Demokratikleşme Literatürü Çerçevesinde Rawls’un Anayasal Uzlaşma ve Örtüşen Görüş Birliği Kavramları

Year 2016, Volume: 2 Issue: 3, 27 - 47, 15.04.2016

Necip Yıldız

Abstract

Bu makalede Rawls’un anayasal uzlaşma ve örtüşen görüş birliği kavramları, demokratikleşme literatürü çerçevesinde analiz edilip değerlendirilmiştir. Rawls bir siyaset düşünürü olarak yazmasına ve demokratikleşme literatürüne açık göndermelerde bulunmamasına ragmen, demokratikleşme literatürü ile Rawls’un örtüşen görüş birliğine ulaşmak için gerektiğini belirttiği aşamalar arasında bir paralellik gözlemlenmektedir. Makalede, demokratikleşme literatürüile Rawls’un anayasal uzlaşma ve örtüşen görüş birliği kavramları arasındaki bağlantılarla ilgili olarak üç temel tespit yapılmıştır. İlk olarak, Rawls’un bahsettiği, demokratik prosedürler üzerinde bir ‘anayasal uzlaşma’nın ilk aşamasının, ki bu yalnızca bir modus vivendi’dir, literatürdeki ‘demokrasiye geçiş’ kavramına karşılık geldiği tespit edilmiştir. İkinci olarak, anayasal uzlaşmanın nihai ve sonlandırılmış halinin ‘minimalist’ ve ‘negatif’ demokratik pekişmeye denk düştüğü; üçüncü olarak ise, ‘örtüşen görüş birliği’ kavramının ‘maksimalist’ ve ‘pozitif’ demokratik pekişmeye karşılık geldiği tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

John Rawls, anayasal uzlaşma, örtüşen görüş birliği, demokratikleşme,, negatif ve pozitif demokratik pekişme, minimalist ve maksimalist demokratik pekişme.

Rawls’ Conceptions of Constitutional Consensus and Overlapping Consensus in View of the Democratization Literature

Abstract

In this article, Rawls’ conceptions of constitutional consensus and overlapping consensus are analyzed and evaluatedin relation to the democratization literature. Although Rawls wrote as a political thinker and didnot make explicit references to the democratization literature in his writings, one can discern a parallel between the democratization literature and Rawls’ depiction of the stages for reaching an overlapping consensus. Regarding the connections between democratization literature and Rawls’ conceptions of constitutional consensus and overlapping consensus, three conclusions are put forth in the article. The first is that Rawls’ conception of the initial stage of constitutional consensus, which is practically a modus vivendi, corresponds to ‘democratic transition.’ The second argument is that Rawls’ conception of (finalized) constitutional consensus corresponds to ‘minimalist’ and ‘negative’ democratic consolidation. And the third argument is that Rawls’ conception of overlapping consensus corresponds to ‘maximalist’ and ‘positive’ democratic consolidation.

Keywords

John Rawls, constitutional consensus, overlapping consensus, democratization,, negative and positive democratic consolidation, minimalist and maximalist democratic consolidation.

