DEMOGRAFİK DEĞİŞKENLERİN SİYASAL RIZA ALGISINA ETKİSİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA: KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2025, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 215 - 244, 27.03.2025

Mahmut Turan Ektiren

https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1493343

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, Türkiye'deki bireylerin siyasal rıza algılarını demografik değişkenler (cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim düzeyi, çalışma durumu, gelir durumu) açısından incelemektir. Araştırma, genel tarama modeli kullanılarak yürütülmüş olup, Küçükçekmece ilçesinde yaşayan ve 18 yaşını doldurmuş 384 gönüllü katılımcı üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılar, basit rastgele örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilmişlerdir. Veri toplama aracı olarak, demografik bilgileri içeren bir ön bölüm ve Siyasal Rıza Ölçeği'nden oluşan bir anket kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçları, eğitim düzeyi ve gelir gibi demografik faktörlerin, katılımcıların siyasal rıza algıları üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Eğitim düzeyi yükseldikçe sorumluluk, doğruluk, yetkinlik ve özgür irade algılarının arttığı görülmüştür. Buna karşın, yaş ve çalışma durumu gibi diğer demografik değişkenlerin etkisi daha sınırlı kalmıştır. Araştırma, siyasal rıza algısının anlaşılmasında demografik değişkenlerin önemli rol oynadığını ve bu algının çok boyutlu bir yapıya sahip olduğunu göstermektedir..

Keywords

Siyaset Bilimi, siyasal rıza, seçmen davranışı, demokrasi, oy kullanımı

A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON THE PERCEPTION OF POLITICAL CONSENT: THE CASE OF KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE

Abstract

The primary aim of this study is to examine the perceptions of political consent among individuals in Turkey concerning demographic variables such as gender, age, education level, employment status, and income level. The research was conducted using a general survey model and involved 384 voluntary participants living in the Küçükçekmece district, all of whom were 18 years or older. Participants were selected through a simple random sampling method. Data collection was carried out using a questionnaire consisting of two parts: a section for demographic information and the Political Consent Scale. The findings of the study revealed that demographic factors such as education level and income significantly impact participants' perceptions of political consent. As the education level increases, perceptions of responsibility, accuracy, competence, and free will also increase. In contrast, the effects of other demographic variables such as age and employment status were found to be more limited. This research demonstrates the significant role of demographic variables in understanding political consent perceptions and highlights the multidimensional nature of these perceptions.

