Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de Sivil Toplumun Son On Yılı: Sivil Alanın Daralması Tartışmalarına Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış

Abstract

Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP), Avrupa Birliği'ne (AB) üyelik hedefi doğrultusunda 2002 yılında ilk kez iktidara geldiğinde reform, demokratikleşme ve Avrupalılaşma sürecine odaklanmıştır. Türkiye'de sivil toplumun daha da gelişmesi, Kopenhag Siyasi Kriterlerinin yerine getirilmesinde çok önemli bir rol oynamaya başlamıştır. Bu reform süreci 2005 yılında yavaşlamış ve Türkiye 2011 yılında ‘Avrupalılaşmama’ olarak adlandırılan yeni bir döneme girmiştir. AKP’nin AB üyelik vizyonundan kademeli olarak uzaklaşması ve genel demokratik gerileme, sivil alanın daralmasının arkasındaki ana nedenler olarak kabul edilmektedir. Ancak sivil toplumun mevcut sorunlarını açıklamada yapısal ve bağlamsal yerel faktörlere odaklanan savlar, resmin bir bölümüne ışık tutmaktadır. Sivil toplumun AB içinde karşı karşıya kaldığı sorunların, özellikle de demokratik gerilemenin bir sonucu olarak sivil alanın dünya genelinde daralmasının da altı çizilmelidir. Böyle bir bakış açısı, yalnızca karşılaştırmalı analiz için bir temel sağlamakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda AB'nin Türkiye’deki sivil toplumun üzerindeki etkisini sınırlayan daha geniş dinamiklerinin daha iyi anlaşılmasına da yardımcı olur.

Keywords

• AB
• Sivil Toplum
• Türkiye
• Sivil Alan
• Daralma

The Last Ten Years of Civil Society in the European Union and Turkey: Discussions on the Tightening of Civic Space

Abstract

When the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came first into power in 2002, in line with the European Union (EU) membership goals, it initiated a reform, democratization and Europeanization process. Further development of civil society was crucial in fulfilling the Copenhagen Political Criteria. The process slowed down in 2005 and a new era called ‘de-Europeanization’ started in 2011. The gradual shift away from the EU vision and the overall democratic backsliding are considered to be the main reasons behind the tightening of the civic space. The arguments that focus on the domestic factors in explaining the current problems of civil society can be complemented with an analysis of the problems that the civil society faces within the EU. Such a perspective will provide a basis for comparative analysis and help better understand the broader dynamics that limit the EU’s impact on Turkish civil society.

Keywords

• EU
• Civil Society
• Turkey
• Civic Space
• Tightening

References

1. 7262 SAYILI KANUN (2020). Kitle imha silahlarının yayılmasının finansmanının önlenmesine ilişkin kanun, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2020/12/20201231M5-19.htm (27.12.2020).
2. ASLAN, S. (2010). Türkiye'de sivil toplum. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 9 (31): 260-283.
3. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2011). Türkiye 2011 Yılı İlerleme Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/AdaylikSureci/IlerlemeRaporlari/2011_ilerleme_raporu_tr.pdf
4. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2012). Türkiye 2012 Yılı İlerleme Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/2012_ilerleme_raporu_tr.pdf
5. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2013). Türkiye 2013 Yılı İlerleme Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/2013%20ilerleme%20raporu/2013_ilerleme_raporu_tr.pdf
6. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2014). Türkiye 2014 Yılı İlerleme Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ilerlemeRaporlariTR/2014_ilerleme_raporu_tr.pdf
7. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2015). 2015 Türkiye Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/5%20Ekim/2015_ilerleme_raporu_tr.pdf
8. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2016). 2016 Türkiye Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/pub/2016_ilerleme_raporu_tr.pdf

9. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2018). 2018 Türkiye Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/siteimages/pub/komisyon_ulke_raporlari/2018_turkiye_raporu_tr.pdf
10. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2019). 2019 Türkiye Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/siteimages/birimler/kpb/2019_trkiye_raporu-_tr.pdf
11. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2020). 2020 Türkiye Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/siteimages/trkiye_raporustrateji_belgesi_2020/turkey_report_30.10.2020.pdf
12. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2021). 2021 Türkiye Raporu. Strazburg. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/siteimages/birimler/kpb/2021_turkiye_raporu_tr.pdf
13. AVRUPA KOMİSYONU (2022). 2022 Türkiye Raporu. Brüksel. Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2020. https://www.ab.gov.tr/siteimages/birimler/kpb/2022_turkiye_report_tr_27.11.2022_22.05.pdf
14. AYDIN-DÜZGİT, S., KALIBER, A. (2016). Encounters with Europe in an era of domestic and international turmoil: Is Turkey a de-europeanising candidate country?, South European Society and Politics, Cilt 21 (1), 1-14.
15. AYDIN, M. ve AKGÜL AÇIKMEŞE, S. (2007). Europeanization through EU conditionality: understanding the new era in Turkish foreign policy, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Cilt 9 (3): 263-274.
16. BAL, S. (2022). EU financial assistance to civil society in Turkey: shrinking the political space in the post-gezi process?, Alternatif Politika, Cilt 14 (3), 486-518.
17. BOŞNAK, B. (2016). Europeanisation and de-europeanisation dynamics in Turkey: the case of environmental organisations, South European Society and Politics, Cilt 21 (1), 75-90.
18. BÖRZEL, T. A. (2010). The transformative power of Europe reloaded: the limits of external europeanization. KFG Working Paper 11, Research College, Freie Universität Berlin. Erişim tarihi: 27.12.2020. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/kfgeu/kfgwp/wpseries/WorkingPaperKFG_11.pdf
19. BÖRZEL, T. A. (2012). Europeanisation Meets Turkey. A Case Sui Generis?. Turkey and the European Union: Processes of Europeanisation, Çiğdem Nas ve Yonca Özer, 9-22, Ashgate.
20. BÖRZEL, T. A., SOYALTİN, D. (2012). Europeanization in Turkey. Stretching a concept to its limits?, KFG Working Paper 36, Research College, Freie Universität Berlin. Erişim tarihi: 27.12.2020. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/kfgeu/kfgwp/wpseries/WorkingPaperKFG_36.pdf
21. CAROTHERS, T. (2004). Critical mission: Essays on democracy promotion, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
22. CHAMBERS, S., KOPSTEIN, J. (2001). “Bad civil society”, Political Theory, Cilt 29 (6), 837–865.
23. CHECKEL, J. T. (2000). Compliance and conditionality, Working Paper, 00/18. ARENA/University of Oslo. Erişim tarihi: 27.12.2020. https://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-working-papers/1994-2000/2000/wp00_18.htm
24. CIVICUS MONITOR (2021a). People power under attack 2021. Erişim tarihi: 16.01.2023. https://findings2021.monitor.civicus.org/rating-changes.html#global-press-release
25. CIVICUS MONITOR (2021b). In numbers. Erişim tarihi: 16.01.2023. https://findings2021.monitor.civicus.org/in-numbers.html
26. CIVICUS MONITOR (2022). Freedom of peaceful assembly and the COVID-19 pandemic: a snapshot of protests and restrictions. Erişim tarihi: 17.01.2023. https://monitor.civicus.org/COVID19September2021/
27. CIVICUS MONITOR (2022b). Ratings. Erişim tarihi: 19.01.2023. https://monitor.civicus.org/Ratings/
28. CLIENTEARTH (2020). A Major Win for the Civil Society of Hungary: EU Court Rules that NGO Transparency Law is Contrary to EU Treaties. Erişim tarihi: 19.01.2023. https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates/a-major-win-for-the-civil-society-of-hungary-eu-court-rules-that-ngo-transparency-law-is-contrary-to-eu-treaties/
