MEKSİKA’DA KURUMSAL DEVRİM PARTİSİ ve İSTİKRAR ARAYIŞI

Abstract

PRI’nın seçim davranış şekli konusunda genel anlamda söylenmesi gereken şey, Meksika siyasetine yön veren ve 2000 yılına kadar seçim kaybetmeyen bir siyasal parti olarak siyasal katılma sürecine önemli katkı sağladığıdır. Ancak demokrasinin, siyasal katılmanın genişlemesinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıktığını söylemek zordur. Bununla beraber demokrasi tam olarak yerleştirilemese de PRI, var olan siyasal güçleri tek bir parti içinde uzlaştırmış, istikrarı garanti altına almış ve siyasal devamlılığı sağlayan bir sistem ortaya çıkarmıştır.

Keywords

• PRI,siyasal katılma,klientalizm,Cárdenismo,hegemonic parti sistemi

INSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTY in MEXICO: THE SEARCH FOR STABILITY

Abstract

Something to be said in general on the pattern of the election behaviour of PRI is that PRI, as it has pioneered Mexico’s politics and has lost any election until 2000, is a political party which provides a vital contribution to the process of political participation. However, it is hard to say that democracy is formed by the result of the expansion of the political participation. Nevertheless, although democracy has not fully carried out by the PRI, it has compromised the existing political powers within a single party, guaranteed stability and created a system that allows political contiunity.

Keywords

• PRI,political participation,clientelism,Cárdenismo,hegemonic party system

References

1. ALFORD, Robert R. ve Roger FRIEDLAND (1975), “Political Participation and Public Policy”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.1, (429-479).
2. ÁLVAREZ, Ángel E. (2011), “Political Funding Regulations In Latin America: Uncertainty, Equity And Transparency”, Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Political Science, Notre Dame, Indiana, November.
3. BEER, Caroline (2000), “Assessing the Consequences of Electoral Democracy: Subnational Legislative Change in Mexico”, Comparative Politics, Vol. 33, No. 4, (421-440).
4. BRACHET-MARQUEZ, Viviane (1992), “Explaining Sociopolitical Change in Latin America: The Case of Mexico”, Latin American Research Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, (91-122).
5. BRUHN, Kathleen (2004), “The Making of the Mexican President, 2000: Parties, Candidates, and Campaign Strategy”, Mexico’s Pivotal Democratic Election: Campaign Effects and the Presidential Race of 2000, Jorge I. Domínguez ve Chappell Lawson, (Ed.), Stanford University Press, (123-156).
6. CALVERT, Peter (2002), Comparative Politics, Longman, London.
7. CORNELIUS, Wayne A. ve Jeffrey A. WELDON (2004), “Politics in Mexico”, Comparative Politics Today, Gabriel A. Almond, G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Kaare Strøm ve Russell J. Dalton (Ed.), Eighth Edition, Pearson, New York, (467-519).
8. CORTINA, Jeronim, GELMAN, Andrew ve Narayani Lasala BLANCO (2008), “One Vote, Many Mexicos: Income and Vote Choise in the 1994, 2000, and 2006 Presidential Elections”, www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/Cortina,%20Gelman%20&%20Lasala.pdf.

9. G., Leticia Heras, “Political Participation in Mexico (1988-2009): How and Why has It Changed?”, http://www.ieim.uqam.ca/IMG/pdf/oda_mexico_dossier.pdf
10. HUNTINGTON, Samuel P. ve Jorge I. DOMÍNGUEZ (1975), Siyasal Gelişme, Ergun Özbudun (Çev.), Siyasi İlimler Derneği Yayınları, Ankara.
11. HUNTINGTON, Samuel P. (1965), “Political Development and Political Decay”, World Politics, Vol. 17, No. 3, (386-430). INDA, Caridad, “Between Apathy and Revolution: Nonviolent Action in Contemporary Mexico”, http://acorn.sbu.edu/x1990-1991/Mar91-Between%20Apathy.pdf.
12. Instituto Federal Electoral, www.ife.org.mx.
13. Inter-Parliamentary Union, www.ipu.org.
14. KLESNER, Joseph L. (2005), “Electoral Competition and New Party System in Mexico”, Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 47, No. 2, (103-142).
15. KLESNER, Joseph L. (2009), “Who Participates? Determinants of Political Action in Mexico”, Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 51, No. 2, (59-90).
16. LEVY, Daniel C. ve Kathleen BRUHN (2006), Mexico: The Struggle for Democratic Development, Second Edition, University of California Press, Berkeley.
17. MAGALONI, Beatriz (2005), “The Demise of Mexico’s One Party Dominant Regime: Elite Choices and Masses in the Establishment of Democracy”, The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks, Frances Hagopian ve Scott P. Mamwaring (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, (121-146).
18. MORENO, Alejandro ve Patricia MÉNDEZ (2002), “Attitudes Toward Democracy: Mexico in Comparative Perspective”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43, (350-367).
19. PIERSON, Christopher (1996), Modern Devlet, Dilek Hattatoğlu (Çev.), Çiviyazıları, İstanbul.
20. PUTNAM, Robert (1971), “Studying Elite Political Culture: The Case of ‘Ideology’”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, (651-681).
21. ROSKIN, Michael G. (2009), Çağdaş Devlet Sistemleri, Bahattin Seçilmişoğlu (Çev.), Adres Yayınları, Ankara.
22. TAI, Hung-chao (1974), Land Reform and Politics: A Comparative Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley.