Türkiye’de Seçim Bütünlüğü ve Seçim Gözlemi

Abstract

Siyasi kutuplaşmalar, popülist söylemlerin yükselişi ve küresel ölçekte risk toplumunun gelişimi, seçim
bütünlüğü ve meşruiyetini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Bu bağlamda, yerel seçim gözlemi adil, güvenli ve
şeffaf seçim süreçlerinin sağlanabilmesi için bir zorunluluk olmaktadır. Türkiye’de seçimleri gözlemleyen
çeşitli sivil toplum örgütleri ve aktörleri olmakla birlikte, yerel seçim gözlem kuruluşu şekilde çalışan
bir sivil toplum kuruluşu, Oy ve Ötesi, bulunmaktadır. Türkiye’de seçim çalışmaları seçim bütünlüğü
kavramı üzerinde durmamakta ve vatandaşlar yerel seçim gözlemi konusunda bilgi sahibi değildirler.
Bu makalenin amacı öncelikle seçim bütünlüğü kavramını tanımlamak ve yerel seçim gözleminin,

özellikle de siyasi kutuplaşmanın görüldüğü toplumlarda, öneminin altını çizmektir. Bu bağlamda,
iki araştırma sorusu bu makalenin temelini oluşturmaktadır: yerel seçim gözlem grupları Türkiye’de
seçim bütünlüğü ve meşruiyetini nasıl sağlayabilir? Oy ve Ötesi gönüllülerinin Türkiye’deki seçim
bütünlüğü üzerine düşünceleri nelerdir? Bu sorular çerçevesinde, makalede, Türkiye’de seçimlere dair
bilginin gelişmesi ve seçim meşruiyetinin sağlanması için çalışan Oy ve Ötesi derneğinin çalışmaları
ve gönüllülerinin seçim bütünlüğünün gelişimine katkısı incelenecektir. Çalışmanın verileri Oy ve
Ötesi Derneği’nin iki yöneticisi ile gerçekleştirilmiş derinlemesine görüşmenin ve gönüllüler arasında
gerçekleştirilmiş pilot anket çalışmasının verilerine dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın ilk argümanı şöyledir:
küresel ölçekte gözlemlenen toplumsal ve siyasi kutuplaşma, popülizm ve gerçek sonrası söylemlerle
gelişen risk toplumu, seçim bütünlüğünü olumsuz etkilemektedir. İkinci argüman ise, seçimlerdeki
yanlış uygulamalar, vatandaşları seçimlere ve secim gözlemine katılmaya teşvik etmektedir. Bu yaklaşım
çerçevesinde, makale, Türkiye’deki seçim çalışmalarına teorik ve ampirik çerçevede bir katkı sağlamayı
hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• Seçim Bütünlüğü,Secim Çalışmaları,Yerel Seçim Gözlemi,Kutuplaşma,Gerçek Ötesi,Popülizm,Sivil Toplum

Electoral Integrity and Election Monitoring in Turkey

Abstract

The political polarization, populist discourses and development of risk society inside the global context
have been causing damages on electoral integrity and legitimacy. Domestic election monitoring is a
necessity in order to establish a fair, secure and transparent election process. In Turkey, there is one
domestic monitoring organization, Vote and Beyond and a few non-governmental organizations trying
to observe elections. Elections in Turkey have not been analyzed around the concept of electoral
integrity and citizens are not aware of domestic monitoring. The aim of this paper is to present the
concept of electoral integrity and underline the importance of domestic monitoring, especially in
politically divided societies. Our two key questions for this article are: “how can domestic monitoring
organizations help to establish electoral integrity and legitimacy in Turkey?”, “what are the ideas of
volunteers at Vote and Beyond on electoral integrity in Turkey?” According to these questions, this
article aims to analyze the activities of Vote and Beyond aiming to develop electoral knowledge of
Turkish people and legitimacy of the elections in Turkey and the impact of volunteers working within
this NGO. Our analysis will be based on in-depth interviews with the founders and a pilot study of a
survey realized with volunteers of Vote and Beyond. The first argument relies on the idea that social
and political polarization and the development of global risks by populist and post-truth politics
have negative impacts on electoral integrity. And the second argument is that election malpractices
encourage more and more citizens to participate in election observation in order to prevent fraud
and corruption during the elections. Within this approach, the article aims to make a theoretical and
empirical contribution to electoral studies in Turkey.

Keywords

• Electoral Integrity,Electoral Studies,Domestic Election Monitoring,Polarization,Post- Truth,Populism,Civil Society

References

1. Abts, K. & Rummens, S. (2007). Populism versus Democracy. Political Studies, 55, 405–424.
2. Alexander, J. (ed) (1998). Real Civil Societies. London: Sage.
3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
4. Birch, S. (2008). Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies, 27(2), 305-320.
5. Birch, S. (2010). Perceptions of Electoral Fairness and Voter Turnout. Comparative Political Studies, 43(12), 1601-1622.
6. Birch, S. (2012). Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Boily, F. (2005). Aux sources idéologiques du Front national : le mariage du traditionalisme et du populisme. Politique et Société, 24(1), 23-47.
8. Bowler, S., Brunell, T., Donovan, T., & Gronke, P. (2015). Election administration and perceptions of fair election. Electoral Studies, 38, 1-9.