Keywords

Political Science, political consent, voter behavior, democracy, voting

References

• Aalberg, T., & Jenssen, A. T. (2007). Gender stereotyping of political candidates: An experimental study of political communication. Nordicom Review, 28(1), 17-32.
• Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287-337.
• Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Baş, T. (2013). Anket: Nasıl hazırlanır, uygulanır, değerlendirilir? Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote: The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Bolzendahl, C., & Coffé, H. (2013). Are 'good' citizens necessarily political citizens? An analysis of citizenship preferences and the dimensions of citizenship. Political Studies, 61(1), 47-65.
• Bourdieu, P. (1979). Public opinion does not exist. Communication and class struggle, 1, 124-130.
• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Brady, H. E. (1999). Political participation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 737-801). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294.
• Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Campbell, D. E. (2006, March). What is education’s impact on civic and social engagement? In Measuring the effects of education on health and civic engagement: Proceedings of the Copenhagen symposium (pp. 25-126). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• Ceylan, F., İspir, N., & Özpolat, A. R. (2019). Siyasal rıza ölçeği. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(2), 605-629.
• Ceylan, F., & İspir, N. (2020). Oy Verme Modelleri Bağlamında Siyasal Rızanın Görünümü. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(3), 1489-1511.
• Ceylan, F., & İspir, N. (2023). Siyasal rıza bağlamında oy verme davranışları. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel.
• Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality: Democratic authority and its limits. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2007). Turkish Democracy Today: Elections, Protest and Stability in an Islamic Society. London: I.B. Tauris.
• Çarkoğlu, A. (2012). Economic evaluations vs. ideology: Diagnosing the sources of electoral change in Turkey, 2002–2011. Electoral Studies, 31(3), 513-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.02.005
• Çarkoğlu, A. (2014). One down, two more to go: Electoral trends in the aftermath of the March 2014 municipality elections. Insight Turkey, 16(2), 99-109.
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Toprak, B. (2007). Değişen Türkiye’de din, toplum ve siyaset. İstanbul: TESEV Yayınları.
• Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Dahl, R. A. (2005). Who governs?: Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Dalton, R. J. (2013). Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington DC: CQ Press.
• Dee, T. S. (2004). Are there civic returns to education? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10), 1697-1720.
• Desposato, S. W., & Norrander, B. (2009). The gender gap in Latin America: Contextual and individual influences on gender and political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 141-162.
• de Tocqueville, A. D. (2016). Democracy in America. In R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel (Eds.), Democracy: A Reader (pp. 67-76). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458-476). SAGE Publications.
• Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
• Esmer, Y. (2002). At the ballot box: Determinants of voting behavior in Turkey. Electoral Studies, 19(2), 363-387.
• Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
• Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Gallego, A. (2010). Understanding unequal turnout: Education and voting in comparative perspective. Electoral Studies, 29(2), 239-248.
• Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: Columbia University Press.
• Gilley, B. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 45(3), 499-525.
• Gramsci, A. (2011). Prison notebooks volume 2 (Vol. 2). Berkeley: Columbia University Press.
• Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
• Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). Elements of the philosophy of right (A. W. Wood, Ed., H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hillygus, D. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27(1), 25-47.
• Hobbes, T. (2007). Leviathan (S. Lim, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Htun, M., & Jones, M. P. (2002). Engendering the right to participate in decision-making: Electoral quotas and women’s leadership in Latin America. In N. Craske & M. Molyneux (Eds.), Gender and the politics of rights and democracy in Latin America (pp. 32-56). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2023). Women in parliaments: World classification. Retrieved from https://data.ipu.org/women-in-parliaments
• Jamal, A. A. (2012). Of empires and citizens: Pro-American democracy or no democracy at all? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Karasar, N. (2015). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. İstanbul: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2005). Turkish dynamics: Bridge across troubled lands. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kölln, A. K. (2024). When Do Citizens Consider Political Parties Legitimate?. British Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 110-128.
• Küçükçekmece Belediyesi. (2024). Nüfusu. Küçükçekmece Belediyesi. https://kucukcekmece.istanbul/icerikler/kucukcekmece/nufusu/710
• Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy's unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14.
• Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.
• Locke, J. (2024). Yönetim üzerine ikinci inceleme: sivil yönetimin gerçek kökeni boyutu ve amacı üzerine bir deneme (Çev. F. Bakırcı). Ankara: Serbest Kitaplar.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. New York: Pearson.
• Macpherson, C. B. (1962). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Milton Park: Routledge.
• Mills, C. W. (2018). The power elite. In D. B. Grusky & J. Hill (Eds.), Inequality in the 21st Century (pp. 80-88). Milton Park: Routledge.
• Mill, J. S. (2016). Özgürlük üzerine (T. Kanbur, Trans.). İstanbul: Liberté Yayınları.
• Milligan, K., Moretti, E., & Oreopoulos, P. (2004). Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9-10), 1667-1695.
• Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and Analysis of Experiments (9th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838-855.
• Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953
• Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Norris, P. (2004). Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790980
• Norris, P. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
• Öniş, Z., & Keyman, E. F. (2003). A new path emerges. Journal of Democracy, 14(2), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2003.0042
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Paxton, P., Hughes, M. M., & Green, J. L. (2006). The international women's movement and women's political representation, 1893-2003. American Sociological Review, 71(6), 898-920.
• Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pósch, K., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., & Macqueen, S. (2021). “Truly free consent”? Clarifying the nature of police legitimacy using causal mediation analysis. Journal of experimental criminology, 17, 563-595.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
• Rousseau, J. J. (2024). Toplum sözleşmesi. (Çev. S. Ugan). İstanbul: Doğan Yayınları.
• Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
• Sayarı, S. (2002). The changing party system. South European Society and Politics, 7(1), 1-28.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Milton Park: Routledge.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sesli, M., & Arslanel, M. N. (2022). Üniversite gençliğinin sosyo-kültürel özelliklerinin siyasal rızaları üzerine etkisi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(4), 1359-1382.
• Smith, M. (1914). “The Consent of Governed”. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 5(1), 82-88
• Solt, F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 48-60.
• Spencer, H. (2003). The man versus the state. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.
• Taylor, C. (1992). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Thoreau, H. D. (1993). Civil disobedience, and other essays. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
• Togeby, L. (1994). Political implications of increasing numbers of women in the labor force. Comparative Political Studies, 27(2), 211-240.
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Young, I. M. (2020). Justice and the Politics of Difference. In The new social theory reader (pp. 261-269). Milton Park: Routledge.