@article{article_641008, title={Patterns of Political Modernization and Turkish Democracy}, journal={The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations}, pages={1–26}, year={1979}, DOI={10.1501/Intrel_0000000199}, author={Abadan Unat, Nermin}, keywords={Patterns, Political Modernization, Turkish Democracy}, abstract={<p>One of Britain’s most realistic writers, G. Orwell, said on <br />one occasion "In the case of a word like democracy not only is <br />there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is <br />resisted from ali sides..."1 <br /> Nevertheless, if defining democracy <br />merely signifies giving the meaning of the word, the problem <br />is quickly solved, for ali that is required is some knowledge of <br />Greek. Literally democracy means "power of the people", that <br />the power belongs to the people. However, we also have to ask <br />what the term stands for. In 1949 a UNESCO inquiry into ideological conflicts concerning democracy issued the following <br />statement: "For the first time in the history of the world, 110- <br />doctrines are advanced as anti-democratic. Practical politicians <br />and political theorist agree in stressing the democratic element <br />in the institutions they’ defend and the theories they advocate. <br />This acceptance of democracy as the highest form of political <br />or social organization is the sign of a basic agreement in the <br />ultimate aims of modern social and political institutions."2 <br /> Yet <br />the term continues to preoccupy political scientists and political <br />philosophers. The reason lies most probably in the undeniable <br />fact, that the majör components of democracy such as equality, <br />self government, sovereignity, representation, majority rule <br />encompass according to the prevailing "Zeitgeisf’a different <br />meaning. <br /> </p>}, number={19}, publisher={Ankara University}