack of a clear and pre-planned campaign with the prevalence of street forms of activity; lack of constant interaction with the authorities (target audience). (Anufriev A.I., Zaytsev D.G., 2016) Therefore, a new theoretical concept is needed to explain this new phenomenon.

1.2 Concept of Protest Publics

Theoretical framework based on the researches, which were conducted by academicians of the Public Policy department of Higher School of Economics.

First of all, it is precious article written by Pr. N. Belyaeva, “Protest Public as a Social Actor: from mosaic of "issue based groups" to the unity of "the other world possible". (Belyaeva N., 2014)Pr. Belyaeva claims that new theoretical concepts needed to analyze such mass protests which happened in 2010 - 2014 in Brazil, Russia Ukraine and countries of Middle East and South Africa. N. Belyaeva suggests to use the term “protest publics”. “To be able to catch the very essence of Bolotnaya and similar protest events there are new theoretical concepts needed, which we suggest to be a newly emerging `theory of publics' and their particular type - `active public' or agent public, that is capable to perform as a social actor - without prior organizational work, performed either by civil society organizations or social movement organizers. It is an important novelty, that protest publics bring to the scope of participatory practices - almost total absence of prior organization, that was believed to be necessary” (Belyaeva N., 2014). The following comparison table contains main features of the protests movement and protests public.

Table 1. Theory of Publics and Theory of Social Movements

Backgrounds	Theory of Publics	Theory of social movements
Criteria	Protest Publics	Protest Movement
The model of collective action	Public assembly, gathering around a certain problem/event	Protest campaign (with rules and steps) - elaborated scheme. Must have goals, claims, targets
The level of institutionalization of collective action	Very low. Self-organised. No organisation is formed. Exist without it.	Very high. Institutionalized organized (by organizations/NGOs etc.) before or after the events
		Policy programs
		Structure of activities
Public self-presentation	Also mportant, but not a concern. Diversity, responsiveness.	Importance of self-representation
		Need to strengthen legitimacy
		Number of people is important
		Unity
Identity	Diversed identity	Common identity
	Poetic message (emotional component)
Context	Act dispite of political oportunity structures, act outside frameworks	Political oportunity structure

In order to work in the framework of protest public's theory we need to prove that Gezi park protests and protests in Russia can be defined as protest publics.

Pr. Belyaeva developed several steps to recognize protests publics:

1. “Reconstruct the “troubling message”, that was the initial reason of this particular public assembling, paying attention to distinguish between the text or the event, that was triggered public response and its interpretation by protesting public itself (Belyaeva N., 2014).

2. Explore the process of this public self-organization, and if it was, in fact happening outside government structures and influence, as well as any other form of pre-existing organizational form or authority (Belyaeva N., 2014).

3. Identify the public spaces, where the unique discourse of this public is been produced, shared, enriched and exchanged, paying attention to diversity of its forms , styles, genres circulation mechanisms (Belyaeva N., 2014).

4. Assess the intensiveness and regularity of discourse exchange and circulation, paying attention to the temporality and `winning the head-lines” (Belyaeva N., 2014).

5. Evaluate the creativity and attractiveness of the poetic message of the alternative world this public is creating and representing” (Belyaeva N., 2014).

Mentioned above criteria Pr. Belyaeva applied to protests which took place on Bolotnaya square in Russia. According to the conclusion, presented in the article, in spite of the fact that protest public on Bolotnaya square was quite well organized, creative and independent . But it could neither create a clear common identity nor develop enough public spaces to produce and reproduce common discourse and deliberation on specific vision of the `better world' and ways to approach it. (Belyaeva N., 2014)By collecting data with the help of interview with experts and other sources of information such as mass-media and NGO's reports we are going to apply, described in Belyaeva's article theory of protest public, to the case of Turkey and Russia.

