Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:04:06.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turkey's Troubled Democracy: Bringing the Socioeconomic Factors Back in

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Tanel Demirel
Tanel Demirel*
Affiliation:
Hacettepe University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The advent of democracy in Turkey has been far from tranquil. Since the transition to multiparty politics in 1946, democracy has been interrupted by three military interventions (in 1960, 1971, and 1980)- unless we count as the fourth intervention the more recent incident, euphemistically labeled “the 28 February Process,” in which the military played a crucial role in forcing the resignation of the governing coalition led by the Islamist-oriented Welfare Party (WP). Not only has Turkish democracy followed a cyclical pattern in which breakdowns and transitions succeeded each other, the degree or the quality of democracy that was in place never ceased to attract bitter criticism.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 24 , Spring 2001 , pp. 105 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 2001

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

Akşit, Bahattih. 1993. “Studies in Rural Transformation in Turkey, 1950-1990,” in Culture and Economy: Changes in Turkish Villages, ed. Stirling, Paul. Cambridge: The Eothen Press.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banfield, Edward C. 1958. The Moral Basis of Backward Society. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Beetham, David. 1999. Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Berman, Sheri. 1997. “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic,” World Politic, 49, pp. 401-29.Google Scholar
Burkhart, Ross E., and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 1994. “Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis,” American Political Science Review 88 (4), pp. 903-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buğra, Ayşe. 1994. State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study. Albany N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Buğra, Ayşe 1998. “Class, Culture and State: An Analysis of Interest Representation by Two Turkish Business Associations,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 30, pp. 521-39.Google Scholar
Carp, David A., Stone, Gregory P., and Yoels, William C.. 1991. Being Urban: A Sociology of City Life, 2d ed. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cizre-Sakallıoğlu, Ümit. 1991. “Labour: The Battered Community,” in Strong State and Economic Interest Groups: The Post-1980 Turkish Experience, ed. Heper, Metin. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 57–69.Google Scholar
Cizre-Sakallıoğlu, Ümit, and Yeldan, Erinç. 2000. “Politics, Society and Financial Liberalization: Turkey in the 1990s,” Development and Change 31, pp. 481–508.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Danielson, Michael N., and Keleş, Ruşen. 1985. The Politics of Rapid Urbanization: Government and Growth in Modern Turkey. New York: Holmes and MeyerGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John. 1946. Problems of Men. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Di Palma, Giuseppe. 1990. To Craft Democracies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 1992. “Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered,” in Reexamining Democracy: Essays in Honor of Seymour Martin Lipset, ed. Marks, Gary and Diamond, Larry. London: Sage, pp. 93–139.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry 1996. “Is the Third Wave Over?” Journal of Democracy 7, pp. 20–37.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1995. “Introduction: What Makes for Democracy,” in Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy, 2d ed., ed. Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. London and Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, pp. 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Larry, Hartlyn, Jonathan, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1999. “Preface,” in Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America, ed. Diamond, Larry, Hartlyn, Jonathan, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. London and Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Larry 1999. “Introduction: Politics, Society and Democracy in Latin America,” in Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America, ed. Diamond, Larry, Hartlyn, Jonathan, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. London and Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, pp. 1–70.Google Scholar
Duben, Alan. 1982. “The Significance of Family and Kinship in Urban Turkey,” in Sex, Roles, Family and Community in Turkey, ed. Kağitçibaşi, Çiğdem. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, pp. 73–99.Google Scholar
Erder, Sema. 1996. İstanbul’a Bir Kent Kondu: Ümraniye, Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
Erder, Sema 1997. Kentsel Gerilim. Ankara: Tumcag.Google Scholar
Erman, Tahire. 1998. “Becoming ‘Urban’ or Remaining ‘Rural’: The Views of Turkish Rural-to-Urban Migrants on the ‘Integration’ Question,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 30 (4), pp. 541-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esmer, Yılmaz. 1999. Devrim, Evrim, Statüko: Türkiye’de Sosyal, Siyasal, Ekonomik Değerler, Istanbul: TESEV.Google Scholar
