İdeoloji, Siyasi Gündem, ve Çatışma: ABD, Avrupa ve Türkiye’deki Yasama Organlarının Kürt Sorunu Söylemlerinin Bir Karşılaştırması

Abstract

Söylem analizini nicel yöntemlerle birleştiren bu yazı, Türkiye, ABD ve AB yasama organlarının Türkiye’deki Kürt sorununu söylemlerle nasıl inşa ettiğini karşılaştırıyor. 1990- 1999 yılları arasındaki yasama-siyasi söylemleri incelendiğinde, ayrılıkçı bir çatışmaya maruz kalmış bir ülkenin bu sorunu dış gözlemcilerin ve dış paydaşlardan farklı bir şekilde algıladığı ve sözlü olarak ifade ettiği ortaya çıkıyor. Çatışmanın yaşandığı ülkeler sorunlarını daha güvenlik odaklı bir mercekle algılarken, bu çatışmaları dışarıdan gözlemleyenler daha çok insani boyutlara odaklanmaktadırlar. Türkiye ile ilgili olarak bu makale, politikacıların çatışmaları nasıl algıladığını ve bu algılamaların Kürt sorununa ilişkin mevcut siyasi gündemleri üzerindeki etkisini tahlil etmekte ve devlet içi çatışmalar üzerine siyasi söylemleri incelenmesine yönelik yeni bir model sunmaktadır. Makalede, muhafazakâr politikacıların Kürt sorununa yaklaşımlarında siyasi gündemin önemli bir dinamik olarak ortaya çıktığı, liberal/özgürleşme yanlısı politikacılar içinse ideolojinin daha büyük bir rol oynadığı ileri sürülüyor. Verilere göre, siyasi muhafazakar politikacıların söylemleri mali, seçime yönelik veya ittifak kurma gibi maddi faktörlere bağlı olarak değişkenlik gösterirken, liberal ve/ veya sol kanat politikacıların söylemleri insan hakları ve demokrasi gibi ideolojik sınırlarla çerçevelenmiştir

Keywords

• devletiçi çatışma
• çatışma söylemi analizi
• yasama siyaseti
• Kürt meselesi

Ideology, Political Agenda, and Conflict: A Comparison of American, European, and Turkish Legislatures’ Discourses on Kurdish Question

Abstract

Combining discourse analysis with quantitative methods, this article compares how the legislatures of Turkey, the US, and the EU discursively constructed Turkey’s Kurdish question. An examination of the legislative-political discourse through 1990 to 1999 suggests that a country suffering from a domestic secessionist conflict perceives and verbalizes the problem differently than outside observers and external stakeholders do. Host countries of conflicts perceive their problems through a more security-oriented lens, and those who observe these conflicts at a distance focus more on the humanitarian aspects. As regards Turkey, this study tests politicians’ perceptions of conflicts and the influence of these perceptions on their pre-existing political agendas for the Kurdish question, and offers a new model for studying political discourse on intra-state conflicts. The article suggests that a political agenda emerges as the prevalent dynamic in conservative politicians’ approaches to the Kurdish question, whereas ideology plays a greater role for liberal/pro-emancipation politicians. Data shows that politically conservative politicians have greater variance in their definitions, based on material factors such as financial, electoral, or alliance-building constraints, whereas liberal and/or left-wing politicians choose ideologically confined discursive frameworks such as human rights and democracy.

Keywords

• Intra-state conflict
• conflict discourse analysis
• legislative politics

References

1. Al, Serhun. “Elite Discourses, Nationalism and Moderation: A Dialectical Analysis of Turkish and Kurdish Nationalisms.” Ethnopolitics 14, no. 1 (2015): 94-112. doi:10.1080/17449057.2014.937638.
2. Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Karreman. “Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of Organizations through Discourse Analysis.” Human Relations 53, no. 9 (2000): 1125-49. doi:10.1177/0018726700539002.
3. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Edited by J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.
4. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. “A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press.” Discourse & Society 19, no. 3 (2008): 273-306. doi:10.1177/0957926508088962.
5. Bourdieu, Pierre, and John B. Thompson. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
6. Cappelen, Herman, and Ernest Lepore. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford, OX: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
7. Çevik, Yusuf. “The Reflections of Kurdish Islamism and Everchanging Discourse of Kurdish Nationalists Toward Islam in Turkey.” Turkish Journal of Politics 3, no. 1 (2012): 87-102.
8. Cohen, Philip R., Jerry L. Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.

