Being a Member of Parliament In Contemporary Turkey (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Universal History Studies, 2019
Turkish parliamentary tradition with a history of 140 years, no doubt is a result of challenging periods which roots extending to the history of the Ottoman Empire. Tanzimat reforms as well as Constitutional Monarchy periods (known as I. and II. Meşrutiyet) crowned with the National Liberation Movement initiated the new political regime in Turkey and formed a parliamentary institution that call now the Turkish parliament or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The analysis of the historical evolution of the Turkish parliamentary experience along with its parliamentary functions and activities will provide us valuable information on politics and socio-historical development of the Turkish state. Certainly, the unique characteristics of Turkish society and Turkish history, as well as parliamentary transformations at the global level along with political developments affecting the parliamentary tradition makes a Turkish parliamentary experience noteworthy to be analyzed. Social structure, bureaucracy and traditions of every society or political entity define the role of a parliament in the certain political system. The social and political structure gives important information on the organization and behaviour of the parliament as well as parliamentary functions provide first-hand data on features and characteristics of the society reciprocally. This study is a brief historical account of the Turkish parliament as a representative institution. The main goal of this research is to provide an analytic review of the Turkish parliamentary experience and parliamentary evolution without debates on pro and contras of parliamentary or presidential systems. There are two matching features in our research approach in this study. First, we will focus on and outline the historical evolution process of the Turkish parliamentary experience. Second, we will look for descriptive information to enrich our general understanding of the parliamentary workings. The historical analysis method will be applied to conduct this research. The method was described by sociologist and political scientist Theda Skocpol. The historical analysis method aims to develop and improve descriptive and reasonable hypothesizes on institutions as nation-states.
Measuring the decline of parliaments : new indicators and Turkey as an illustrative case
Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi
Parliamentary systems historically represent the power of people and are based on parliamentary supremacy. The executive emerging from the parliament blurs the lines between the legislation and executive powers and results in more of a fusion of powers rather than separation. Thus, the relative power of parliament compared with the executive branch has been a subject of study. However, some empirical studies show that the executive branch has been increasing its power vis-à-vis the legislature in many parliamentary systems. As declining parliaments become a popular research topic, the development of indicators for declining parliament gains urgency. This paper revisits the indicators employed in studies on deparliamentarization. In addition to discussing the two commonly used indicators, government stability and responsiveness of governments, it introduces two new ones: the parliament's role in government change, and the legislative initiative by the parliament. Then, these four indicators are applied to a country case and analyze the changes in the power of parliament in Turkey. The data on these major indicators show that although not exactly linear, there has been a power shift from the parliament to a very strong executive, and "deparliamentarization" has been particularly rapid and profound since the 1980s.
Journal of Universal History Studies (JUHIS), 2019
Turkish parliamentary tradition with a history of 140 years, no doubt is a result of challenging periods which roots extending to the history of the Ottoman Empire. Tanzimat reforms as well as Constitutional Monarchy periods (known as I. and II. Meşrutiyet) crowned with the National Liberation Movement initiated the new political regime in Turkey and formed a parliamentary institution that call now the Turkish parliament or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The analysis of the historical evolution of the Turkish parliamentary experience along with its parliamentary functions and activities will provide us valuable information on politics and socio-historical development of the Turkish state. Certainly, the unique characteristics of Turkish society and Turkish history, as well as parliamentary transformations at the global level along with political developments affecting the parliamentary tradition makes a Turkish parliamentary experience noteworthy to be analyzed. Social structure, bureaucracy and traditions of every society or political entity define the role of a parliament in the certain political system. The social and political structure gives important information on the organization and behaviour of the parliament as well as parliamentary functions provide first-hand data on features and characteristics of the society reciprocally. This study is a brief historical account of the Turkish parliament as a representative institution. The main goal of this research is to provide an analytic review of the Turkish parliamentary experience and parliamentary evolution without debates on pro and contras of parliamentary or presidential systems. There are two matching features in our research approach in this study. First, we will focus on and outline the historical evolution process of the Turkish parliamentary experience. Second, we will look for descriptive information to enrich our general understanding of the parliamentary workings. The historical analysis method will be applied to conduct this research. The method was described by sociologist and political scientist Theda Skocpol. The historical analysis method aims to develop and improve descriptive and reasonable hypothesizes on institutions as nation-states.