29. DE TOCQUEVILLE, A. (1998) Democracy in America. London: Penguin.
30. DIEZ, T., AGNANTOPOULOS, A.,KALIBER, A. (2005). File: Turkey, europeanization and civil society: introduction, South European Society and Politics, Cilt 10 (1): 1-15.
31. DOĞANYILMAZ DUMAN, D. (2021). Yeni Siyasal Çerçevesinde İktidarın Sosyopolitik Analizi, Tunçsiper, B. (Ed.), Sosyal Bilimler Ekseninde Güncel Araştırma ve Değerlendirmeler, (Ekin Yayınevi): 283-294.
32. ERCAN, H. (2002). Türkiye'de sivil toplum tartışmaları üzerine. C.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 26 (1): 69-79.
33. ERGUN, A. (2010). Civil society in Turkey and local dimensions of europeanization, Journal of European Integration, Journal 32 (5): 507-22.
34. EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (2018). Challenges facing civil society organisations working on human rights in the EU. Erişim tarihi:17.01.2023. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-challenges-facing-civil-society_en.pdf
35. FERGUSON, A. (1995) An essay on the history of civil society, Cambridge Texts in the History Of Political Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. FRA (EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS) (2022). June 2022 update - Search and Rescue (SAR) operations in the Mediterranean and fundamental rights. Erişim tarihi: 06.02.2023. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/june-2022-update-ngo-ships-sar-activities
37. GRABBE, H.(2001). How does europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity, Journal of European Public Policy, Cilt 8 (6): 1013-31.
38. GRANDE, E. (2022). Civil society, cleavage structures, and democracy in Germany, German Politics, 1-20.
39. GREENPEACE (2020). Erosion of civil society across the EU. Erişim tarihi: 18.01.2023. https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/democracy-europe/3856/erosion-of-civil-society-space-across-the-eu/
40. HALL, P. A. VE ROSEMARY C. R. T. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms, Political Studies Cilt 44 (5): 936-957.
41. HERITIER, A. (2001). Differential Europe: national administrative responses to community policy, Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A., Risse-Kappen, T. (Ed.), Transforming Europe: europeanization and domestic change, (Cornell University Press): 44-59.
42. HOWELL, J., PEARCE, J. (2001). Civil society and development: A critical exploration, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
43. HUGHES, J., SASSE, G., GORDON, C. (2004). Europeanization and regionalization in the EU’s enlargement to central and eastern Europe: The myth of conditionality. Basingstoke-New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
44. HUNGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE (2021). EU Court: criminalising helping asylum-seekers breaches EU law. Erişi tarihi: 06.02.2023. https://helsinki.hu/en/cjeu-stop-soros-law-judgment/
45. KÁKAI, L., BEJMA, A. (2022), legal and practical conditions of the functioning of the civil society organizations in Hungary and Poland, Eastern Journal of European Studies, Cilt 13, Special Issue: 120-140.
46. KALIBER, A.(2016). De-europeanisation of civil society and public debates in Turkey: the Kurdish question revisited, South European Society and Politics, Cilt 21 (1): 59-74.
47. KETOLA, M.(2013). Europeanization and civil society: Turkish NGOs as ınstruments of change?, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
48. KEYMAN, E. F. (2006). Türkiye’de sivil toplumun serüveni: imkansızlıklar içinde bir vaha, Ankara: STGM.
49. KRIESI, H., PAPPAS, T. S. (Ed.) (2015). European populism in the shadow of the great recession, Colchester : ECPR Press.
50. LARSEN, C. A. (2013). The rise and fall of social cohesion: the construction and deconstruction of social trust in the US, UK, Sweden, and Denmark, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. MANNERS, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, Cilt 40(2), 235-258.
