Stealth Democracy: A Vıew on the Relationship Between the Crisis of Representative Democracy and Demand for Direct Democracy

Abstract

This study provides a brief examination of the concept of “stealth democracy” developed by John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. Stealth democracy is a view on the prevalent and dominant perspective in the scholarly literature on democracy that (i) representative democracy is in a crisis, and thus (ii) there is a growing demand for direct democracy. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse acknowledge that representative democracy is in a crisis. However, contrary to the prevalent view in academia, they maintain that the crisis of representative democracy is overcome by allowing less direct citizen involvement for political decision making processes, but more expert opinion in the policy formation process. They therefore build their understanding of stealth democracy on the basis of a less participatory but a more elitist perspective. In this sense, the aim of this study is to examine the concept of stealth democracy, to the best of our knowledge, on which there has been no comprehensive study in the Turkish-written scholarly literature by focusing on the perspectives to which it provided itself as an alternative and to provide a brief critique of the concept with the aim of building a foundation for further research.

Keywords

• Democracy,stealth democracy,representative democracy,direct democracy,deliberative democracy

Gizli Demokrasi: Temsili Demokrasi Krizi ve Doğrudan Demokrasi Talebi Arasındaki İlişkiye Yönelik Bir Görüş

Abstract

Bu çalışma[1], John R. Hibbing ve Elizabeth Theiss-Morse tarafından geliştirilen “gizli demokrasi” kavramı üzerine kısa bir inceleme sunmaktadır. Gizli demokrasi, demokrasi üzerine akademik literatürde yaygın ve baskın konumda olan (i) temsili demokrasinin bir kriz içerisinde olduğu, ve bu nedenle de, (ii) özellikle doğrudan katılıma yönelik giderek artan oranda bir talep olduğu iddiasına yönelik bir görüştür[2]. Hibbing ve Theiss-Morse, temsili demokrasinin bir kriz içerisinde olduğunu kabul etmektedirler. Bununla birlikte, akademideki yaygın görüşün aksine, temsili demokrasi krizinin aşılmasının politik karar alma süreçlerine daha az doğrudan vatandaş katılımı ve siyasa oluşturma sürecinde daha çok uzman görüşüne yer verme ile sağlanabileceğini savunmaktadırlar. Gizli demokrasi anlayışını da böylece daha az katılımcı fakat daha çok elitist bir temel üzerine inşa etmektedirler. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın amacı, bilgimiz dahilinde, Türkçe akademik literatürde henüz üzerine yazılmış kapsamlı bir çalışma yer almayan gizli demokrasi kavramının, kendini alternatifi olarak sunduğu yaklaşımlara odaklanarak, kısa bir incelemesini ve sonraki akademik çalışmalara esas oluşturması amacıyla temel ve kısa bir eleştirisini sunmaktır.

---

[1] Bu çalışmanın erken bir taslağı, 1-4 Kasım 2017 tarihleri arasında Isparta Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesinde düzenlenen, “KAYFOR 15: Dijital Çağda Kamu Yönetimi ve Politikaları” ana temalı uluslararası kongrede sözlü bildiri olarak sunulmuştur. Bildirinin tam metni ise bahsedilen konferans tam metin bildiri kitabı da dahil olmak üzere hiçbir yerde yayımlanmamıştır. Bu çalışma, bahsedilen kısa taslak bildiri özetinin; yeni, geliştirilmiş ve zenginleştirilmiş bir makale halidir. Özet bildiri metni için bkz. http://sempozyum.sdu.edu.tr/kayfor15/tr/images/Kayfor15BookofAbstracts.pdf, erişim tarihi 4 Mayıs 2018.

Yazar, makalenin son şeklini almasındaki değerli katkıları için dergi editörü ve (kimliği saklı tutulmuş) üç hakeme teşekkür eder ve makaleyle ilgili her türlü akademik sorumluluğun bizzat kendisine ait olduğunu kabul eder.

[2] Gizli demokrasi için makalenin başlığında “görüş” ibaresinin kullanılmış olması bilinçli bir tercihtir. Makalenin ilgili bölümlerinde de belirtildiği gibi, bu tercihin yapılmasının ilk nedeni gizli demokrasinin bir kuram ya da yaklaşım olarak kabul edilip edilemeyeceğinin tartışmalı olmasıdır. ABD’de yapılan, ulusal kamuoyu araştırması ve odak grup çalışmalarından elde edilen bulgulara dayalı bir durum tespitinden yola çıkarak bir demokrasi anlayışı veya kuramına ulaşmak sorunlu ve tartışmalıdır. İkinci neden de, çalışmada da sunulmaya çalışıldığı üzere, Hibbing ve Morse’un demokrasi üzerine oluşturdukları görüş ve önerilerinin aslında “yeni” veya “orijinal” olmadığıdır. Bu iki sebeple bu çalışmada, gizli demokrasinin akademik literatürdeki yerini belirlemek için “görüş” ibaresi kullanılmıştır. 