9. Dijk, Teun A. VAn. “Ideology and Discourse Analysis.” Journal of Political Ideologies 11, no. 2 (2006): 115-40. doi:10.1080/13569310600687908.
10. Graham, Linda J. “Discourse Analysis and the Critical Use of Foucault.” Paper presented in The Australian Association of Research in Education Annual Conference, Parramatta, Sydney, November 27- December 1, 2005. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2689/.
11. Güneş, Cengiz. The Kurdish National Movement in Turkey: From Protest to Resistance. Oxon, OX: Routledge, 2013.
12. Hansen, Lene. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Abingdon, OX: Routledge, 2006.
13. Henry, Dean. “The Numeration of Events: Studying Political Protest in India.” In Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 187-202. London: Sharpe, 2006.
14. Hix, Simon. “Legislative Behaviour and Party Competition in the European Parliament: An Application of Nominate to the EU.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39, no. 4 (2001): 663-88. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00326.
15. Hix, Simon , Abdul Noury, and Gérard Roland. “Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament.” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 2 (2006): 494-520. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00198.x.
16. Hix, Simon , Amie Kreppel, and Abdul Noury. “The Party System in the European Parliament: Collusive or Competitive?” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 41, no. 2 (2003): 309-31. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00424.
17. Jackson, Richard. “Violent Internal Conflict and the African State: Towards a Framework of Analysis.” Journal of Contemporary African Studies 20, no. 1 (2002): 29-52. doi:10.1080/02589000120104044.
18. Kalyvas, Stathis N. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
19. Leeuwen, Theo Van. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
20. Lemarchand, René. Burundi: Ethnocide as Discourse and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
21. Leudar, Ivan, Victoria Marsland, and Jirí Nekvapil. “On Membership Categorization: ‘Us’, ‘Them’and‘Doing Violence’ in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 15, no. 2-3 (2004): 243-66. doi:10.1177/0957926504041019.
22. Malmvig, Helle. State Sovereignty and Intervention: A Discourse Analysis of Interventionary and Non-Interventionary Practices in Kosovo and Algeria. Reprint, London: Routledge, 2011.
23. Miller, Gale, and Robert Dingwall. Context and Method in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE, 1997.
24. Munck, Gerardo L., and Jay Verkuilen. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy Evaluating Alternative Indices.” Comparative Political Studies 35, no. 1 (2002): 5-34. doi:10.1177/001041400203500101.
25. Noel, Hans. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
26. Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Jennifer L. Green. “The International Women’s Movement and Women’s Political Representation, 1893-2003.” American Sociological Review 71, no. 6 (2006): 898-920. doi:10.1177/000312240607100602.
27. Regan, Patrick M. Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002.
28. Reid, Scott A., and Sik Hung Ng. “Language, Power, and Intergroup Relations.” Journal of Social Issues 55, no. 1 (1999): 119-39. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00108.
29. Schegloff, Emanuel A. “Presequences and Indirection.” Journal of Pragmatics 12, no. 1 (1988): 55-62. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7.
30. Shellman, Steve, and Sean O'Brien. "An Empirical Assessment of the Role of Emotions and Behavior in Conflict Using Automatically Generated Data." All Azimuth 2, no. 2 (2013): 31-46.
31. Sheyholislami, Jaffer. Kurdish Identity, Discourse, and New Media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
32. Wetherell, Margaret, Stephanie Taylor, Simeon J. Yates, eds. Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London: SAGE, 2001.
33. Yeğen, Mesut. “The Kurdish Question in Turkish State Discourse.” Journal of Contemporary History 34, no. 4 (1999): 555-68.