52. MAKRIDES, V.N. (2022) Contested civic spaces in Greece in the context of foreign ımmigration and the refugee crisis of 2015, Nonprofit Policy Forum, Cilt 13(3):251-268.
53. MERCER, C.(2002). NGOs, civil society and democratization: A critical review of the literatüre, Progress in Development Studies, Cilt 2 (1): 5–22.
54. MISIC MIHAJLOVIC, S., ENGELI, J. (2019). Why is the space for civil society in the Balkans shrinking?. Erişim tarihi: 18.01.2023. https://www.helvetas.org/en/eastern-europe/about-us/follow-us/helvetas-mosaic/article/March2019/why-is-the-space-for-civil-society-in-the-Balkans-shrinking
55. NAİM, M. (2009). What is a GONGO?, Foreign Policy. Erişim tarihi: 19.01.2023. https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/13/what-is-a-gongo/
56. ÖNER, S. (2014). Internal factors in the EU’s transformative power over Turkey: the role of Turkish civil society, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Cilt 14 (1): 23-42.
57. RADAELLI, C. M. (2003). The Europeanization of public policies, The Politics of Europeanization, Kevin Featherstone and Claudio Mm Radaelli, 27-56. Oxford University Press.
58. RADAELLI, C.M., EXADAKTYLOS, T. (2010). New directions in europeanization research, M. EGAN, N.NUGENT, W. E. PATERSON (Ed.), Research Agendas in EU Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, 189-215.
59. SANDER, A. (2023). Rethinking shrinking civic space in the Global Souths – how development donors contribute to the restriction of civil society in Jordan, Democratization, Cilt 30 (1): 22-39.
60. SCHIMMELFENNIG, F. ve SEDELMEIER, U. (2005). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
61. SCHIMMELFENNIG, F., ENGERT, S.,KNOBEL, H. (2003), Costs, Commitment and Compliance: The Impact of EU Democratic Conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey, JCMS, Cilt 41 (3): 495-518.
62. SCHIMMELFENNIG, F., SEDELMEIER, U. (Ed.) (2005), The europeanization of central and eastern Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
63. SCHWÄRZEL, M. (2022a). Bolstering European civil society! making the case for a European Association Statute. Erişim tarihi: 17.01.2023. https://eu.boell.org/en/2022/10/31/bolstering-european-civil-society-making-case-european-association-statute
64. SCHWÄRZEL, M. (2022b). A study in perseverence:the timeline of ınitiatives towards a European Association Statute. Erişim tarihi: 17.01.2023. https://eu.boell.org/en/2022/10/31/study-perseverance-timeline-initiatives-towards-european-statute-associations
65. SEDELMEIER, U.(2014). Anchoring democracy from above? The European Union and democratic backsliding in Hungary and Romania after accession, Journal of Common Market Studies, Cilt 52 (1): 105–21.
66. SİVİL TOPLUMLA İLİŞKİLER GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ (2023), Dernek Sayıları. Erişim tarihi: 05.02.2023. https://www.siviltoplum.gov.tr/dernek-sayilari
67. TEZCAN E, ARAS, İ (2015). Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi’nde euroseptisizm: Avrupa Birliği desteğinin eleştiriye dönüşümü, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, Cilt 11(41), 1-35.
68. TOCQUEVILLE, A.(1838). Democracy in America. New York: G. Dearborn & Co.
69. VAKIFLAR GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ (2023). Vakıflar. Erişim tarihi. 05.02.2023. https://www.vgm.gov.tr/vakif-sorgulama/vakif-sorgulama?Page=1
70. YABANCI, B. (2019). Turkey’s tamed civil society: Containment and appropriation under a competitive authoritarian regime, Journal of Civil Society, Cilt 15 (1): 1-22.
71. YOUNGS, R. (Ed.) (2018). The mobilization of conservative civil society. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment.
72. ZİHNİOĞLU, Ö. (2013). European Union civil society policy and Turkey: A bridge too far? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
73. ZİHNİOĞLU, Ö. (2020). EU-Turkey relations: civil society and depoliticization. London and New York: Routledge.