Systemic failure: How Turkey’s gun violence epidemic reflects neoliberal security policies and militarised masculinity

Indigenous frameworks often reject punitive approaches to violence, instead emphasizing collective healing and the dismantling of colonial legacies that equate masculinity with armed control. In Turkey, the state’s refusal to engage with Kurdish or Alevi communities—who have historically faced systemic discrimination—mirrors global patterns where Indigenous knowledge is sidelined in favor of state-centric security narratives. The absence of traditional conflict resolution models in Turkish policy reflects a broader erasure of non-Western epistemologies in favor of militarized governance.

Turkey’s gun violence crisis is rooted in the 1980 military coup, which institutionalized militarized masculinity and neoliberal economic policies that prioritized security over social welfare. The 1990s saw the rise of private security firms and the proliferation of small arms, a trend accelerated by NATO’s Cold War strategies and later by the war on terror. Parallels exist in Latin America, where US-backed military regimes in the 1970s-80s created similar cycles of state violence and civilian gun ownership, as seen in Guatemala or Colombia.

Comparing Turkey to post-apartheid South Africa reveals how militarized policing and economic inequality perpetuate gun violence, despite democratic transitions. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, Indigenous-led gun control reforms after the Christchurch massacre prioritized community consultation and mental health support, contrasting with Turkey’s top-down approach. The Philippines’ experience under Duterte shows how ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric masks structural failures, while Indigenous Lumad communities have long advocated for demilitarization of schools and land rights as violence prevention.

Research consistently links gun violence to structural factors like income inequality, weak social safety nets, and the presence of firearms in households, with studies showing that countries with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun homicides. The Turkish case aligns with global data on how militarized policing and the normalization of armed masculinity correlate with increased civilian gun ownership and violence. However, Turkey’s lack of comprehensive data on gun-related incidents—due to state censorship and underreporting—hampers evidence-based policymaking.

Artistic expressions in Turkey, such as the music of Grup Yorum or the poetry of Nazım Hikmet, have long critiqued state violence and militarism, framing gun culture as a symptom of societal trauma. Indigenous traditions, like the Māori concept of *whanaungatanga* (relationships) or the Andean *ayni* (reciprocity), offer frameworks for addressing violence through community bonds rather than punishment. The erasure of such perspectives in mainstream narratives reflects a broader devaluation of spiritual and artistic critiques of power.

Scenario modeling suggests that without addressing the root causes—neoliberal austerity, militarized masculinity, and NATO’s arms trade—Turkey’s gun violence will persist, with potential escalation into broader social unrest. Alternative futures include community-led disarmament programs, as seen in Colombia’s peace accords, or the adoption of restorative justice models from Indigenous legal systems. However, the current trajectory favors increased securitization, risking further erosion of civil liberties and deepening polarization.

Kurdish activists, women’s groups, and LGBTQ+ organizations in Turkey have documented the links between state violence, gun proliferation, and systemic discrimination, yet their insights are excluded from mainstream narratives. The silencing of these voices is part of a broader pattern where marginalized communities are framed as ‘problems’ to be controlled rather than partners in solutions. Global parallels include the experiences of Black Lives Matter in the US or Indigenous land defenders in Canada, who face criminalization for resisting state violence.