E-Devletin Gölgesinde Silinen Temsiliyet: Türkiye’de Mahalle Muhtarlıklarına İlişkin Karşılaştırmalı ve Eleştirel Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu makale, dijitalleşen kamu yönetimi bağlamında mahalle muhtarlıklarının giderek işlevsizleştiği varsayımından hareketle, Türkiye’deki muhtarlık kurumunun mevcut statüsünü, dönüşüm potansiyelini ve kurumsal alternatiflerini karşılaştırmalı bir çerçevede ele almaktadır. 4541 sayılı Kanun ile muhtarlara verilen görevlerin büyük bölümü günümüzde e-Devlet uygulamaları aracılığıyla yürütülmekte olup, bu durum seçimle belirlenmiş ancak karar alma süreçlerine katılamayan, sembolik temsiliyeti bulunan fakat yönetsel etkinliği sınırlı bir muhtarlık yapısının ortaya çıkmasına neden olmaktadır. Çalışma, Japonya (Chōnaikai, Jichikai), Güney Kore (Tong, Ban), Hindistan (Ward Committees) ve Bangladeş (Ward Shava) örnekleri üzerinden, mahalle ölçeğinde daha katılımcı ve işlevsel yönetişim modellerinin nasıl tasarlandığını incelemekte; bu karşılaştırmalı çerçevede, Türkiye’deki muhtarlık kurumunun temsil ile işlevsellik arasındaki yapısal uyumsuzluğu derinleştiren bir model sunduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Bu doğrultuda makale, üç alternatif politika senaryosunu tartışmaktadır: (1) Kurumun sembolik ve tarihsel önemine atıfla mevcut yapısının korunması, (2) görev ve yetkilerinin belediyelere devri suretiyle kurumsal tasfiyesi, (3) görev tanımı ve kurumsal kapasitesinin genişletilmesiyle mahalle düzeyinde etkin bir yönetişim aktörüne dönüştürülmesi. Makale, muhtarlık kurumunun tarihsel ve sosyolojik mirasını gözetirken, çağdaş yönetişim normlarıyla uyumlu kapsayıcı ve işlevsel bir yeniden yapılanmanın gerekliliğini vurgulamakta ve bu doğrultuda somut politika önerileri sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Mahalle muhtarlığı
• yerel yönetişim
• dijital devlet
• temsiliyet krizi
• katılımcı demokrasi
• kurumsal dönüşüm

Vanishing Representation in the Shadow of E-Government: A Comparative and Critical Analysis of Neighborhood Mukhtars in Turkey

Abstract

This article examines the current status, transformation potential, and institutional alternatives of neighborhood mukhtars in Turkey within a comparative framework, based on the premise that these units have become increasingly dysfunctional in the context of digitalized public administration. Most of the duties assigned to mukhtars under Law No. 4541 are now carried out through e-Government applications. This has led to the emergence of an administrative structure in which mukhtars, though elected and symbolically representative, remain excluded from decision-making processes and possess limited administrative effectiveness. The study explores more participatory and functional governance models at the neighborhood level through examples such as Japan (Chōnaikai, Jichikai), South Korea (Tong, Ban), India (Ward Committees), and Bangladesh (Ward Shava). Within this comparative context, it is argued that the mukhtar institution in Turkey exemplifies a structural mismatch between representation and functionality. Accordingly, the article discusses three alternative policy scenarios: (1) maintaining the current structure due to its symbolic and historical significance, (2) institutional dissolution by transferring its duties and powers to municipalities, and (3) transforming the institution into an effective governance actor at the neighborhood level by expanding its mandate and institutional capacity. The article emphasizes the need for a comprehensive restructuring of the mukhtar institution that respects its historical and sociological legacy while aligning with contemporary governance norms, and it offers concrete policy recommendations in this direction.

Keywords

• Neighborhood mukhtar
• local governance
• digital state
• crisis of representation
• participatory democracy
• institutional transformation

References

1. Ahmed, T. (2011). Planning situations in the Union Parishad of Bangladesh and outline of a planning guideline. Retrieved from https://tofailahmed.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/planning-situations-in-the-union-parishad-of-bangladesh-and-outline-of-a-planning-guideline.pdf
2. Ajisaka, M. (2000). Local organizations and groups in Japan―Chiefly in neighborhood associations (Chonaikai Jichikai). Social Science Review, 63, 1–13. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1390290699885887104
3. Akman, Ç. (2018). Mahalle yönetimi ile ilgili yeni bir yasal düzenleme gerekli mi? Isparta ili özelinde bir araştırma. Journal of Academic Research and Studies, 10(19), 516–534. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/571036
4. Alada, A. B. (2008). Osmanlı Şehrinde Mahalle. Sümer Kitabevi.
5. Almalı, V. (2024). Muhtarlığın sonu mu? Muhtarlığa bir alternatif olarak e-devlet. İçtimaiyat, 8(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.33709/ictimaiyat.1432824
6. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
7. Applbaum, K. (1996). The endurance of neighborhood associations in a Japanese commuter city. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 25(1), 1–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40553292
8. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