Evin, Ahmet Ö. 1984. “Communitarian Structures and Social Change,” in Modern Turkey: Continuity and Change, ed. Evin, Ahmet Ö.. Opladen, Germany: Leske Verlag und Budrich, pp. 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1995. “Economic Crisis and Political Regime Change: An Event History Analysis,” American Political Science Review 89 (4), pp. 882-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasiorowski, Mark J., and Power, Timothy J.. 1998. “The Structural Determinant of Democratic Consolidation: Evidence from the Third World,” Comparative Political Studies 31 (6), pp. 740-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Graeme. 1998. “Democratization, the Bourgeoisie and Russia,” Government and Opposition 33 (3), pp. 307-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güneş-Ayata, Ayşe. 1990-91. “Gecekondularda Kimlik Sorunu, Dayanışma Örüntüleri ve Hemşehrilik,” Toplum ve Bilim 51-52, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
Güvenç, Bozkurt. 1997. “From Scholastic to Social Education in Turkey,” in Recent Perspectives on Turkish Education: An Inside View, ed. Yıldıran, Güzver and Durnin, John. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, Turkish Studies Publications.Google Scholar
Helliwell, John F. 1994. “Empirical Linkages Between Democracy and Economic Growth,” British Journal of Political Science 24, pp. 225-48.Google Scholar
Heper, Metin. 1983. Türkiye’de Kent Göçmeni ve Bürokratik Örgütler. Istanbul: Üçdal.Google Scholar
Heper, Metin, and Keyman, E. Fuat. 1999. “Double-Faced State: Political Patronage and the Consolidation of Democracy in Turkey,” Middle Eastern Studies 34 (4), pp. 259-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, Richard. J. 1986. Cities, Capitalism and Civilization. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, and Stephens, John D.. 1999. “The Bourgeoisie and Democracy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,” Social Research 66 (3), pp. 759-88.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, Okla., and London: University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Ichilov, Orit, ed. 1998. Citizenship and Citizenship Education in a Changing World. London: The Woburn Press.Google Scholar
Karpat, Kemal H. 1959. Turkey’s Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Karpat, Kemal H 1975. “The Politics of Transition: Political Attitudes and Party Affiliation in the Turkish Gecekondu,” pp. 89-119 in Political Participation in Turkey: Historical Background and Present Problems, ed. Akarlı, Engin D. and Ben-Dor, Gabriel. Istanbul:Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
Karpat, Kemal H 1976. The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karpat, Kemal H 1981. “Turkish Democracy at an Impasse: Ideology, Party Politics and the Third Military Intervention,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 2, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
Keleş, Ruşen. 2000. Kentleşme Politikası, 5th ed. Ankara: İmge.Google Scholar
Keyder, Çağlar. 1987. “The Political Economy of Turkish Democracy,” pp. 27-65 in Turkey in Transition: New Perspectives, ed. Schick, Irvin C. and Tonak, Ertuğrul A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keyder, Çağlar, ed. 2000. İstanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Arasında. Istanbul: Metis.Google Scholar
Kıray, Mübeccel Belik. 1981. “Gecekondu: Az Gelişmiş Ülkelerde Hızla Topraktan Kopma ve Kentle Bütünleşememe,” pp. 339-52 in Toplumbilim Yazıları. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi (first published 1973).Google Scholar
Kıray, Mübeccel Belik 1998. “Topraktan Kopan Köylülerin Kentlerde Yaşama Stratejisi,” pp. 184-87 in Kentleşme Yazıları, Istanbul: Bağlam.Google Scholar
Kumar, Krishan. 1993. “Civil Society: An Inquiry into the Usefulness of an Historical Term.” British Journal of Sociology 44 (3), pp. 375-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamounier, Bolivar. 1999. “Brazil: Inequality Against Democracy,” pp. 131-89 in Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America. London and Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdowns and Reequilibration. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J 1988. “Legitimacy of Democracy and Socioeconomic System,” pp. 65-113 in Comparing Pluralist Democracies, ed. Dogan, Mattei. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J., and Stepan, Alfred. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,” American Political Science Review 53 (1), March, pp. 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin 1983. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, expanded and updated, ed. London: Heinemann (first published 1960).Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin 1988. “Political Cleavages in ‘Developed’ and ‘Emerging’ Polities,” in Revolution and Counterrevolution by Lipset, Seymour Martin. Oxford: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, Seong, Kyoung-Ryoung, and Torres, John Charles. 1993. “A Comparative Analysis of the Social Requisites of Democracy,” International Social Science Journal 45, pp. 155-75.Google Scholar
Londregan, John B., and Poole, Keith T.. 1990. “Poverty, the Coup Trap, and the Seizure of Executive Power,” World Politics 42 (2), pp. 151-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Mick. 1995. “Democracy and Development in Cross-National Perspective: A New Look at the Statistics,” Democratization 2 (2), pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. “Delegative Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 5, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar
OECD. 1997. Economic Surveys: Turkey. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Ortaylı, İlber. 2000. Osmanlı Toplumunda Aile. Istanbul: Pan.Google Scholar
Ozankaya, Özer. 1971. Köyde Toplumsal Yapı ve Siyasal Kültür. Ankara: SBF.Google Scholar