Pr. Zaytsev in his article “Mass political protest: problems of conceptualization and methodology of analysis” (Zaytsev D., 2014) proposed scheme for analyzing political changes. “Author proposes to define political changes as multidimensional (non-liner) process which is not a straight transition from one political status to another with passing known in advance stages of changes, but complex process of moving on multiple trajectories which is unique for each country or polity influenced by diverse drivers which can compose into unique for each country or polity combination”. (Zaytsev D., 2014)

Figure 1.Conceptualization Scheme of Political Change

(Zaytsev D., 2014)

It is important to identify the starting point Xn and ending point Yn on the time line in order to analyze changes in the political system (N). From the theoretical point of view, there are can be as much trajectories of political changes as many local, national, regional and global political systems exist in the world. But author assumes that trajectories can be generalized into limited amount (Z), much less than existing amount of countries (N). (Zaytsev D., 2014)

There are several types of political changes: situational changes - changes in hierarchy of power political actors and balance of power, institutional changes - establishing of new, evolution, devolution or collapse of old political institutes, policy changes - changes in different spheres of public policy (migration policy, educational policy, policy in the sphere of healthcare). Drivers of changes - external factors which impact on changes (economic, political, social, cultural) and actors (governmental and non-governmental organizations, politicians, political parties, interest groups, social movements, business associations, corporations, intellectual communities and etc.) (Zaytsev D., 2014)

In order to make a complete picture about protests we will analyze all the parameters presented below.

Based on the proposed analytical scheme we will consider Turkish and Russian protest publics as an actor and to define how it influences political changes in the country. This paper seeks to evaluate the following parameters:

- Significance of protests (“factorness”): amount of participants, duration of protests, list of slogans, geography of protests, official reaction of the government on protests, forms of protest (Expert interview, Amnesty international, Konda report);

- The degree of protest publics Creation (“actorness”): the degree of political consolidation of the protest public; the degree of political autonomy of the protest public; (Open sources, interviews)

- "Situational changes" - the changes of the current political situation: Elite Changes; More limitations of Power; Changes of Political Situation;

- Policy changes: Policy Agenda Setting; Setting Policy Alternatives; Policy Making; Policy Implementation; Policy Evaluation (Open sources; interviews)

- Institutional changes: Constitutional changes; Changes of basic democratic institutions; Changes of the Qualities of Democracy. (Open sources; interviews)

- Economic factors: The level of economic development; The level of corruption; The level of economic inequality; The level of poverty; The level of unemployment; The level of inflation (CIA World Factbook, Transparency International, Trading economics);

- Political factors : The level of democratic development; The level of civil society development; The level of trust to governmental and public institutions; The level of trust to politicians; Electoral statistics; Electoral preferences of the population :The duration of the governance (those who caused the dissatisfaction of the protest publics); Dominant political ideology ; The foreign policy orientation of the population (National Electoral Commission and expert interviews);

- Religious: The General level of religiosity of population; Distribution by confessions of population; (CIA World Factbook)

- Cultural factors: The prevalence of material / post-modern values; (WVS)

- Demography: Population size; Average duration of life ; Population change (fertility / mortality / migration); Population age structure; (CIA World Factbook; UN statistics; World Bank)

- Social: Social wellbeing of the population; The level of education of population; Information culture; The level of protest moods of the population ; (WVS)

- Actors of Political Changes: the degree of influence of the protest public (in comparison with other actors) on the changes of the current political situation; the degree of influence of the protest public (in comparison with other actors) to changes in public policies (social policy, economic policy, foreign policy, religious policy, population policy, and so on.)



Chapter 2. Protest Publics in Russia and Turkey

2.1 Protest Publics in Turkey in 2013

The current subchapter is devoted to the presenting of general information about protests in Turkey. Moreover, by reconstructing the “troubling message”, exploring the process of the public self-organization, identifying the public spaces, where the unique discourse of this public is been produced, assessing the intensiveness and regularity of discourse exchange and circulation, evaluating the creativity and attractiveness of the poetic message of the alternative world this public is creating and representing, we are going to prove that we are dealing with protest publics in Turkey.