References

• ALMOND, Gabriel and VERBA, Sidney, (1963), “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations”, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• BURNELL, Peter, and CALVERT, Peter, (1999), ”The Resilience of Democracy: An Introduction,” Democratization 6(1), Oxfordshire.
• CARLSON, Neil, (2002), “The Institutional Design of Civil Society: Practical Roots of Constitutional Democracy” (Ph.D. proposal at Duke University), published at http://www.duke.edu/~nec/ps/diss/carlson_proposal_200203.pdf.
• CARTER, April, and STOKES, Geoffrey (Eds), (1998), “Liberal Democracy and Its Critics”, Polity Press, Oxford.
• DAHL, Robert A, (1971), “Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition”, Yale University Press, New Haven.
• DAHL, Robert, (1989), “Democracy and Its Critics”, Yale University Press, New Haven.
• DIAMOND, Larr, (1996), “Is the Third Wave Over?,” Journal of Democracy 7(3 ), p.33,
• Washington, DC. DIAMOND, Larry, (1999), “Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation”, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
• EASTON, David, (1975), “A Reassessment of the Concept of Political Support,” British Journal of Political Sciences, 5(4), Cambridge.
• GANBAT, Gamba, (2004), “The Mass Public and Democratic Politics in Mongolia.” Working Paper Series No:29, Asian Barometer Office, National Taiwan University and Academia Sinica.
• HUNTINGTON, Samuel, (1991), “The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century”, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
• INGLEHART, Ronald, (1988), “The Renessaince of Political Culture,” American Political Science Review 82(4), Denton TX.
• KALDOR, Mary and VEJVODA, Ivan, (1997), “Democratization in Central and Eastern European Countries,” International Affairs 73(1), Malden USA.
• KLOSKO, George, (1993). “Rawls’ Political Philosophy and American Democracy,” American Political Science Review, 87(2), Washington, DCKnoxville.
• LINZ, Juan J. and STEPAN, Alfred, (1996), “Toward Consolidated Democracies,” Journal of Democracy 7(2), Washington, DC.
• LINZ, Juan, (1978), “The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Re-equilibration”, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
• LIPSET, Seymour Martin, (1959), “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and olitical Legitimacy,” American Political Science Review53(1), Washington, DC.
• LIPSET, Seymour Martin, (1959), “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,” American Political Science Review53(1), Washington, DC.
• LIPSET, Seymour Martin, (1960), “Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics”, Gardencity, NY: Doubleday.
• MOORE, Barrington, (1966), “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”, Beacon Press, Boston.
• O’DONNELL, Guillermo, (1992), “Transitions, Continuities, Paradoxes,” In Scott Mainwaring, Guillermo O’Donnell, and J. Samuel Valenzuela (Eds), “Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective”, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
• ÖZBUDUN, Ergun, (2000), “Contemporary Turkish Politics: Challenges to Democratic Consolidation”, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder.
• POTTER, David et al, (1997), “Democratization”, The Open University Press, Walton Hall.
• POTTER, David, (1997), “Explaining Democratization” in David Potter, David Goldblatt, Margaret Kiloh, and Paul Lewis (Eds), “Democratization”, Polity Press and Open University, Cambridge.
• PRIDHAM, Geoffrey, (1995), “The International Context of Democratic Consolidation: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective,” In Richard Gunther, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, and Hans-Jürgen Puhle, editors, “The Politics of Democratic Consolidation, Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective”, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
• RAWLS, John, (1996), “Political Liberalism”, Columbia University Press, New York REIDY,
• David A., “1999”, “Re-reading Rawls”, University of Tennessee Publication, Knoxville TN.
• RUSTOW, Dankwart. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model,” Comparative Politics 2(3): 337-36, New York.
• SCHEDLER, Andreas, (1997), “Concepts of Democratic Consolidation,” Paper Prepared for Delivery at the Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), Continental Plaza Hotel, Guadalajara, Mexico, 17–19 April 1997.
• SCHMITTER, Philippe C, (1988), “The Consolidation of Political Democracy in Southern Europe,” Stanford University and European University Institute (unpublished manuscript), Stanford and Florence.
• SCHMITTER, Philippe C, (2001), “Parties are not What They Once Were,” In Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther (Eds). “Political Parties and Democracy”, the Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
• SCHUMPETER, Joseph, (1970), “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy”, George Allen and Unwin, London.
• USUL, Ali R, (2003), “International Dimension of Democratization: The Influence of the European Union on the Consolidation of Democracy in Turkey, 1987-2002.”, (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Bilkent University Social Sciences Institute, Ankara.
• YILDIZ, Necip, (2009), “Reflections upon Contemporary Turkish Democracy: A Rawlsian Perspective” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Bilkent University Social Sciences Institute, Ankara.
• YONAH, Yossi, (2000), “Israel’s Political Stability: A Matter of Principle,” Israel Studies 5(2), Bloomington, IN.