The German philosopher Walter Benjamin said, “If the content of thought is corrupted, consciousness is also corrupted. If language is sick, thought is also sick,” pointing out the transformative effect language has on our mental world. In totalitarian regimes, like Turkey, language ceases to be just a communication tool and becomes a mechanism of domination.
Speaking the language of the powerful means accepting their reality and living in their world. In Turkey, the political Islamist AKP and Tayyip Erdoğan’s government have skillfully used this mechanism, imposing their narrative on society and turning those they have marginalized and demonized into a universally accepted “enemy.”
However, the real tragedy is that the opposition has embraced this language instead of critically examining it, thus reinforcing the hegemony of the ruling power.
The concept of “Newspeak” used by George Orwell in his novel 1984 dramatically highlights the power of language to control thought: “The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to make thoughtcrime impossible, because there would be no words in which to express it.”
In totalitarian regimes, language is the mold of thought; the powerful shape minds by controlling this mold. Euphemism is one of the most insidious tools of this control. When you call something a “mandatory population transfer,” the pain of exile is obscured; when you call something a “special operation,” the destruction of war is made invisible. As Hannah Arendt pointed out in The Origins of Totalitarianism, totalitarian systems aim to “cut off ties to reality,” and euphemism makes this disconnection possible.
Victor Klemperer said that in Nazi Germany, the language of power worked like a poisonous arsenic: “They are swallowed unknowingly, and after a while, the effects of the poison begin to show.”
The Regime Has Claimed ‘Patriotism’ as Its Monopoly!
Terms like “purification” or “cleansing” can even legitimize genocide. Michel Foucault emphasizes that language does not just reflect reality but constructs it. In totalitarian regimes, this construction turns into a simulation that completely replaces reality.
As Jean Baudrillard states in Simulacra and Simulation, a coup dubbed an “operation for stability” eventually comes to be perceived as “stability.” As Albert Camus said in The Rebel, “Misnaming things causes unhappiness in the world.”
In Turkey, “security” now expresses oppression, “reform” denotes exploitation, and “progress” signifies destruction. The AKP government in Turkey has monopolized concepts like “nationalism,” “localism,” and “patriotism,” labeling those who question them as “traitors” or “tools of foreign powers.”
The phrases developed after the July 15 coup attempt, such as “national will,” “local and national,” “FETÖ,” and “traitor,” have shaped not only the government’s narrative but the entire political landscape. Unfortunately, this language has been adopted by the opposition without question, and the term “FETÖ” has become a common part of the vocabulary from mainstream media to opposition parties!
The “national will” has become a legitimacy source that even the opposition feels obligated to subscribe to. However, the content and boundaries of these terms are entirely determined by the government; who is “national” and who is “anti-national” is left to Erdoğan’s discretion.
The “local and national” discourse has forced the opposition to “compete in nationalism,” with the leader of the main opposition party stating, “No one can teach us nationalism!”—showing that the opposition has accepted the framework set by the government.
The term “traitor” reduces political debate to a test of patriotism, and in trying to prove that they are not “traitors,” the opposition unfortunately makes the government’s demonizing language normative.
As Noam Chomsky said, “Propaganda serves the same function in democracies as the police in totalitarian regimes.” In Turkey, this propaganda continues to function without the need for physical repression, simply through the opposition adopting the language of the government.
The Opposition Has Internalized the Poisonous Language of the Regime!
During Ekrem İmamoğlu’s detention process, almost the entire opposition, including CHP leader Özgür Özel, has used language that internalizes the poisonous language and artificial narrative of the palace while supposedly offering opposition. This represents a deplorable failure that dampens hope for the country.
The opposition’s adoption of the government’s language is a historical mistake and far from beneficial for the country. History shows that speaking the language of the powerful always ends in defeat. In Nazi Germany, opposition voices were silenced with labels like “traitor” or “corrupt element,” while those who did not reject this language only strengthened the regime’s legitimacy.
We can see a similar strategy in today’s repressive regimes. In Russia, the label of “enemy of the people” has neutralized the opposition, and those who have not questioned this term have become accomplices of the regime. In Turkey, the opposition, instead of critically redefining terms like “local and national” or “national will,” accepts them as they are, reproducing the government’s hegemony.
As Judith Butler pointed out in The Psychic Life of Power, language constructs subjectivities. In Turkey, being “local and national” has unfortunately become the measure of political rights and social existence. Rather than rejecting these criteria, the opposition’s attempt to define its own legitimacy while using the language and narrative produced by the palace is tragic. It means submitting to the psychic domination of the powerful. This approach eliminates the potential to offer a democratic alternative. As Theodor Adorno said in Minima Moralia, “Wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” An opposition that speaks the language woven with the lies of power cannot make a true existence possible.
A Rights-Based Discourse Must Be Developed; Otherwise…
A true democratic opposition in Turkey can only emerge by breaking free from the linguistic hegemony of the government. Wittgenstein’s statement, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world,” summarizes the urgency of this liberation. Speaking the language of the powerful means being trapped in their world. If the opposition continues to label everyone who disagrees with the government as a traitor or terrorist, if they continue to reinforce “local and national” rhetoric instead of focusing on universal rights, and if they do not construct a language centered on critical thought instead of “traitors,” more detentions, trustees, and arrests will continue to occur.
Historical examples show that alternative language has proven successful. Nelson Mandela’s language of equality and solidarity against the apartheid regime in South Africa shattered the regime’s “separation” narrative. Similarly, Gandhi’s concept of “non-violence” (ahimsa) defeated the colonial language in India.
In Turkey, if the opposition develops a unifying, rights-based discourse against the divisive and polarizing language of the government, social transformation may be possible. Otherwise, the opposition, which continues to speak the language of the government, will remain a puppet existing only in its shadow.
In conclusion, the AKP government in Turkey skillfully uses the manipulative power of language to impose its reality on society, and unfortunately, almost all of the opposition, including the main opposition, willingly falls into this trap. It’s a shame, truly.
In a world shaped by the government’s euphemisms, the opposition’s thinking and speaking in the same words makes a democratic future impossible, and the blindness of politicians prevents them from seeing this reality. History has repeatedly shown the defeat of those who did not reject the language of the powerful. Speaking the language of truth may be the greatest form of resistance. In Turkey, the opposition must break free from the simulation of the government and build an alternative reality. Otherwise, far from benefiting the country, they will only serve to perpetuate the current domination.
And unfortunately, we will have to say, “These are our better days!”