Keywords

• Demokrasi,gizli demokrasi,temsili demokrasi,doğrudan demokrasi,müzakereci demokrasi

References

1. ALONSO, S., KEANE, J. ve MERKEL, W. Der. (2011) The Future of Representative Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. ALTMAN, D. (2011) Direct Democracy Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, New York.
3. ATAAY, F. (2007) Neoliberalizm, Kamu Reformu, Demokrasi, AKSOY, Ş. ve ÜSTÜNER, Y. (der.) Kamu Yönetimi: Kuram ve Uygulama içinde, Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara, 163-172.
4. ATAAY, F. (2018) Neoliberalizm, Düzenleyici Devlet ve Yönetişim, ERAT, V. vd. (der.) Qou Vadis: Kamu Yönetimi içinde, Nika Yayınevi, Ankara, 275-293.
5. BARBER, B. R. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for A New Age, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
6. BENGTSSON, A. ve MATTILA, M. (2009) Direct democracy and its critics: support for direct democracy and “stealth” democracy in finland, West European Politics, 32 (5), 1031-1048.
7. BEST, H. ve HIGHLEY, J. (2010) Democratic Elitism: New Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, Brill, UK.
8. BUTLER D. ve RANNEY A. Der. (1994) Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy, The AEI Press, Washington.

9. BOHMAN, J. (1998) Survey article: the coming of age of deliberative democracy (1998), The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (4), 400-425.
10. BONOTTI, M. (2011) Religious political parties and the limits of political liberalism, Res Publica, 17(2), 107-123.
11. BOWLER, S. DONOVAN, T. ve KARP, J. A. (2007) Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies, Political Research Quarterly, 60 (3), 351–362.
12. BUECHLER, S. (2016) Critical Sociology, İkinci baskı, Routledge, New York.
13. CASPARY, W. R. (2000) Dewey on Democracy, Cornell University Press, New York.
14. CHAMBERS, S. (2003) Deliberative democratic theory, Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.
15. COFFÉ, H. ve MICHELS, A. (2014) Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy, Electoral Studies, 35, 1-11.
16. COOKE, M. (2017) Five arguments for deliberative democracy, D'ENTREVES, M. (der.) Democracy as Public Deliberation içinde, Routledge, Oxon ve New York, 53-87.
17. CRAIG, S., KREPPEL, A. ve KANE, J. (2001) Public opinion and support for direct democracy: a grassroots perspective, MENDELSOHN, M. ve PARKIN, A. (der.) Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns içinde, Palgrave, New York, 25-46.
18. DAHL, R. (2005) Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven.
19. DALTON, R. J. (1984) Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies, Journal of Politics , 46(1), 264-284.
20. DALTON, R. J. (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices The Erosion Of Political Support in Advanced Democracies, Oxford University Press, New York.
21. DALTON, R. J. (2007) Partisan mobilization, cognitive mobilization and the changing american electorate, Electoral Studies, 26 (2), 274-286.
22. DALTON, R. J. (2008) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion And Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, CQ Press, Washington DC.
23. DALTON, R. J., BURKLIN, W. P., ve DRUMMOND, A. (2001) Public opinion and direct democracy, Journal of Democracy, 12(4), 141-153.
24. DALTON, R. J. ve SCARROW, S. E. Der. (2003) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford University Press, New York.
25. DENNİS, J. ve OWEN, D. (2001) Popular satisfaction with the party system and representative democracy in the united states, International Political Science Review, 22 (4), 399–415.
26. DEWEY, J. (1997) Democracy and Education, Dover Publications, New York.
27. DIAMOND, L. ve PLATTNER, M. F. Der. (2015) Democracy in Decline?, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.
28. DONOVAN, T. ve KARP, J. A. (2006) Popular support for direct democracy, Party Politics, 12 (5), 671-688.
29. DRYZEK, J. S. (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
30. FISHKIN, J. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, Yale University Press, New York.
31. FLANIGAN, W., ZINGALE, N., THEISS-MORSE, E., ve WAGNER, M. W. (2015) Political Behavior of the American Electorate, 13. Baskı, CQ Press, Washington, DC.
32. GALLAGHER, M. ve ULERI, P. U. (1996) The Referendum Experience in Europe, MacMillan Press, London.
33. GERRET, E. (1997) Who directs direct democracy, University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 4 (1), 17-36.
34. GHERGHINA, S. (2017) Direct democracy and subjective regime legitimacy in europe, Democratization, 24(4), 613-631.
35. GILLJAM, M., PESONEN, P. ve LISTHAUG, O. (1998) The referendum in representative democracies, JENSSEN, A. T., PESONEN, P. ve GILLJAM, M. (der.), To Join or Not to Join: Three Nordic Referendums on Membership in the European Union içinde, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.
36. GOATCHER, J. (2005). Carole pateman and the nature of participatory democracy, Contemporary Politics, 11(4), 217-234.
