Türkiye’de Demokrasi Algıları: Cinsiyet, Etnik ve Dini Dinamikler

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, Türkiye’de farklı cinsiyet, etnik ve mezhep gruplarına mensup kişilerin, demokrasi ve demokratik devlet tanımları 60 adet yarı-yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşmeye dayanarak çalışılmıştır. Bu görüşmelerde, çeşitli etnik ve dini kimliklere ve sosyo-ekonomik gruplara ait bireylerle konuşulmuştur. Görüşmelerin analizi sonucunda, demokrasiyi tanımlarken, kadınların cinsiyet eşitliği üzerinde durduğu, Kürtlerin ve Alevilerin hak ve özgürlüklere, Sünni Türk erkeklerin ise ekonomik refaha odaklandıkları görülmüştür. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, devletle tartışmalı bir ilişki içerisinde olan kimlik gruplarının demokrasiyi hak ve özgürlükler açısından tanımlamaya, devletle bu şekilde bir ilişki içerisinde olmayan grupların ise demokrasiyi tanımlarken ekonomik konuları merkeze almaya daha eğilimli olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmada ayrıca katılımcıların demokratik devletten beklentileri de incelenmiştir. Görüşmelerin bu bölümünde de benzer sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. Sünni Türk erkeklerin demokratik devletten beklentileri arasında eşitlik bulunduğu durumlarda bile, bu görüşmecilerin daha çok ekonomik eşitliğin belirli bir ölçüde sağlanmasını kastettikleri anlaşılmıştır. Bunun aksine, Sünni Türk kadınlar, Kürtler ve Aleviler, demokratik devletten beklentilerinin arasında farklı etnik ve dini gruplar arasında eşitliğin sağlanması olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Türkiye toplumunu oluşturan bu kimlik gruplarının demokrasiye ve demokratik devlete ilişkin tutumlarındaki bu önemli farklılıklar, Türkiye’de hem demokrasinin konsolide edilmesi hem de bu konudaki toplumsal ayrışmanın azaltılması yönündeki sorunlara işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Demokrasi tanımları
• Türkiye
• kimlik grupları

Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics

Abstract

Utilizing 60 interviews, we examine how people belonging to different gender, ethnic, and sectarian groups in Turkey define democracy and the democratic state. An analysis of the interviews reveals that women emphasize gender equality, while Kurds and Alevis focus on rights and freedoms in their definitions of democracy. Male Sunni Turks, on the other hand, focus on economic welfare. On the basis of these results, we argue that identity groups that have a problematic relationship with the state are more likely to define democracy in terms of rights and freedoms, whereas those who do not have a problematic relationship with the state are more likely to consider economic issues as central to democracy. This research also examined people’s expectations of a democratic state. When male Sunni Turks indicated that equality is among their expectations of a democratic state, they formulated it in terms of the state realizing economic equality. Female Sunni Turks, Kurds, and Alevis, on the other hand, emphasized the provision of equality among different ethnic and religious groups in their expectations of a democratic state. These important differences among identity groups in Turkey in terms of their attitudes toward democracy and the democratic state illustrate the problems involved in consolidating democracy as well as significant challenges in lessening social differentiation regarding this issue.

Keywords

• Definitions of democracy
• Turkey
• identity groups

References

1. Açikel, F., & Ateş. K. (2011). Ambivalent citizens: The Alevi as the ‘authentic self” and the ‘stigmatized other’ of Turkish Nationalism. European Societies, 13(5), 713–733.
2. Arat, Z. (1998). Introduction: Politics of representation and identity. In Z. Arat (Ed.), Deconstructing images of the Turkish women (pp. 1–34). St. New York: Martin’s Press.
3. Aslan, S. (2011). Everyday forms of state power and the Kurds in the early Turkish Republic. International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 43(1), 75–93.
4. Baviskar, S., & Malone, M. F. T. (2004). What democracy means to citizens– and why it matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, 76, 3–23.
5. Blanc-Noel, N. (2013). Resolving the dilemma between equality and liberty: The Swedish political system. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 4(1), 25–40.
6. Borovalı, M., & Boyraz, C. (2014). Turkish secularism and Islam: A difficult dialogue with Alevis. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 40(4–5), 479–488.
7. Bratton, M., & Mattes, R. (2011). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental? British Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 447–474.
8. Bratton, M. (2003). Briefing Islam, democracy and public opinion in Africa. African Affairs, 102(408), 493–501.