9. Aslan, C. (2021). Mahalle muhtarlığı: Hukuksal ve işlevsel analizler. Journal of Social Sciences Institute of Çukurova University, 30(2), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.944109
10. Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic Governance. Princeton University Press.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
12. Buck, R. M. (2012). Democratic legitimacy: The limits of instrumentalist accounts. Journal of Value Inquiry, 46, 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10790-012-9336-y
13. Ceylan, M. (2025). Türkiye’deki mahalle birimlerinin hukuki perspektiften kritiği. Hacettepe Law Review, 15(1), 74–106. https://doi.org/10.32957/hacettepehdf.1623478
14. Chattopadhyay, S. (2023). The Gram Panchayat's role in sustainable rural development. India Development Review. https://idronline.org/article/advocacy-government/the-gram-panchayats-role-in-sustainable-rural-development/
15. Chowdhury, S. N. I., & Jabbar, M. A. (1979). Development orientation of local government in Bangladesh: The case of Union Parishad. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.208742
16. Çadırcı, M. (1970). Türkiye’de muhtarlık teşkilatının kurulması üzerine bir inceleme. Belleten, 34(135), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.37879/ttkbelleten.1190930
17. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. M.E. Sharpe.
18. Denters, B., & Rose, L. (2005). Comparing local governance: Trends and developments. Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (DPT). (2007). Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı 2007–2013: Yerleşme-Şehirleşme Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu [Ninth Development Plan 2007–2013: Special Expert Commission Report on Settlement and Urbanization]. Ankara: State Planning Organization. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Dokuzuncu-Kalkinma-Plani-Yerlesme-ve-Sehirlesme-OIK.pdf
20. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
21. Dwianto, R. D. (2010). Chonaikai at a crossroads: Rethinking the Japanese traditional neighborhood association in urban governance. In Globalization, Localization, and Japanese Studies in the Asia-Pacific Region: International Symposium in Singapore (Vol. 2, pp. 53–65). International Research Center for Japanese Studies.
22. Eryılmaz, B. (2009). Kamu yönetimi [Public Administration]. Okutman Yayıncılık.
23. Fidan, A. (2025). Intranet systems and big-data integration: A DERBIS example in the public digital transformation process. In D. N. Leblebici, K. E. Yıldırım & E. Gemici (Eds.), Digital transformation in public administration: Theory and practices (pp. 35–50). Nova.
24. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
25. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001002
26. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (pp. 3–42). Verso.
27. Gözler, K. (2003). İdare hukuku (Vol. 1) [Administrative Law]. Ekin Kitabevi.
28. Hajer, M. A. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939
29. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
30. Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Polity Press.
31. Kalkışım, H. M., & Yılmaz, N. (2017). Mahalle yönetimi ve mahalle muhtarlarının profili: Trabzon Ortahisar örneği. Global Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 6(12), 110–126. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/391475
32. Keleş, R. (2020). Kentleşme politikası [Urbanization Policy]. İmge.
33. Kim, S. (2020). Participatory governance and policy diffusion in local governments in Korea: Implementation of participatory budgeting. KDI Research Monograph, No. 2016-01. Korea Development Institute (KDI). https://doi.org/10.22740/kdi.rm.e.2016.01
34. Koçak, S. Y., & Ekşi, A. (2010). Katılımcılık ve demokrasi perspektifinden Türkiye’de yerel yönetimler. SDÜ Journal of Faculty of Arts and Sciences: Social Sciences, 21, 295–307. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/117936
35. Koçberber, S. (2005). Yeni belediye yasası ile mahalle yönetimi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 56, 103–114. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3165634
36. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
37. Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
38. Nederhand, J., & Edelenbos, J. (2022). Legitimate public participation: A Q methodology on the views of politicians. Public Administration Review, 83(3), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13556
39. Nöth, W. (2003). Crisis of representation? Semiotica, 143(1/4), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2003.019
40. OECD. (2019). The missing entrepreneurs 2019: Policies for inclusive entrepreneurship. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3ed84801-en
41. Pastrana-Huguet, J., et al. (2022). Japan’s culture of prevention: How Bosai culture combines cultural heritage with state-of-the-art disaster risk management systems. Sustainability, 14(21), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113742
42. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
43. Pathak, V., & Deshkar, S. (2023). Transitions towards sustainable and resilient rural areas in revitalising India: A framework for localising SDGs at Gram Panchayat level. Sustainability, 15(9), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097536
44. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Palgrave Macmillan.
45. Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism (4th ed.). Edward Elgar.
46. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. University of California Press.
47. Plotke, D. (1997). Representation is democracy. Constellations, 4(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00033
48. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
49. Rothstein, B. (2009). Creating political legitimacy: Electoral democracy versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338795
50. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
51. Søndergaard, N. (2021). Reforming in a democratic vacuum: The authoritarian neoliberalism of the Temer administration from 2016 to 2018. Globalizations, 18(4), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1804155
52. Suzuki, K. (2025). Local government and citizen co-production through neighborhood associations. In Y. Noda (Ed.), Local governance in Japan (pp. 153–168). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77322-8_8
53. Şahin, Y., & Asarkaya, S. (2009). Mahalle muhtarlığı kurumunun tarihi gelişimi. Aksaray University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 23–32. http://aksarayiibd.aksaray.edu.tr/en/download/article-file/823888
54. Uddin, N. (2019). Empowerment through participation in local governance: The case of Union Parishad in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Policy, 22(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-10-2018-0002
55. Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. The University of Chicago Press.
56. URL-1: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5393.pdf
57. URL-2: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.3.4541.pdf
58. URL-3: https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/illeridaresi/muhtarlar-daire-baskanligi
59. URL-4: https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/muhtarlik-tarih-oluyor-334060
60. Varlık, Ü., & Ören, B. (2003). Demokrasi ve temsil. Selçuk University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences: Social and Economic Research, 3(5), 173–185. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/289666
61. Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and accountability. Penn State University Press.
62. Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460170903158040
63. Yılmaz, V., & Mecek, M. (2019). Türkiye'de mahalle yönetimlerinin tarihsel gelişimi ve hukuki statüsü. Idealkent, 27(10), 769–799. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.585490