37. GRAY, M. ve CAUL, M. (2000) Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: the effects of declining group mobilization, Comparative Political Studies, 1091-1122.
38. HARTZ-KARP, J. ve BRIAND, M. K. (2009) Institutionalising deliberative democracy: theoretical and practical challenges, Australasian Parliamentary Review, 24 (1), 167-198.
39. HABERMAS, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, çev. William Rehg, The MIT Press, Massachusetts.
40. HIBBING, J. R. ve THEISS-MORSE, E. (1995)Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, New York.
41. HIBBING, J. R. ve THEISS-MORSE, E. (2001a) Process preferences and american politics: what the people want government to be, American Political Science Review, 95, 145-153.
42. HIBBING, J. R. ve THEISS-MORSE, E. Der. (2001b) What Is It About Government That Americans Dislike?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, New York.
43. HIBBING, J. R. ve THEISS-MORSE, E. (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. HIBBING, J. R. ve THEISS-MORSE, E. ve WHITAKER, E. (2009) Americans’ perceptions of the nature of governing, MONDAK,J. J. ve MITCHELL, D. (der.), Fault Lines: Why the Republicans Lost Congress içinde, Routledge, New York, 148-165.
45. HONNETH, A. (1998) Democracy as reflexive cooperation: john dewey and the theory of democracy today, Political Theory, 26 (6), 763-783.
46. INGLEHART, R. (1977) Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
47. INGLEHART, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
48. INGLEHART, R. VE WELZEL, C. (2005) Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. INVERNIZZI-ACCETTI, C. ve WOLKENSTEIN, F. (2017) The crisis of party democracy, cognitive mobilization, and the case for making parties more deliberative, American Political Science Review, 111(1), 97-109.
50. KEKIC, L. (2017) The economist intelligence unit’s index of democracy, https://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf, erişim tarihi 26 Mayıs 2018.
51. KIELY, R. (2016) From authoritarian liberalism to economic technocracy: neoliberalism, politics and “de-democratization”, Critical Sociology, 43 (4), 725-745.
52. KLINGEMANN, H. (1999) Mapping political support in the 1990s: a global analysis, NORRIS, P. (der.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance içinde, Oxford University Press, New York.
53. KNOPFF, R. (1998) Populism and the politics of rights: the dual attack on representative democracy, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31 (4), 683-705.
54. LANDWEHR, C. (2004) Democratic and technocratic policy deliberation, Critical Policy Studies, 3(3-4), 434-439.
55. MICHELS, R. (1968) Political Parties, ilk basım 1915, Free Press, New York.
56. MOREL, L. ve QVORTRUP, M. (2017) The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy Routledge, Londra, https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203713181-4, erişim tarihi 26 Mayıs 2018.
57. MOSCA, G. (1939) The Ruling Class, Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.
58. NORRIS, P. Der.(1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support For Democratic Governance, Oxford University Press, New York.
59. ÖNİŞ, Z. (2017) The age of anxiety: the crisis of liberal democracy in a post-hegemonic global order, The International Spectator Italian Journal of International Spectator, 52 (3), 18-35.
60. PARETO, V. (1976) Sociological Writings, Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey.
61. PATEMAN, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
62. PATEMAN, C. (2012) Participatory democracy revisited, Perspectives on Politics, 10 (1), 7-19.
63. PHARR, S. J., PUTNAM R. D., ve DALTON, R. J. (2000) Trouble in the advanced democracies? a quarter-century of declining confidence, Journal of Democracy, 11 (2), 5-25.
64. PITKIN, H. F. (2004) Representation and democracy: uneasy alliance, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27 (3), 335-342.
65. RUOSTETSAARI, I. (2017) Stealth democracy, elitism, and citizenship in finnish energy policy, Energy Research & Social Science, 34, 93-103.
66. SAWARD, M. (2003) Democracy, Polity Press, Cornwall.
67. SILVA, P. (2018) Neoliberalism, democratization, and the rise of technocrats, VELLINGA, M. The Changing Role of the State in Latin America içinde, Routledge, New York, 75-92.
68. THEISS-MORSE, E.(2002)The perils of voice and the desire for stealth democracy, Maine Policy Review, 11, 80-89.
69. SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1976) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, revize baskı, Routledge, ABD.
70. SMITH, G. ve WALES, C. (2000) Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy, Political Studies, 48 (1), 51-65.
71. VON BEYME, K. (2018) From Post-Democracy to Neo-Democracy, Springer, Cham.
72. WEALE, A. (2007), Democracy, ikinci baskı, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
73. WEBB, P. (2013) Who is willing to participate? dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the united kingdom, European Journal of Political Research, 52 (6), 747-772.