A wave of demonstrations in Turkey began on 28 May 2013, initially against the urban development plan, included construction of new shopping center in the center of Istanbul instead of Taksim Gezi Park. At that day about fifty environmentalists camped out in Gezi Park in order to prevent its deconstruction. The reconstruction plan of the area was available on the website of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The changes were announced in 2011, however, activists complained, that it was never discussed with the citizens. Discontent grew gradually, an initiative group of Istanbul residents was formed. Citizens outraged not only by the fact that in order to build a business center the park will be demolished, some citizens immediately connected the deconstruction with political reasons: the most diverse groups, unions, students and other citizens regularly organize demonstrations in Taksim. If the government project will be carried out the area is virtually cut off from the neighboring districts with a highways network and as a result will be hard to get to. In other words, protest publics claimed that authorities were trying to desacralize a public space and consequently prevent all kinds of protests there. (Anufriyev, 2014)

Set fire to the tents of protesters who had organized a sit-in at Gezi Park by police caused a wave of protests. (Taksim Gezi Park Protestors Speak Up on Police Raid, 2013) On the morning of June 1 government blocked the passage from the Asian part of Istanbul to the European one where Taksim. The Gezi park area took some of the characteristics associated with the Occupy movement. The number of tents swelled. Access roads to the park and to Taksim Square have been blocked by protesters against the police with barricades of paving stones and corrugated iron. They developed infrastructure: kitchen, first-aid clinic, library.

 The police used the Mass Incident Intervention Vehicle (TOMA) to disperse the demonstrators in the park, before seizing their tents. After that protests immediately spread on other Turkish cities: Izmir, Ankara, Antalya (Tьm Tьrkiye'de ' Gezi Parkэ' Ptotestosu, 2013).

 Amnesty International said on 1 June that "It is clear that the use of force by police is being driven not by the need to respond to violence - of which there has been very little on the part of protesters - but by a desire to prevent and discourage protest of any kind." (Turkey disgraceful use excessive police force, 2013) By 14 June 150,000 tear gas cartridges and 3000 tons of water had been used. (Turkey disgraceful use excessive police force, 2013) In mid-June Amnesty International said that it had "received consistent and credible reports of demonstrators being beaten by police during arrest and transfer to custody and being denied access to food, water, and toilet facilities for up to 12 hours during the current protests in Istanbul which have taken place for almost three weeks." (Turkey disgraceful use excessive police force, 2013)Hundreds of protesters were detained.

On the second day police used tear gas to disperse the peaceful protesters and burn down their tents in order to allow the bulldozing to continue. Human Rights Watch has documented 10 cases in which people were seriously injured, including loss of an eye, when police fired teargas canisters directly at them, often at close range. The scale and consistency of accounts of similar injuries recorded by local groups points to a clear pattern of misuse of teargas by Turkey's police force (Turkey: End Incorrect Unlawful Use of Teargas, 2013). After that, the size of the protests substantially grew.

As a result, local environmental demonstration turned into manifestations against the policy of Turkish prime-minister and the Justice and Development Party. There is a timeline of Gezi park protests below:

Table 2. Timeline of Gezi Park Protests

Date	Where?	What?	Official	Organisers	Organisers
28-31 05.2013	Taksim Gezi Park - Istanbul	Environmental demonstration	50		Taksim Solidarity Movement
31.05.2013	Istiklal Avenue - Istanbul	Demonstrations against government	10000		Taksim Solidarity Movement
01.06.2013	67 cities in Turkey	Demonstrations against government
03.06.2013	Antakya	Demonstrations against government
05.06.2013	Istanbul	Taksim Solidarity group Meeting with Arinc			Taksim Solidarity Movement
12.06.2013	Istanbul, Istanbul's Зaрlayan Courthouse	Protests of Lawyers	2000
14.06.2013	Ankara	Dead of Ethem Sarэsьlьk
17.06.2013	Taksim - Istanbul	Standing man - protest action			Taksim Solidarity Movement
20.06.2013	Istanbul	Referendum on the fate of Gezi Park.
24.06.2013	Istanbul	Protest following the announcement of the court's decision on Ethem Sarэsьlьk case
30.06.2013	Istanbul	LGBT Pride March		10000	LGBT
19.08.2013	Ankara	Protests at Middle East Technical University (ODTЬ) campus.	3500		Students of Meddle East Technical University
20.08.2013	Antalya - Istanbul	Walk for justice	4		A group of four people who walked from Antalya to Istanbul

Different society groups were involved in the protest movements: students, middle class, professors, representatives of left and right wings parties etc. There are different data, for example, according to the Interior Ministry 2,5 million people (2.5 million people attended Gezi protests across Turkey: Interior Ministry, 2013)participated in protests around the country, but Human Rights Foundation of Turkey reported about 3,545 million people. (Konda, 2014)

According to Konda Gezi Park survey (Konda, 2014), here are main characteristics of participants in protests in Turkey:

- 63 % are below the age of 28.

- 30 % are college graduates.

- 34 % are students, 6 % are housewives.

- 63 % identify themselves as modern.

- 73 % do not wear head cover.

- 49 % identify themselves as believers.

- 36 % have more than TRY2000 income per month.

- 31 % are CHP voters. (Konda, 2014)

Such civil organizations as Taksim Solidarity Movement, Environmentalists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Social Democrats, Kemalists, Feminists, LGBT, Kurds, Anti-capitalist Muslims, Nationalists, Libertarians, Зarюэ, Vamos Bien, 3H Movement, Confederation of Public Workers' Unions, Confederation of Revolutionary Trade Unions of Turkey, Istanbul Bar Association, Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects, Turkish Medical Association, Turkish Journalists' Association, Turkish Writers' Union participated in protests.

It can be concluded, that there were no prior organization of the protest movement. Public was organized by itself, but at the same time it was not consolidated by one leader.

One of the features of Gezi park protests is creation of “park forums”, that initially were founded in Gezi park and later forum sites mushroomed immediately around Turkey, in all the major cities. (Gezi Spirit and Forums, 2013) On 14June there were six main forums within Gezi Park where thousands discussed future strategies on the one hand to protect the park, and on the other - how to avoid police violence and even an attack. On the 18th of June there were four main forum sites in Istanbul (Abbasaрa, Haydarpaюa, Yoрurtзu and Cihangir) and at all four, the forum debates hummed till the early hours of the morning. And by June 20, Taksim Solidarity announced that there were 38 forums in Istanbul, all formed by civil initiative. Forums where people can utilise a public space for public debates are a relatively new concept for the people of Turkey. (Gezi Spirit and Forums, 2013)

Another important feature of Gezi park protesters as well as other protesters around the world that they were massively connected to each other through social media networks. Twitter, Facebook, Зapul TV, Gezi Radio, and other `local' networks such as Ekєi Sцzlьk (an online platform allowing a user to freely post a title and other users to write down commentaries about the title) played vital roles in communicating the messages of the Gezi protesters to others in the country and around the globe.

Among demands, which united protests, experts mentioned: Protecting Gezi Park and the public places; Defending freedom of speech and right to assembly (to allow demonstration on squares (it is band to organize street actions, demonstrations on big squares as Kizilay in Ankara);Banning the usage of tear gas by state forces against protesters; Resignation of Erdoрan's government; Free media; Fair elections; the removal of the 10 percent threshold on elections (Amnesty International, 2013).

