How conspiracy theories feed political fragmentation

June 29, 2017 by Turkay Salim Nefes, The Conversation

Conspiracy theories are all the rage these days. Barely a day goes by without someone accusing someone else of engaging in fake news, post-truths, witch hunts and organised political skulduggery.

But they have been with us for a long time, influencing public opinion and major historic events. The Nazi regime continuously resorted to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in its vile mission. More recently, President Bashar al-Assad suppressed protests in Daraa, which he saw as a conspiracy, triggering the Syrian Civil War.

Everyday use of the term "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative one. It generally describes what we consider to be a false belief held by strange people. So how do they have any influence on public opinion or political events?

To try and find out, I examined the impact of official conspiracy theories on the Gezi Park protests in Turkey. This wave of demonstrations and violent rebuttals in May and June 2013 began as a small resistance to the attempt to demolish the Gezi Park in Taksim, one of the few green areas in central Istanbul.

On May 28, around 50 protesters camped in the park as part of a group effort to prevent its demolition. Police raided the camp twice and burned the protestors' tents. This aggression in turn provoked a dramatic spread of the protests, which brought together a wide range of political and civil groups and many more people.

The protests had immediate consequences for economic and foreign affairs. The Turkish stock exchange fell 10.5% in one day. The German government moved to delay a new round of EU membership talks with Turkey.

The reaction of the Turkish government was a concerted attempt to discredit the social movement as a foreign conspiracy. The then prime minister (now president) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claimed the protest was the result of a conspiracy by foreign financial groups attempting to hinder Turkish economic progress.

To understand the effect of this argument on , I analysed online conversations about the interest rate lobby on the most popular discussion website in Turkey, Ekşi Sözlük, and their interpretations of the conspiracy account.

Most of the contributors who agreed with the official conspiracy idea simply expressed their belief that the government was correct in identifying a foreign plot.

Those who rejected the government's argument either argued that the government was wrong, or was inventing the conspiracy for political ends. One commented that it was "a good example of inventing an imaginary enemy".

But then looking at the online commentators' previous postings, I discovered that political stance provided a solid prediction of how they would respond to the official suggestion of a conspiracy. In other words, if the online users were pro-government before the protests, they tended to believe in the official conspiracy account. If they were critical of the government, they tended to reject the conspiracy rhetoric.

Fuelling the fire

Conspiracy theories are not just harmless irrational beliefs. They have serious impact, and can be used entirely rationally to justify political views. And because people are likely to interpret conspiracy theories in line with their political values and interests, this can increase political fragmentation. As blame certain groups for wrongdoing, they can embolden existing political divisions between groups.

In the Turkish case, this was clear. The official conspiratorial frames concerning the Gezi Park protests have contributed to national political fragmentation by adding to disagreements between government supporters and opponents.

This fragmentation is plainly visible in the Turkish government's current attempt to clamp down on anyone they choose to blame for conspiring in the failed coup attempt of July 2016. Judges, teachers and journalists have all been arrested for alleged sympathy with the coup.

Whether it's in Hitler's Germany, Assad's Syria, or contemporary Turkey, the official use of rhetoric is a powerful political tool. It increases tensions and deepens division. Conspiracy theories are not just for crackpots and people with vivid imaginations – they are far more serious than that.

Explore further: Psychologists investigate online communication of conspiracy theories

Related Stories

Believing the impossible and conspiracy theories

January 26, 2012

Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories ...

The social impacts of conspiracy theories

October 25, 2016

As a global population we are awash with conspiracy theories. But what effect do these really have on the public as we go about our day-to-day lives, asks a team of Cambridge researchers.

Countering fake news with contagions

March 28, 2017

Social media is a wonderful tool for sharing information quickly; But not surprisingly, some of that information is false and has played a role in the dissemination of conspiracy theories and fake news.

Recommended for you

Semimetals are high conductors

March 18, 2019

Researchers in China and at UC Davis have measured high conductivity in very thin layers of niobium arsenide, a type of material called a Weyl semimetal. The material has about three times the conductivity of copper at room ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2017
Conspiracy theories are not just harmless irrational beliefs.

Don't read this article! It is a attack written by smart people, to try to convince us dumb, mindless, blind conspiracy theorists, that we are not completely right about our conspiracy theories!
In other words it is a conspiracy!
not rated yet Jul 06, 2017
Conspiracies are always useful as you can't disprove them. They are essentially a 'god of the gaps'-style argument with the same logical fallacy ( i.e. "I say there's a conspiracy - prove me wrong" - wilfully ignoring that the onus of proof is on the one making a claim )

It's pretty simple: If someone shouts "conspiracy!" but isn't showing any hard proof (or at the very least isn't revealing how he's looking for proof and what the criteria for successful proof would be) then just don't bother. It's BS.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.