9. Bratton, M. (2010). Anchoring the d-word in Africa. Journal of Democracy, 21(4), 106–113.
10. Brym, R., & Andersen. R. (2016). Democracy, women’s rights, and public opinion in Tunisia. International Sociology, 31(3), 253–267.
11. Canache, D. (2012). Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1132–1158.
12. Carlin, R. E., & Singer, M. M. (2011). Support for polyarchy in Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 44(11), 1500–1526.
13. Cho, Y. (2012). How well ordinary citizens understand democracy: The case of South Korean electorate. Democratization, 21(2), 195–219.
14. Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451.
15. Dahl, R.A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
16. Dalton, R. J., Shin, D. C., & Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156.
17. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
18. Erdemir, A. (2005). Tradition and modernity: Alevis’ ambiguous terms and Turkey’s ambivalent subjects. Middle Eastern Studies, 41(6), 937–951.
19. Ferrin, M., & Kriesi, H. (2016). Introduction. In M. Ferrin & H. Kriesi (Eds.), How Europeans view and evaluate democracy (pp. 1–20). New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
20. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine de Gruyter.
21. Heller, P. (2000). Degrees of democracy: Some lessons from India. World Politics, 52(4), 484–519.
22. Huber, E., Rueschemeyer, D., & Stephens, J. D. (1997). The paradoxes of contemporary democracy: Formal, participatory and social democracy. Comparative Politics, 29(3), 323–42.
23. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late 20th century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
24. Kadın Cinayetlerini Durduracağız Platformu. (3 Nisan 2018). Erişim adresi: http://kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/veriler/2845/kadin-cinayetlerini-durduracagiz-platformu-2017-veri-raporu
25. Karakaya-Stump, A. (2018). The AKP, sectarianism, and the Alevis’ struggle for equal rights in Turkey.
26. National Identities, 20(1), 53–67.
27. Karl, T.L. (1995). The hybrid regimes of Central America. Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 72–86.
28. Kemahlıoğlu, Ö., & Keyman, F. (2011). Türkiye’de demokrasi algısı. Istanbul: Istanbul Policy Center.
29. Knutsen, C. H., & Wegmann, S. (2016). Is democracy about redistribution? Democratization, 23(1), 164–192.
30. KONDA. (2006). Biz kimiz? Toplumsal yapı araştırması. Erişim adresi: http://konda.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2006_09_KONDA_Toplumsal_Yapi.pdf
31. Kose, T. (2013). Between nationalism, modernism, and secularism: The ambivalent place of ‘Alevi identities’. Middle Eastern Studies, 49(4), 590–607.
32. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Latin America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Univesity Press.
33. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L., & Reisinger, W. M. (1997). Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in Post-Soviet societies. British Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 157–190.
35. O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. C., & Whitehead, L. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Comparative perspectives. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
36. Ottemoeller, D. (1998). Popular perceptions of democracy: Elections and attitudes in Uganda. Comparative Political Studies, 31(1), 98–124.
37. Özhan, T., & Ete, H. (2009). A new agenda for the Kurdish Question. Insight Turkey, 11(1), 97–114.
38. Pupcenoks, J. (2012). Democratic Islamization in Pakistan and Turkey: Lessons for the Post-Arab Spring Muslim World. The Middle East Journal, 66(2), 273–289.
39. Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. Sartori, G. (1995). How far can free government travel? Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 101–111.
41. Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
42. Shin, D. C., & Cho, Y. (2010). How East Asians understand democracy: From a comparative perspective. ASIEN 116, 21–40.
43. Tessler, M., & Altinoglu, E. (2004). Political culture in Turkey: Connections among attitudes toward democracy, the military and Islam. Democratization, 11(1), 21–50.
44. Tessler, M., Jamal, A., & Robinson, M. (2012). New findings on Arabs and Democracy. Journal of Democracy 23(4), 89–103.
45. Tezcür, G. M. (2010). When democratization radicalizes? The Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey. Journal of Peace Research, 47(6), 775–789.
46. Toprak, B., Bozan, İ., Morgül, T., & Şener, N. (2009). Being different in Turkey: Religion, conservatism, and otherization. Istanbul: Open Society Foundation.
47. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2012). Istatistiklerle kadın 2012. Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, 2012.
48. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. (6 Eylül 2015). Türkiye’de kadına yönelik aile içi şiddet araştırması. Erişim adresi: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/TKAA2014_Ozet_Rapor.pdf.
49. World Economic Forum. (9 Ağustos 2016). The global gender gap index 2015. Erişim adresi: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/economies/#economy=TUR.
50. Yegen, M. (1999). The Kurdish Question in Turkish state discourse. Journal of Contemporary History, 34(4), 555–568.
51. Zeydanlıoğlu, W. (2009). Torture and Turkification in the Diyarbakır military prison. In W. Zeydanlıoğlu and J. T. Parry (Eds.), Rights, citizenship & torture: Perspectives on evil, law and the state (pp.73–92). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.