It also important to mention, that Gezi park protests accompanied by several victims. For instance, a 20-year-old Mehmet Ayvalэtaю, was hit by a car during the protests in Istanbul on the 2nd of June 2013. He became the first casualty in the city. (Timeline of Gezi Park protests, 2013) Abdullah Cцmert died having sustained multiple head injuries during police intervention at a demonstration in Antakya on the 3rd of June. Witnesses say he was hit with a tear gas canister fired by police. (Amnesty International, 2013)Another victim is Ethem Sarэsьlьk, who died on the 14th of June, having been shot in the head by a police officer during protests in Ankara on the 1 June. (Emniyet, o polisin kimliрini savcэya bildirdi, 2013) Here only three cases were mentioned and in two of them police's actions led to dead of civilians.

According to Interior Minister Muammer Gьler, in the six days of protest, 1,730 people had been detained in 235 protests held in 67 provinces. (Timeline of Gezi Park protests, 2013) On the 5th of June, Turkish Medical Association reports that 4,355 people have been injured across 12 cities with the majority of injuries registered in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and Eskiєehir. A group of six representatives from the Taksim Solidarity group met with Arэnз, announcing their demands to the deputy prime minister. (Amnesty International, 2013)

On 4 June, Deputy Prime Minister Bьlent Arэnз apologised to protesters for "excessive violence" used by the police in the beginning of the riots, but said he would not apologize for the police violence that came after. (Arsu S., 2013)On 4 June Deputy Prime Minister for the Economy Ali Babacan "said the government respects the right to non-violent protest and free speech, but that it must also protect its citizens against violence." (Turkey protests continue despite apology, 2013)

Nevertheless, above mentioned actions of government and police can be considered as one of the factors lead to substantial spreading of the movement around the country.

Demonstrations were held in many cities in Turkey. The biggest protests have been in Istanbul, with reports of more than 100,000 protesters. The biggest protests outside Istanbul have been in Hatay and then in Ankara and Izmir. Protestors used such slogans as: Everywhere Taksim, everywhere resistance'; `Down with some of the things'; `Istanbul United' (inspired by Manchester United); `It's full of petit bourgeoisie, here!'; `Tyyp:// Connecting.People'; `Everyday I'm chappulling'; `Help police!'; `You're scared, Arэnз you?'; `No Recep, No cry'; and `Winter is coming, Tayyip'. (Yalcintas A., 2015)

With the development of the movement, many different types of expressing opinion and ways to protest appeared. We tried to describe most spread forms of protests.

“Standing man” - is a type of protest which first was initiated on 17th of June by Erdem Gьndьz. He was standing in Taksim Square for hours staring at the Turkish flag on the Ataturk Cultural Center. With the help of social media this kind of protest became extremely popular and other were inspired to do the same. (The Turkish Protests Have a Meme: The Standing Man, 2014)

"Boycot Listesi" is another quite unusual type of protest. Protesters boycotted shops and organizations which did not help to protesters seeking refuge from tear gas and water cannon. And such media companies as Doрuю Holding (owner of NTV) which broadcasted protests in improper manner and presented arguable data.

Below we are applying steps which N. Belyaeva has developed for recognizing protest publics. The “trouble message” (initial reason of the public assembling in Turkey) is burning by Turkish police the tents of participants in peace demonstration against the reconstruction of Gezi park. As a result, acts of violence committed by police became one of the crucial factors that made it possible to gather a great amount of people on the streets.

The next step is “to explore of this public self-organization”. Relying on results of expert interviews and electronic resources we could say that Turkish protest public was autonomous and quite well self-organized. According to expert Can Irmak Ozinair:“On the one hand, protests public definitely was not consolidated. It was a chaotic thing. There were many different groups with different values and without one leader. Moreover, some of these groups consider each other as enemies. But on the other hand, even if LGBT, anticapitalists, Muslims, socialists, anarchists, vegans have different political approach, many different parts of the activists being able to fight common explores ways to communicate with each other as comrades.” Another expert Dr. Altuр Yalзэntaю (Associate Professor at Ankara University) is sure that in the absence of an organizing party or individual to make decisions and give orders to the masses of demonstrators about what they should do, the protesters spontaneously created higher levels of order in which politics has now become impossible without calculating the possible unintended consequences of the absurd and bizarre nature of political rhetoric. In short, Gezi protesters were able to create an art space for themselves in which both individually and collectively, they expressed political messages in novel ways.