Öncü, Ayşe. 1994. “Street Politics,” pp. 273-98 in Developmentalism and Beyond, ed. Öncü, Ayşe, Keyder, Çağlar, and İbrahim, Saad Eddin. Cairo: University of Cairo Press.Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya. 1997. “The Political Economy of Islamic Resurgence in Turkey: The Rise of the Welfare Party in Perspective,” Third World Quarterly 18 (4), pp. 743-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun. 1981. “Politics of Political Clientelism: Turkey,” pp. 249-67 in Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, ed. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. and Lemarchand, Rene. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2000. Contemporary Turkish Politics: Challenges to Consolidation. London: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piano, Aili, and Puddington, Arch. 2001. “The 2000 Freedom House Survey: Gains Offset Losses,” Journal of Democracy 12 (1), pp. 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, Jose Antonio, and Limongi, Fernando. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure,” Journal of Democracy 7 (1), pp. 39–55.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Limongi, Fernando. 1993. “Political Regimes and Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (3), pp. 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics 49, pp. 155-83.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., with Leonardi, Robert and Nanetti, Raffaella Y.. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reis, Elisa P. 1998. “Banfield’s Amoral Familism Revisited: Implications of High Inequality Structures for Civil Society,” pp. 21-39 in Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalization, ed. Alexander, Jeffrey C.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, Evelyn Huber, and Stephens, John D.. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model,” Comparative Politics 3, pp. 59–85.Google Scholar
Savage, Mike. 1993. Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayan, Sabri. 1977. “Political Patronage in Turkey,” pp. 103-11 in Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. Gellner, Ernest and Waterbury, John. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Scalapino, Robert A. 1993. “Democratizing Dragons: South Korea and Taiwan,” Journal of Democracy 4 (3), pp. 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1999. “Democracy as a Universal Value,” Journal of Democracy 10 (3), pp. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shills, Edward. 1992. “Civility and Civil Society,” pp. 1-15 in Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies, ed. Banfield, Edward C.. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Sirovy, Larry, and Inkeles, Alex. 1990. “The Effects of Democracy on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Review,” Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (1), pp. 126-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Paul. 1965. Turkish Village. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Peter. 1966. “Peasants Without Plows: Some Anatolians in Istanbul,” Rural Sociology 31 (4), pp. 428-38.Google Scholar
Tankut, Hasan Reşit. 1939. Köylerimiz: Bugün Nasddır, Dün Nasıldı, Yarın Nasıl Olmalıdır. Ankara: Kenan Basımevi.Google Scholar
Tekeli,, İlhan. 1994. “The Patron-Client Relationship, Land-Rent Economy and the Experience of ‘Urbanization Without Citizens,’” pp. 9-17 in The Urban Experience, ed. Neary, S.J., Symes, M.S., and Brown, F.E.. London: E& FN SPON.Google Scholar
TESEV. 1997. İnsani Gelişme Raporu-Türkiye 1997. Istanbul:TESEV.Google Scholar
Teşkilatı, T.C. Devlet Planlama. 1996. İllerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması. Ankara: DPT.Google Scholar
Teşkilatı, T.C. Devlet Planlama. 1999. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Göstergeler (1950-1998). Ankara: DPT.Google Scholar
Teşkilatı., T.C. Devlet Planlama 2000. Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı Öncesinde Sosyal Sektörlerde Gelişmeler, 1996-2000. Ankara: DPT.Google Scholar
İstatistik Enstitüsü, T.C. Devlet. 1998. 75. Yılında Sayılarla Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. Ankara: D.İ.E.Google Scholar
Enstitüsü, T.C. Devlet İstatistik. 1999. Türkiye İstatistik Yıllığı 1998. Ankara, DİE.Google Scholar
Toprak, Binnaz. 1996. “Civil Society in Turkey,” pp. 87-118 in Civil Society in the Middle East, vol. 2, ed. Augustus Richard Norton. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Turan, İiter. 1998. “Stages of Political Development in the Turkish Republic,” pp. 59-94 in Perspectives on Democracy in Turkey, ed. Özbudun, Ergun. Ankara: Sevinç.Google Scholar
TÜSES, . 1996. Türkiye’de Siyasi Parti Seçmenlerinin Nitelikleri, Kimlikleri ve Eğilimleri. Ankara: Tüses.Google Scholar
TÜSES, . 1999. Türkiye’de Siyasi Parti Seçmenleri ve Toplum Düzeni. Ankara: Tüses.Google Scholar
Vorhoff, Karin. 2001. “Türkiye’de İşadamı Dernekleri: İşlevsel Dayanışma, Kültürel Farklılık ve Devlet Arasında,” pp. 311-56 in Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum ve Milliyetçilik, ed. Yerasimos, Stefanoset al. Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
White, Jenny B. 1999. “Turkish Tradition in the Modern Age,” in Bilanço 1923-1998: Ekonomi, Toplum, Çevre, Cilt II, ed. Rona, Zeynep. Ankara: Tarih Vakfı.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Lawrence, ed. 1996. The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Yasa, Ibrahim. 1957. Hasanoğlan: Socio-Economie Structure of a Turkish Village. Ankara: Yeni Matbaa.Google Scholar
Yerasimos, Stefanoset al., eds. 2001. Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum ve Milliyetçilik, Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar