Türkiye'de Seçime ve Geleneksel Olmayan Siyasal Faaliyetlere Katılımı Etkileyen Bireysel Seviye Faktörler

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 71 Sayı: 2, 437 - 463, 15.06.2016

Özge Çelik Russel

https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002399

Cited By: 3

Öz

Türkiye’de seçime katılma ve geleneksel olmayan siyasal faaliyetlere katılma üzerinde etkili olan bireysel
seviye faktörler konusundaki bilgimiz sistematik olarak toplanmış mikro seviyedeki verilerin eksikliği nedeniyle
sınırlıdır. Bu çalışmada seçime katılım ve geleneksel olmayan katılımla ilişkili bireysel seviye faktörlerin
belirlenmesi için Türkiye Değerler Araştırması’nın 1996, 2007 ve 2011 verileri kullanmıştır. Kaynak modeli,
mobilizasyon modeli, siyasal güven ve siyasa tercihleri gibi temel açıklayıcı çerçeveler Türkiye örneğinde nicel
yöntemler kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Çalışmada karşılaştırılan iki bağımlı değişkenden seçime katılım için lojistik,
geleneksel olmayan katılım için doğrusal regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Eğitim seviyesi, zaman içinde tutarlı
olarak, seçime katılımla negatif, geleneksel olmayan katılımla pozitif ilişkilidir. Siyasal güven, geleneksel olmayan
katılımla zaman içinde tutarlı olarak negatif, seçime katılımla bazı yıllarda pozitif ilişkilidir. Dernek üyelikleri,
geleneksel olmayan katılımla zaman içinde tutarlı olarak pozitif, seçime katılımla bazı yıllarda pozitif ilişkilidir.
Geleceğe yönelik siyasa tercihlerinden, ekonomik istikrar, seçime katılımla 2000’li yıllarda pozitif ilişkiliyken, ifade
özgürlüğünün korunması geleneksel olmayan katılımla bütün yıllarda pozitif ilişkilidir. Bulgular, eğitim seviyesi
arttıkça ve siyasal güven azaldıkça seçime katılmanın daha az olası, geleneksel olmayan katılımın daha olası hale
geldiğini; ekonomik istikrarın ülkenin birincil siyasa hedefi olarak değerlendirilmesinin seçime katılmayı daha olası,
ifade özgürlüğünün birincil hedef olarak değerlendirilmesinin geleneksel olmayan katılımı daha olası hale getirdiğini
önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkiye, Siyasal Katılım, Seçime Katılım, Eğitim, Siyasal Güven

Individual Level Determinants of Electoral Turnout and Unconventional Political Participation in Turkey

Öz

Our understanding of individual level determinants of turnout and unconventional political participation in Turkey is limited due to lack of systematically collected micro level data. This study uses World Values Survey data on Turkey for years 1996, 2007, and 2011 to determine the factors associated with turnout and unconventional participation. Main explanatory frameworks such as the resource model, mobilization model, political trust, and policy preferences are tested in the Turkish case using quantitative methods. Education is associated negatively with turnout and positively with unconventional participation in all years. Political trust is consistently negatively associated with unconventional participation and positively associated with turnout in some years. Associational memberships are consistently positively associated with unconventional participation while the relationship is weaker for turnout. Among future policy preferences, economic stability is positively associated with turnout in 2007 and 2011, while protection of the freedom of expression is positively associated with unconventional participation in all years. Findings suggest that as education level increases and political trust decreases, turnout is less likely, while unconventional participation is more likely. Indicating economic stability as the principal policy aim increases the likelihood of turnout, while indicating the freedom of expression increases the likelihood of unconventional participation. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkey, Political Participation, Turnout, Education, Political Trust