His colleague from Economic Policy Research Foundation Dilara Peker agreed with him: “As everybody knows the values of leftist, nationalists, LGBTЭ people, women, handicapped etc. are all very different from each other. The main reason they were in the field all together was to make AKP government to overthrow.”

As far as the public spaces, where the unique discourse of this public is been produced and where this public share their views and discuss plans for the future events, on the one hand we consider them to be limited, as the issue of protests was sensitive and there were few opportunities to organize some public discussion through media. Government took quite violent and severe measures against protests. Erdogan has taken a tough line on the protests, branding the demonstrators as "extremists" and "looters". He has said the unrest was being encouraged by foreign forces to undermine Turkey and its economy. (Turkey protests: Erdogan meets Gezi Park activists, 2013) Erdogan gave a number of speeches condemning protests: "Whatever you do, we've made our decision and we will implement it." "Where they gather 20, I will get up and gather 200,000 people. Where they gather 100,000, I will bring together one million from my party." (Turkish PM Erdogan calls for end to protests as clashes flare, 2013) But on the other hand, unique for Turkey “park forums” became an important public space were protesters share their thoughts ad discuss further steps. The open stage where individuals queue for and take turns to express their thoughts, ideas and vision freely, is another element of this movement's repertoire that is becoming more and more common. (Gezi Spirit and Forums, 2013) Moreover, as official media ignored protests, the alternative online media Capul TV was created.

Discourse exchange was mostly happened only during public meetings themselves, when great number of participants were creating their own slogans, which expressed both their identity, their concerns, their claims to authorities and their `visions of the future', which were mostly remarkably creative, but either individual presentations or manifestations of small issue-group identity and demands. (Belyaeva N., 2014) Demonstrators operated such antigovernment slogans as “Erdogan thief”, “Erdogan resgins”, “The government resigns”, “Taksim is everywhere and everywhere is resistance” (Эstanbul'da direniю, duran insanlar ve mahalle eylemleri ile sьrьyor (Эstanbul'dan dakika dakika) , 2013)Mass protests spreded on90 locations in Turkey including Istanbul, Ankara, Эzmir, Hatay, Antalya, Bursa, Adana, Mersin, Kayseri and etc.

As for the `poetic message, participants of Gezi park protests call for rights respect in a really creative way. Protesters called themselves зapulcu (looters), reappropriating Erdoрan's insult for themselves (and coined the derivative “chapulling”, given the meaning of "fighting for your rights"). Many users on Twitter also changed their nickname and used зapulcu(looters), instead (Varol, Ferrara, Ogan, Menczer, & Flammini, 2014). The word quickly caught on, adopted by the demonstrators and online activists, and became a viral video. Many took the concept further by integrating the unique nature of the demonstrations and defined it as “to act towards taking the democracy of a nation to the next step by reminding governments of their reason for existence in a peaceful and humorous manner”. (Yeni internet fenomeni Chappuling, 2013).

To sum up: Gezi Park protest public was well-organized, clearly independent and quite creative, which allows attributing it to the agent-type public. It also managed to create more or less common identity and develop enough public spaces to produce and reproduce common discourse ways to approach it.



2.2 Protest Publics in Russia (2011-2015)

Multiple mass political actions of Russian citizens began after the elections to the State Duma of the VI convocation (December 4, 2011), which continued during the campaign for the election of the President of Russia and then held on March 4, 2012 presidential election, in which Vladimir Putin won the first round.