Parliament Membership during the Single-Party System in Turkey (1925-1945)
European journal of Turkish studies, 2005
The official legitimization of the single-party regime in Turkey lay with Parliament, which, as a representative of the people, controlled the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. However, the parliamentary period after 1925 was highlighted by a lack of freedom of speech, with scope for political discussion limited. This paper aims to establish the role of MPs during this period. At the head of the single-party system, the President was free to choose every party member for Parliament. This meant competition was very restricted, be it in the form of short-lived opposition parties or independent candidates. During the selection process, some social classes, for example high-ranking officer and bureaucrats were privileged. These two groups were the most common in Parliament. On the other hand, local ties were sometimes respected by the regime: rural notables with close relations with party headquarters were easily elected, and remained in Parliament. A MPs' chance of re-election was significant if he performed his duty with loyalty to the party. The author underlines a stabilization of political personnel throughout this period.
Being an opposition MP in the 22nd Turkish parliament
European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social …, 2009
This article analyzes the role and strategy of the main opposition (CHP) party's MPs, their perceptions of their roles, their place in the legislative process and their relationship with their party in the 22 nd Turkish Grand National Assembly. In multi-party Parliaments characterized by ...
When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision
International Studies Perspectives, 2010
Turkey’s decision on its role in the Iraq war in 2003 illustrates the power—and limits—of parliaments as actors in foreign policy. Traditionally, assemblies are not seen as important players in the foreign policies of parliamentary democracies. Instead, cabinets are generally considered the chief policymaking authorities. If the government enjoys a parliamentary majority, legislatures typically support the cabinet, if they are brought into the process at all. The March 1, 2003 vote by the Turkish parliament to not allow the United States to use Turkey as a base for the Iraq invasion challenges this conventional wisdom on parliamentary influence (in addition to many interest-based explanations of foreign policy). This paper examines this decision in the context of the role of parliaments in foreign policies and explores the relationships between parliamentary influence, leadership, intraparty politics, and public opinion.
Parliaments in Foreign Policy, in: Oxford Research Encyclopedia in Politics
Parliaments differ enormously in their foreign policy competences. This is best documented in the area of " war powers, " understood as decision-making on the use of force. In other issue areas, such as treaty-making, defense budgets, sanctions, or arms exports, differences across countries are far less researched. The available data, however, suggests that differences in those areas are no smaller than in the area of war powers. What is more, the data also show that parliamentary competences across issue areas within particular countries also differ a lot. Parliaments are not strong or weak across the full spectrum of foreign policy competences. Instead, parliamentary competences are country, as well as issue specific. A general trend toward a parliamentarization or deparliamentarization of foreign affairs is not discernible. Partly inspired by institutionalist versions of Democratic Peace Theory, numerous studies have examined whether parliamentary powers have any effect on countries' propensity to use armed force. Case-study research tends to find that variation in parliamentary powers impacts on decision-making on the use of force but also emphasizes that the effects of institutional constraints need to be understood in conjunction with the preferences of the public, parliament, and government. Statistical studies have found some evidence for a " parliamentary peace, " but because of problematic indicators and a lack of controls, doubts remain as to robustness and significance of this effect. In any case, theories of legislative-executive relations in parliamentary systems suggest that open confrontations between parliament and government are exceptional. Instead of an institutional constraint in a system of checks and balances, parliamentary war powers can be understood as an additional reassurance against unpopular decisions to use force. Most studies of parliaments in foreign affairs are characterized by " methodological nationalism " —that is, the assumption that nation-states are the natural units of analysis. However, parliaments' activities in foreign affairs are not exhausted by their monitoring and scrutiny of national executives. In addition, there is a long tradition of " parliamentary diplomacy " and engagement in interparliamentary institutions. The most powerful parliamentary actor beyond the nation-state is the European Parliament. Although its formal competences are limited, it has been very effective in using its powers to influence European foreign policy.
The role of parliament in government
2005
With the often substantial turnover of election officials through elections, it has become increasingly obvious that there is a huge need for orientation programs and materials for new legislators. This Paper was developed with that need in mind. It outlines the core functions of legislatures, presents a model of parliamentary power that differs from the traditional presidential-hybrid-parliamentary model which allows legislators to identify their type of legislature, with accompanying strengths and weaknesses. The Paper goes on to consider those factors that influence parliamentary capacity and influence, namely, political and electoral systems, formal parliamentary powers, political will and political space, and the technical capacity of parliaments. It concludes by presenting some recent examples of parliamentary development - noting where progressive parliamentary leadership has resulted in substantial increases in parliamentary autonomy, and, it is anticipated, parliamentary ef...