Divided by Democracy? Reflections on the Turkish Referendum From the Top (original) (raw)
Related papers
Turkish democracy: a flawed model
Subjects: 50.50 [1] Democracy and government [2] International politics [3] Turkey [4] middle east [5] europe [6] democracy & power [7] the future of turkey [8] Agnes Czajka [9] Bora Isyar [10] Turkeyʼs political leadership under Recep Tayyip Erdogan is projecting the country as a successful model of democracy for Arab states emerging from authoritarian rule. A closer look casts doubt on the claim, say Agnes Czajka and Bora Isyar.
Turkey's Constitutional Referendum of 2010 and Insights for the General Elections of 2011
SETA Policy Report, 2011
The constitutional referendum of September 2010 was a historic moment and a milestone in modern Turkey’s democratization journey. Serving as the public’s “final say” on the question of democracy in Turkey and paving the way for a new civilian constitution, the referendum will have far-reaching consequences for civil-military relations, independence of the judicial system, and institutionalization of democracy in Turkey. This study investigates the consequences of the referendum for the shaping of the political scene in Turkey by analyzing the political parties’ campaign strategies, voting patterns, voter preferences, and likely scenarios for the June 2011 general elections. The report is divided into four main parts that tackle the main questions that the referendum of 2010 raised. First, what is the significance of the September 2010 constitutional referendum in Turkey? Second, what campaign strategies were most effective during the referendum? Third, what can be deduced from the voting patterns and voter preferences? Fourth, what can we predict about the June 2011 general Elections based on voter behaviors during the constitutional referendum of 2010? The study of the September 2010 constitutional referendum results revealed significant clues as to what could be the results of the June 2011 general elections. The AK Party’s referendum campaign strategy, constructed around “democratic freedoms,” resonated strongly among voters in Turkey. Having analyzed the geographic distribution of votes during the referendum, this report demonstrates that the opposition parties took the risk of becoming merely local or regional parties while the AK Party was the only party with the political discourse that would address the themes that concerned voters across Turkey. The June 2011 general elections may prove to be the most important elections in Turkey’s recent electoral history. Just as a strong preference for “democratic freedoms” among voters became clear during the referendum, the upcoming general election in Turkey is poised to determine who is to survive Turkey’s political landscape over the next decade.
Between two rationalities: the possibility of an alternative politics in Turkey
Jadaliyya, 2014
How can the results of the recent municipal elections in Turkey be understood amidst the constantly changing political landscape: graft scandals, revolting judicial decisions, changing political alliances, and an ever-increasing polarization? It can be argued that only preliminary lessons can be drawn when analyzing an ongoing historical process for historical and structural clues. This is a state that cannot overcome a widening social opposition, which views elections as the only conduit for democracy (while tampering with these very conduits themselves), which is only able to use brute force against the voices expressed on the streets. It is a state that can only tell lies, since it can no longer (re)produce its own reality, turning ever more clearly into a security and police apparatus. In such a context, do the results of the local elections count for anything? The question here is: when marginalized identities proliferate, when new sorrows and indignations amass, when a populist government manages to monopolize all branches of power under its thumb, what kind of democratic institutions and practices, what kind of struggle, can resist or even transform this kind of rule? How will it be possible to prevent this single-party, single-identity, single-family, one-man rule to drag society into bigger disasters after the collapse of expansionist foreign policies and nearly going to war with some of its neighbors? Amidst this climate of conflict, secret negotiations are supposedly ongoing with the Kurdish Liberation Movement; these are hardly likely to be conductive to a new constitutional arrangement that deepens democracy and brings peace to the conflict. What kind of mechanisms and forces can push this government towards more democratization and the
An interview with me on the current situation of Turkish 'democracy' after the coup attempt on 15 July 2016 (see pages 15-20).
Discussing the form of democracy in Turkey
Aim of the paper is to elaborate on the form of democracy in Turkey which is constructed through various strategies and discourses signifying the importance of the 'reunification of millet and state' as such, bespeaking of the return of the repressed. In this form of governance, this form of democracy, political demands and struggles of the opponents have been reduced to express their dissents only through the " ballot-box " and have gradually transformed most recently into a state of affairs in which singing songs or gathering collectively after the sunset in the capital city have been banned because of 'security' concerns. Therefore, I believe it would be fruitful trying to explore the possibilities of establishing egalitarian forms of democratic practices and political field, in the light of recent referendum and the political terrain of Hayır [against the presidency of Erdoğan] with the insights obtained by Jacques Ranciere and Chantal Mouffe –especially the agnostic confrontation-against the very persistent form of 'democracy' in Turkey where flourishing of dissent voices and acts cannot appear due to the inability of 'proper' political subjectivation; referring to the construction of equality taking place in the gap between the living inequalities and desired forms of citizenship (Ranciere, 1992).
The 2017 Turkish Constitutional Referendum: Domestic and Transnational Implications
New Zealand Journal of Research on Europe 12(1), 2018
On 16 April 2017, Turks cast their vote in a nationwide referendum that introduced significant changes to the current constitution, which has been in use since 1982. Even though the 1982 constitution has been amended 18 times in the past 35 years, the scheduled changes will have the most dramatic impact on the Turkish political system. This article will first provide an overview of the proposed amendments to the 1982 constitution. It will then discuss the repercussions of the referendum results for Turkey and the rest of Europe.
Analysing Turkey’s 2010 constitutional referendum: FPC paper 2010
Over the past few summer months, a political battle took place in Turkey involving heavy, acrimonious campaigning and vitriolic barbs traded between political leaders. To most followers of Turkey's domestic politics, these characteristics are true of any electoral campaign in the country. So far, so familiar. However, this time the campaigning focused not on attaining electoral office but revolved around a popular referendum on whether or not to reform the country's constitution which was written in 1982 under a military regime. The results of the campaign as much as the campaign itself were testimony to the extent to which the political realities of daily life in the country at the end of the first decade in the 21 st century have changed from those 10 years ago. In addition, they also revealed the deep fault-lines and socio-political cleavages that divide society and which will become increasingly visible in the run-up to next year's national elections. This paper will briefly examine the constitutional changes that were approved of and what the actual referendum say about the state of Turkish politics.
Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 2024
This article revisits the scholarly debates on the AKP's constitutional amendment package that was put to vote in the 2010 Turkish Constitutional Referendum. It takes the democratic theorist Andrew Arato and law professor Aslı Bali as major representatives of the two opposing views on the political implications of the reform proposal. It compares and contrasts their arguments particularly in light of their different assessments of the amendments which concern the restructuring of the judiciary, especially the Turkish Constitutional Court. It argues that their fundamental controversy with regard to the democratic or authoritarian nature of these amendments is rooted in the contrast between Bali's predominantly context-bound and Arato's predominantly global approach. While Bali affirms the reform proposal as a democratic step forward in transcending the persistent legacy of the Kemalist authoritarian "tutelary" regime represented by the Constitutional Court, Arato interprets it as a manifestation of the global populist-authoritarian retreat that expresses itself most visibly through assaults on the independent judiciary. After a critical reading of these two approaches, this paper finalizes by way of introducing a new framework that would counterbalance the context-bound approach with the global one and vice versa that would arguably provide a new perspective through which one could unveil the particular characteristics of the AKP's populist constitutional politics at the time of the Referendum.