The first mass meeting took place in Moscow on December 5, 2011, organized by the "Solidarity" movement at the Chistoprudniy Boulevard with the following slogans : "Elections are a farce!", "Give back the choice to the country!", "Give the power back to people!". (Belyaeva) Due to the spread of information in the LiveJournal, Twitter and Facebook, according to various estimates the action gathered from 2 to 10 thousand participants. (Navalny, Yashin and another 40 Protesters Detained on Chistoprudny, 2011) Most sources estimate the number of about six or seven thousand people. Well-known opposition leaders Alexei Navalny, Eugeniy Chirikov, Boris Nemtsov, Ilya Yashin, Artemy Troitsky, Viktor Shenderovich, Dmitry Bykov participated in protests. According to the journalists of "Kommersant" and "Vedomosti", it was the hugest public assembly in Moscow since 1993, after which there were massive clashes of protesters with the police at the Lubyanka square (Ya ne videl takogogo s 1993, 2011) and more than 300 people were arrested. (RIA Novosti, 2011)

On the 6th of December interior troops were introduced. “The servicemen of internal troops are called to assist in the protection of public order and security of citizens until the end of the counting of votes in the Duma elections held on December 4, 2011”. (Meeting na Bolotnoy Ploschadi: Kak eto bylo, 2011) Despite on this fact protests continued.

On December 10, 2011 Moscow hosted one of the largest in recent years, popular demonstrations: tens of thousands of people came to Bolotnaya Square to express their disagreement with the results of the elections to the State Duma 6-th convocation, held on 4 December. The number of protesters according to various estimates ranging from 25 to 80-85 thousand people: among them representatives of various parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition movements, as well as many ordinary people. (Meeting na Bolotnoy Ploschadi: Kak eto bylo, 2011) On December 10, 2011, protests were held in 99 cities in Russia and 42 cities abroad. (Do samykh do okrain, 2011) About 10 thousand people participated in march in St. Petersburg, moreover, actions took place in Novosibirsk, Chelyabinsk, Tomsk, Rostov-on-Don, Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Omsk and many other cities.

At the end of the rally the protesters passed a resolution, consisting of five demands: release of political prisoners, the abolition of the results of elections to the State Duma, the resignation of the chairman of the Central Election Commission Vladimir Churov and "investigation into his activities", the registration of all political parties and democratization of the legislation in this area, as well as the holding of new parliamentary elections. (Russian Election Protests, 2011)

In two weeks, on December 24, 2011 even more large-scale protest rally took place in Moscow, at Akademika Saharova prospect, that was prepared by the 'protests Organizing Committee', formed after Bolotnaya meeting. Meeting at Sakharova gathered about 100.000 participants in Moscow , many protest meetings were held same day in other Russian cities. (Belyaeva N., 2014)

In February 2012, there was a new series of mass actions "for fair elections". Rallies and marches were held in more than 100 cities in Russia and abroad.

On February 4, 2012 one of the largest rallies against rigged results of the election meeting "For fair elections!" took place - it was a rally through Yakimanka street and a meeting at Bolotnaya square in Moscow. According to different estimates this meeting collected up to 120 thousand participants. (Meeting "Za Chestnyye Vybory" na Bolotnoi Ploschadi Zakonchilsya: 120 tysyach, 2012)

On February 26, 2012 protest action called "Great White Circle" was held in Moscow. Thousands of opponents of the Russian authorities with white ribbons and other symbols of protest rose up the chain along the Garden ring around the center of the capital. According to various sources, from 11 to 34 thousand people took part in the action. (Big White Circle, 2012) Supporters of the current government at the same time organized “Antiorange rally” on Poklonnaya mountain. According to the organizers, the main aim was to create a counterweight to opposition rally on Bolotnaya Square and to support the current government and in particular candidate for president of Russia Vladimir Putin.

On the 5th and 10th of March 2012 in Moscow were held two meetings, each of which gathering, by various estimates, from 10 to 30 thousand people. The rally on Pushkin Square (Big White Circle, 2012), uncoordinated action of the "Other Russia" on Lubyanka Square and unsanctioned opposition rally in St. Petersburg was broken up by riot police.

On May 6, 2012 in Moscow an action called "People's March" or "March of millions" against the inauguration of Vladimir Putin took place. The peaceful demonstration turned into clashes between police and protesters near the Bolotnaya square. Lenta.ru reported that Moscow has not seen "such large-scale street clashes for twenty years, and maybe more." (6 May, 2012) Protesters claim that law enforcement officers used force without warning, beat people with batons and unceremoniously threw participants of protests into the paddy wagons. According to the official data, 436 people were detained and according to opposition activists 650 people. According to various estimates, from 30 to 120 thousand people took part in the rally. (Marsh Millionov, 2014)

There is a chronology of protests in Russia below:

Table.3 Timeline of Protests in Russia

Date	Where?	What?	Official	Organisers	Organisers
05.12.2011	Chistoprudniy Boulevard	rally “For fair elections”	2000-10000	2000-10000	Solidarnost
10.12.2011	Bolotnaya square	rally “For fair elections”	25000	150000	Solidarnost, Left Front
17.12.2011	Bolotnaya square	rally “For fair elections”	1500	5000	Yabloko (Yavlinsky, Mitrokhin, Ryzhkov)
24.12.2011	Academician Sakharov Avenue	rally “For fair elections”	29000	120000
04.02.2012	Yakimanka street - Bolotnaya square	rally “For fair elections”	36000	120000
26.02.2012	The Garden Ring	"Great White Circle"; an apolitical "act of unity	11000	34000
05.03.2012	Pushkin Square	rally “For fair elections”	14000	30000
10.03.2012	Novy Arbat street	rally “For fair elections”	10000	25000
08.05.2012 - 16.05.2012	Chistoprudnyi bulvar	Occupy Abay	100-200	100-200
06.05.2012	Bolotnaya square	rally “The March of Millions"	from 8000	up to 120000	Sergey Udaltsov
12.06.2012	Pushkin Square - Academician Sakharov Avenue	rally “The March of Millions"	18000	100000	Udaltsov, Chirikova
15.09.2012	Pushkin Square	rally “The March of Millions"	14000	100000
15.12.2012	Lubyanskaya square	rally “The March of Freedom”	700	5000
13.01.2013	Academician Sakharov Avenue	rally "March Against Scoundrels"	9500	24500
06.05.2013	Bolotnaya embankment	rally “March for Freedom”	8000	30000
12.06.2013	Kaluzhskaya square - Bolotnaya square	rally "March Against Executioners"	6000	30000	RPR-PARNAS
15.03.2014	Academician Sakharov Avenue	rally “March of Peace”	3000	50000
21.09.2014	Pushkin Square - Academician Sakharov Avenue	rally “March of Peace”	5000	100000	RPR-PARNAS
30.12.2014	Manezhnaya square	rally “In Support of Alexey Navalny”	1500	2000 - 3000
01.03.2015	Kitaygorod passage - Moskvoretsky bridge	rally "March in Memory of Boris Nemtsov"	53000	100000	RPR-PARNAS
20.09.2015	Mariyino	rally "For the turnover of power"	4000	7000-10000	Opposition Democratic Coalition
27.09.2015	St.Petersburg	rally "March of Peace"	500	500	Solidarnost, Democratic Petersburg, 5 December Party
27.02.2016	Strasnoy bulvar - Moskvoretskiy bridge	rally "We are Boris Nemtsov"	7500	22400	RPR-PARNAS, Solidarnost

The survey which was conducted by the Levada Center on 24 December 2011 on Sakharov avenue among 791 participants allow us preliminary describe participants of protests in Russia. Data error is no more than 4,8%. (V centre Moskvy gigantskoye traurnoye shestviye pamyati Borisa Nemtsova, 2015)