CRAFT has pushed the boundaries of knowledge on de-democratization and the causes and consequences of the politicization of non-partisan institutions in several ways.
Little insight had existed on nonpartisan mechanisms of de-democratization. CRAFT’s findings have contributed to the dynamic field of democratic backsliding through a new research agenda: the under-researched societal dimension and non-partisan mechanisms of autocratization. Based on the site-intensive ethnographical methodology, CRAFT showed that elected incumbents who seek to monopolize power do not confine themselves to changing electoral systems or capturing formal institutions, they also heavily rely on subtle and less visible fields of control. When elected rulers undermine democracy, they heavily rely on intermediaries of manufacturing consent and credibility to counter existing or potential discontent. Crackdowns on civic freedoms largely constrain vibrant civil society and extra-legal repression erodes the independence of and trust in the judiciary. Overall, the case of Turkey demonstrates that these developments can create lasting repercussions on civil-political and state-society relations. The politicization of civil society and judiciary can contribute to the goals of power-abusing elected rulers to wield more control over social demands creating a loyal coalition and social support and weakening alternative claims-making.
However, the politicization of civil society and the judiciary is a double-edged process. These non-partisan arenas can also breed unprecedented practices of innovative actions and coalition-making among pro-democracy groups that push against the top-down attempts of control and cooptation. The project’s findings showed that civil society and judicial mechanisms are used for civic collective action, non-violent contestation, citizens' action-oriented assemblies, and strategic litigation can revive interest in democratic claims-making, despite autocratization at the formal-political level. Particularly, networks and movements working women and gender equality have shown an unparalleled capacity to utilize civil society and courts to challenge the conservative, nationalist and heteropatriarchal processes of autocratization.
Second, CRAFT’s analytical and methodological scope capitalized on an interdisciplinary approach melding analytical perspectives and concepts from political science (new institutionalism in the study of undemocratic regimes), sociology (state-society-civil society relations, societal and civic ‘mechanisms’ of autocratization), judicial politics, and sociology of law (interrelationships between the legal arena, politics and dissident groups in undemocratic settings), and forward-looking policy analysis (EU-Turkey relations, EU’s judicial and civil society support).
Third, CRAFT also addressed a common gap regarding research on semi-autocratic or autocratic contexts: the lack of primary data and on-site research. The generative ethnographic method the CRAFT followed allowed the project to access hidden perspectives and restricted information. Immersion in the everyday social and political landscape and 'letting people speak for themselves' allowed original data generation and an investigation of how civil society is understood, used, and practiced in ordinary contexts also through the manifestations of unspoken thoughts and practices.
These findings on Turkey can be relevant for or comparable to many other cases of democratic backsliding in Europe (Hungary, Poland), the Balkans (Serbia), Asia (Indonesia, India), Latin America (Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela), and Africa (Zambia, Tanzania) and other cases.
