Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:05:58.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Recruitment of Cabinet Ministers as a Political Process: Turkey, 1946–1979

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Iter Turan
Iter Turan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Political Science Universtiy of Istanbul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The council of ministers constitutes the single most important decision-making center in parliamentary systems. Commonly called the cabinet, this body, under the leadership of the prime minister, defines a general framework for governmental policy as well as the substance of policy on matters which affect large groups of citizens in society. Members of cabinets not only hold extensive decision-making powers but also enjoy access to substantial public resources which they can distribute.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , November 1986 , pp. 455 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Examples will be cited throughout the paper.

2 Dogan, Mattei, “Les filières de Ia carrière politique en France,” Revue Fran caise de Sociologie, 4, 4 (10–12 1967), 469.Google Scholar See also Charlot, Jean, “Les élites politiques en France de la IIIe à la Ve République,” Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 14, 1 (1973), 78–92.Google Scholar

3 For an example, see Lewis, Paul H., “The Spanish Ministerial Elite: 1938–1969,” Comparative Politics, 5, 1 (10 1972), 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The data have been compiled initially by Mrs. Ayeşe Ökmen, a former graduate student in Political Science at Istanbul University. Her generosity in sharing the data is gratefully acknowledged.

5 Turan, Iter, Cumhuriyet Tarihimiz (Istanbul, 1969), pp. 125–126.Google Scholar

6 Accounts of this period include Iiter Turan, ibid., pp. 123–126; Erogul, Cem, Demokrat Parti (Ankara, 1970);Google Scholarcf. Ahmad, Feroz, The Turkish Experiment with Democracy: 1950–1975 (Boulder, Colo., 1972), chs. 2–5.Google Scholar

7 For accounts of post-1960 politics, cf. Feroz Ahmad, ibid., chs. 6–12, esp. 7–9. For accounts and analyses of the events leading to the breakdown of the competitive political system, cf. Karpat, Kemal, “Turkish Democracy at Impasse: Ideology, Party Politics, and the Third Military Intervention,” International Journal of Turkish Studies, 2, 1 (1981), 1–43;Google ScholarTuran, Iiter, “Political Perspectives,” Current Turkish Thought, 44–45 (Fail–Winter 1980);Google Scholar and Turan, Iter, “Turkey: The Reshaping of Domestic and External Politics,” Middle East Annual, 2 (11 1983), 151–176.Google Scholar

8 The most comprehensive use of this source has been made by Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite (Cambridge, 1965).Google Scholar

9 See, for example, Buck, Philip W., Amateurs and Professionals in British Politics: 1918–1959 (Chicago, 1963), pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

10 Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite, ch. 3, and pp. 278–282.Google Scholar

11 Putnam, Robert D., The Comparative Study of Political Elites (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976), p. 50 refers to Greece and Egypt.Google Scholar For Syria, cf. Winder, Bayly, “Syrian Deputies and Cabinet Ministers Part II,” Middle East Journal, 17, 1–2 (Winter–Spring 1963), 39.Google Scholar

12 Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite, p. 184;Google ScholarTachau, Frank, “Parliamentary Elites: Turkey,” in Laudau, Jacob M., Ozbudun, Ergun, and Tachau, Frank, eds., Electoral Politics in the Middle East (Stanford, 1980), p. 206. On the 1977 legislature, there is a conflict between my information and that calculated by Tachau, mine being considerably higher. The difference may derive from the utilization of different coding schemes or from other reasons which I am not able to identify.Google Scholar

13 The concept has been borrowed from Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite, pp. 89–98 and passim.Google Scholar

14 In order to determine which provinces should receive government support and incentives in realizing economic development, the State Planning Organization developed a classification of provinces which utilized over 70 indicators of socioeconomic development in 1973 and which has been used in this analysis. The two least developed groups have been merged, otherwise the SPO classification has been retained. See Teskilati, Deviet Planlama, Kalkinmada Öncelikli Yörelerin Tesbiti ye Bu Yörelerdeki Teşvik Tedbirleri (Ankara, 1973).Google Scholar

15 See Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite, p. 188; and Frank Tachau, “Parliamentary Elites: Turkey,” p. 221.Google Scholar

16 Cheng, Peter, “The Japanese Cabinets, 1885–1973: An Elite Analysis,” Asian Survey, 14, 12 (12 1974), 1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Ozbudun, Ergun, Türkiye'de Sosyal Degişme ve Siyasal Katilma (Ankara, 1975), pp. 40, 95–101, and 197–199. The English version is entitled Social Change and Political Participation in Turkey (Princeton, 1976).Google Scholar

18 Cf. Buck, Philip W., Amateurs and Professionals, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

19 Guttsman, W. L., The British Political Elite (New York, 1963), pp. 206–208.Google Scholar

20 Frey, Frederick W., The Turkish Political Elite, p. 272.Google Scholar