Is the US Presidential System an Exception?

Öz

According to the 2024 democracy report of the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute, which offers the most extensive and most detailed of the global democracy indices, the presidential USA, Costa Rica, Uruguay, South Korea, and Chile are classified as liberal democracies.The fact that democratic stability has been achieved in four countries other than the US challenges the thesis that the US presidential system is an exception. In this study, South Korea, Costa Rica, Chile, and Uruguay, classified as liberal democracies, will be analyzed regarding their party structures, party ideologies, party discipline, and parliamentary structures and compared with the US presidential system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• USA
• South Korea
• Costa Rica
• Chile
• and Uruguay

Amerikan Başkanlık Sistemi İstisna Mı?

Öz

Küresel ölçekteki demokrasi endekslerinin en kapsamlısını ve en ayrıntılısını sunan Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Enstitüsünün 2024 demokrasi raporu, başkanlık sistemiyle yönetilen ABD, Kosta Rika, Uruguay, Güney Kore ve Şili’yi liberal demokrasiler sınıfında değerlendirmiştir. Başkanlık sistemiyle yönetilen ABD dışında dört ülkede demokratik istikrarın sağlanabilmiş olması, ABD başkanlık sisteminin bir istisna olduğu tezine meydan okumaktadır. Bu çalışmada liberal demokrasiler sınıfında değerlendirilen Güney Kore, Kosta Rika, Şili ve Uruguay parti yapıları, parti ideolojileri, parti disiplini ve meclis yapıları gibi özellikleri açısından incelenerek ABD başkanlık sistemiyle kıyaslanacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Başkanlık Sistemi
• ABD
• Güney Kore
• Kosta Rika
• Şili
• Uruguay

Kaynakça

1. Alberta, S. (2008). Why play by the rules? Constitutionalism and democratic institutionalization in Ecuador and Uruguay. Democratization, 15(5), 849–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340802362646
2. Bergara, M., Peryra, A., Tansini, R., Garce, A., Chasquetti, D., Buquet, D. ve Moraes, J. A. (2006). Political institutions, policymaking processes, and policy outcomes: The case of Uruguay. IDB Working Paper No. 205. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1814759
3. Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2024 Country Report - Chile. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2024. https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/CHL
4. Booth, J. A. (1987). Costa Rican democracy. World Affairs, 150(1), 43–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20672124
5. Booth, J. A. (2008). Democratic development in Costa Rica. Democratization, 15(4), 714–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340802191052
6. Colburn, F. D. ve Cruz, S, A. (2018). Latin America’s shifting politics: The fading of Costa Rica’s old parties. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 43–53. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/latin-americas-shifting-politics-the-fading-of-costa-ricas-old-parties/
7. Croissant, A. (2003). Legislative powers, veto players, and the emergence of delegative democracy: A comparison of presidentialism in the Philippines and South Korea. Democratization, 10(3), 68–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340312331293937 Davis, C. L., Camp, R. A. ve Coleman, K. M. (2004). The influence of party systems on citizens’ perceptions of corruption and electoral response in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 37(6), 677-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414004265879
8. Democracy Report 2024 Democracy winning and losing at the ballot (2024). V-Dem Institution. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/44/v-dem_dr2024_highres.pdf

9. Doeff, L. (2022). South Korea is not in democratic backslide (yet). E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2022/07/05/south-korea-is-not-in-democratic-backslide-yet/
10. Economist Intelligence Unit (2024). Democracy Index 2023: Age of conflict. London: EIU. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/
11. Erdoğan, M. (2016). Başkanlık sistemi, Latin Amerika tecrübesi ve Türkiye. Liberal Perspektif Analiz, 3, 3-36. Erişim adresi: https://oad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Analyses_2098_2019925145411997OAD _BtZX PV7.pdf
12. Garnier, S. (2020, 15 Şubat). From dictatorship to democracy: Chile’s outdated constitution. Harvard International Review. Erişim adresi: https://hir.harvard.edu/from-dictatorship-to-democracy/
13. Gomez, E. (2015, 8 Mayıs). Uruguay: Political parties. European Parliamentary Research Service. Erişim adresi: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_ATA(2015)556994
14. Hawthorn, G. (1999). Pinochet: The politics. International Affairs, 75(2), 253-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00070
15. Hitkari, C. (2022, 19 Şubat). The weakness of the strongest institution: South Korea’s presidential system. The Geopolitics. Erişim adresi: https://thegeopolitics.com/the-weakness-of-the-strongest-institution-south-koreas-presidential-system/
16. Horowitz, D. L. (1990). Comparing democratic systems. Journal of Democracy, 1(4), 73–79. Erişim adresi: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/presidents-vs-parliaments/
17. Kim, J. (2018). South Korean democratization: A comparative empirical appraisal. T. Cheng ve Y. Chu (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of democratization in East Asia içinde (s. 53–68). Oxon & New York: Routledge.
18. Lanzaro, J. (2014). Uruguay’s social democratic experiment. Current History, 113(760), 76-81. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45388175
19. Lee, S. (2007). Democratic transition and the consolidation of democracy in South Korea. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.29654/TJD.200707.0005
20. Lehoucq, F. E. (1996). The institutional foundations of democratic cooperation in Costa Rica. Journal of Latin American Studies, 28(2), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X00013031
21. Lincoln, J. K. ve Lauderdale, P. (1985). A new defense policy for Costa Rica: Constructing reality and the policy agenda. Review of Policy Research, 5(2), 220-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00352.x
22. Linz, J. J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51–69. Erişim adresi: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-perils-of-presidentialism/
23. Linz, J. J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make difference? J. J. Linz ve A. Valenzuela (Ed.), The failure of presidential democracy içinde (s. 3-83). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
24. Luna, J. P. (2021, 17 Şubat). Chile’s fractured democratic consensus. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Erişim adresi: https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/02/17/chile-s-fractured-democratic-consensus-pub-83784
25. Mainwaring, S. (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies, 26(2), 198–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414093026002003
26. Mainwaring, S. ve Shugart, M. S. (1997). Juan Linz, presidentialism, and democracy: A critical appraisal. Comparative Politics, 29(4), 449. https://doi.org/10.2307/422014
27. Mella-Polanca, M. (2019). Chile’s political party system. A. Farazmand (ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance içinde (s. 1-9). New York City: Springer International Publishing.
28. Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340412331304598
29. Nilsson-Wright, J. (2022). Contested politics in South Korea. Chatham House. Erişim adresi: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/07/contested-politics-south-korea
30. Nolte, D. (2022). Chile’s constitutional reform process rebooted. GIGA Focus (4), 1-11. Erişim adresi: https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus/chile-s-constitutional-reform-process-rebooted
31. O’Donnell, G. A. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55–69. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/delegative-democracy/
32. Oh, J. S. (2012). Strong state and strong civil society in contemporary South Korea. Asian Survey, 52(3), 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2012.52.3.528
33. Özbudun, E. (2015). Başkanlık sistemi ve Türkiye. Liberal Perspektif Analiz, 1. Erişim adresi: https://oad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Analyses_2090_201992414137200Liberal-Perspektif-Analiz-Sayi-1-Baskanlik-Sistemi-ve-Turkiye-Ergun-Ozbudun-Kopya.pdf
34. Pak, J. ve Park, P. (2019). Liberal democracy in South Korea. Brookings. Erişim adresi: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/liberal-democracy-in-south-korea/
35. Pettiford, L. (1999). Simply a matter of luck?: Why Costa Rica remains a democracy. Democratization, 6(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510349908403598
36. Ravecca, P. (2020). Dictatorship, transition, and the forging of political science in Uruguay. Science in Context, 33(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026988972000023X
37. Sartori, G. (1994). Comparative constitutional engineering. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
38. Sehnbruch, K. (2020). Chile’s latest steps towards true democracy are a beacon for the world. The Guardian. Erişim adresi: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/28/chile-democracy-pinochet-constitution
39. Silva, P. (2002). Searching for civilian supremacy: The concertacion governments and the military in Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 21(3), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/1470-9856.00049
40. Somma, N. M. (2022). Chilean democracy, past and present. Latin American Research Review, 57(2), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/lar.2022.33
41. Steinberg, D. I. ve Shin, M. (2005). From entourage to ideology?: Tensions in South Korean political parties in transition. East-West Center. Erişim adresi: https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/entourage-ideology-tensions-south-korean-political-parties-transition
42. Stepan, A. ve Skach, C. (1993). Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: parliamentarianism versus presidentialism. World Politics, 46(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950664
43. Stuenkel, O. (2021). More polarized than ever, presidential election in Chile marks new political era. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Erişim adresi: https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/11/22/more-polarized-than-ever-presidential-election-in-chile-marks-new-political-era-pub-85839.
44. Wilson, B. M. (1998). Costa Rica: Politics, economics, and democracy. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.