Kaynakça

• Akgül, Birol (2001), “Türkiye’de Siyasal Güven: Nedenleri ve Sonuçları”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 56 (4): 1-23.
• Almond, Gabriel A. ve Sidney Verba (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Countries (London: Sage).
• Anderson, Christopher J. (2007), “The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability”, Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 271-296.
• Bélanger, Éric ve Richard Nadeau (2005), “Political Trust and the Vote in Multiparty Elections: The Canadian Case”, European Journal of Political Research, 44 (1): 121-146.
• Blais, André ve Agnieszka Dobrzynska (1998), “Turnout in Electoral Democracies”, European Journal of Political Research, 33 (2): 239-261.
• Blais, André ve Kenneth R. Carty (1990), “Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?”, European Journal of Political Research, 18 (2): 167-181.
• Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba ve Kay Lehman Schlozman (1995), “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation”, American Political Science Review, 89 (2): 271-294.
• Brody, Richard A. ve Benjamin I. Page (1972), “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting”, The American Political Science Review, 66 (2): 450-458.
• Çarkoğlu, Ali (1997), “Macroeconomic Determinants of Electoral Support for Incumbents in Turkey, 1950-1995”, New Perspectives on Turkey, 17 (2): 75-96.
• Esmer, Yılmaz (1995), “Parties and the Electorate: A Comparative Analysis of Voter Profiles of Turkish Political Parties”, Balım, Çiğdem, Ersin Kalaycıoğlu, Cevat Karataş, Gareth Winrow ve Feroz Yasamee (Der.), Turkey: Political, Social and Economic Challenges in the 1990s (Leiden: E. J. Brill): 74-89.
• Esmer, Yılmaz (2002), “At the Bollot Box: Determinants of Voting Behavior”, Sayari, Sabri ve Yılmaz Esmer (Der.), Politics, Parties, and Elections in Turkey (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner): 91-114.
• Fennema, Meindert ve Jean Tillie (1999), “Political Participation and Political Trust in Amsterdam: Civic Communities and Ethnic Networks”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25 (4): 703-726.
• Fiorina, Morris P. (1978), “Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections”, American journal of Political Science, 22 (2): 426-443.
• Geys, Benny (2006), “Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-Level Research”, Electoral Studies, 25 (4): 637-663.
• Gönlund, Kimmo ve Maija Setälä (2007), “Political Trust, Satisfaction and Voter Turnout”, Comparative European Politics, 5 (4): 400-422.
• Healy, Andrew ve Neil Malhotra (2013), “Retrospective Voting Reconsidered”, Annual Review of Political Science, 16: 285-306.
• Highton, Benjamin (2004), “Policy Voting in Senate Elections: The Case of Abortion”, Political Behavior, 26 (2): 181-200.
• Jackson, Robert A. (1995), “Clarifying the Relationship Between Education and Turnout”, American Politics Quarterly, 23 (3): 279-299.
• Kaase, Max ve Alan Marsh (1979), “Political Action. A Theoretical Perspective”, Barnes, Samuel ve Max Kaase vd. (Der.), Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage): 27-56.
• Kaase, Max (1999), “Interpersonal Trust, Political Trust and Non-Institutionalized Political Participation in Western Europe”, West European Politics, 22 (3): 1-21.
• Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin (1994), “Elections and Party Preferences in Turkey: Changes and Continuities in the 1990s”, Comparative Political Studies, 27 (3): 402-424.
• Lewis-Beck, Michael S. ve Mary Stegmaier (2000), “Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes”, Annual Review of Political Science, 3: 183-219.
• Marsh, Alan ve Max Kaase (1979), “Measuring Political Action”, Barnes, Samuel ve Max Kaase vd.(Der.), Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage): 57-96.
• Milbrath, Lester W. (1965), Political Participation. How and Why People Get Involved in Politics (Chicago: Rand McNally).
• Norris, Pippa (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism (New York: Cambridge University Press).
• Radcliff, Benjamin ve Patricia Davis (2000), “Labor Organization and Electoral Participation in Industrial Democracies”, American Journal of Political Science, 44 (1): 132-141.
• Sabucedo, Jose Manuel ve Constantino Arce (1991), “Types of Political Participation: A Multidimensional Analysis”, European Journal of Political Research, 20 (1): 93-102.
• Schlozman, Kay Lehman (2002), “Citizen Participation in America: What Do We Know? Why Do We Care?”, Katznelson, Ira ve Helen V. Milner (Der.), Political Science: State of the Discipline (New York: Norton): 433-461.
• Smets, Kaat ve Carolien van Ham (2013), “The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout”, Electoral Studies, 32 (2): 344-359.
• Sweet, Stephen ve Karen Grace-Martin (2012), Data Analysis with SPSS (Boston: Pearson).
• Verba, Sidney ve Norman H. Nie (1972), Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (New York: Harper and Row Publishers).