9. Çakmaklı, D. (2015). Active citizenship in Turkey: learning citizenship in civil society organizations. Citizenship Studies, 19(3-4), 421-435.
10. Calhoun, C. (1993). Nationalism and civil society. International Sociology, 8(4), 387–412.
11. Calhoun, C. (1999). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. Political Studies, 47, 2–16.
13. Canovan, M. (2002). Taking Politics to the People: Populism as the Ideology of Democracy. In Y. Mény & Y.
14. Surel (Eds.), Democracies and the Populist Challenge (pp. 25-44). New York: Palgrave.
15. Canovan, M. (2004). Populism for political theorists?. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(3), 241-252.
16. Çarkoğlu A., Aytaç E. S., & Nisbet E. (2015). Haziran 2015 Seçimleri Türkiye Kamuoyu Dinamikleri Araştırması. Acik Bulten, 7(26), available at https://aciktoplumvakfi.org.tr/Dosyalar/ebulten/ ebulten_nisan_haziran_2015/ebulten_nisan_haziran_2015.html, last seen 25.07.2017.
17. Carreras M., & Irepoglu, Y. (2013). Trust in elections, vote buying and turnout in Latin America. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 609-619.
18. Çelebi, S. (2015). Civic Engagement In Turkey’s Democracy: The Case Of Oy ve Ötesi. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 13(4), 71-78.
19. Coffe H. (2017). Citizens’ media use and the accuracy of their perceptions of electoral integrity. International Political Science Review, 38(3), 281-297.
20. Cohen, J. (1999). American civil society talk. In R. Fullinwider (Ed.), Civil Society, Democracy and Civil Renewal (pp.31-54). Lanham/New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
21. Cohen, J. & Arato, A. (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Daxecker, U. E. and Schneider. (2014). Gerald, Electoral Observers: The Implications of Multiple Monitors for Electoral Integrity. In Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martinez I Coma (Eds.) Advancing Electoral Integrity, Oxford University Press. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2339006, last seen at 25.07.2017.
23. Diamond, L. J. (1994). Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4-17.
24. El Baradei, L. (2012). The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Monitoring Elections: Lessons Learned for the New Egypt. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(9), 587-602.
25. Elklit, J. (2012). What kind of animal is electoral integrity. Pre-IPSA Workshop Challenges of Electoral Integrity. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 7th July 2012.
26. Elklit, J. & Renolds, A. (2005). A framework for the systematic study of election quality. Democratization, 12(2), 147-162.
27. Fieschi, C., & Heywood, P. (2004). Trust, cynicism and populist anti‐politics. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(3), 289-309.
28. Filc, D. (2011). Post-populism: explaining neo-liberal populism through the habitus. Journal of Political Ideologies, 16(02), 221-238.
29. Hyde, S. D. & Marinov, N. (2011). Codebook for National Elections across Democracy and Autocracy (NELDA).
30. Ichino, N.,& Matthias, S. (2012). Deterring or displacing electoral irregularities? Spillover effects of observers in a randomized field experiment in Ghana. Journal of Politics, 74(1): 292-307.
31. Igarashi, S. (2008). The dilemma of democratic consolidation in the Philippines: the contested role of civic organizations in electoral governance. Philippine Political Science Journal, 29(52), 79-116.
32. IPSOS (2017), Anayasa Degisikligi Referandumu Sandik Sonrasi Arastirmasi, available at https://www. ipsos.com/tr-tr/anayasa-degisikligi-referandumu-sandik-sonrasi-arastirmasi?language_content_ entity=tr-tr, last seen 31.07.2017.
33. Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and Civil Society. A Framework of Rights & Obligations in Liberal, Traditional, and Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kelley, J. (2008), Assessing the Complex Evolution Of Norms: The Rise of International Election Monitoring. International Organization, 62(2), 221-255.
35. Kelley, J. (2010). Quality of Elections Data Codebook. http://sites.duke.edu/kelley/data/. last seen at 25.07.2017.
36. Kenny, M. (2017). Back to the populist future?: understanding nostalgia in contemporary ideological discourse. Journal of Political Ideologies, DOI: 10.1080/13569317.2017.1346773.
37. Klassen, J. A. (2015). Popular Perceptions of Electoral Integrity: A Systematic Review and Global Meta- Analysis, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4751.4321.
38. Küçük, B.,& Özselçuk, C. (2015). Mesafeli’ Devletten ‘Hizmetkâr’ Devlete: AKP’nin Kısmi Tanıma Siyaseti. Toplum ve Bilim, 132, 162-190.
39. Laclau, E. (1977). Towards a theory of populism. In Ernest Laclau (Ed.). Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. London: New Left Books.
40. Lean, F. S. (2007). Democracy assistance to domestic election monitoring organizations: Conditions for success. Democratization, 14(2), 289-312.
41. Levitsky, S. & Way, L.A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Levitt, J. (2014). Electoral integrity: the confidence game. New York University Law Review Online, 89(70), 70-86.
43. Makulilo, B. A. (2011). Watching the watcher: an evaluation of local election observers in Tanzania. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 49(2), 241262.
44. Maley, W. & Maley, M. (2016). Appraising electoral fraud: tensions and complexities. Conflict, Security&Development, 16(6), 653-671.
45. Martinez I Coma, F. & Trinh M. (2016). How electoral integrity affects voter turnout in democracies. Australian Journal of Political Science, DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2016.1238869.
46. McAllister, I. (2008). Public support for democracy: Results from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project. Electoral Studies, 27(1), 1-4.
47. McAllister, I. & Stephen, W. (2011). Public perceptions of electoral fairness in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(4): 663–683.
48. McAllister, I. & White, S. (2014). Electoral Integrity and Support for Democracy in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(1), 78-96.
49. McCann, J.A. & Domínguez, J.I. (1998). Mexicans react to political fraud and corruption: An assessment of public opinion and voting behavior. Electoral Studies, 17, 483–503.
50. Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, DOI: 10.1111/j.1477- 7053.2004.00135.x , 541-563.
51. Mudde, C. (2009). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe Redux. Political Studies Review, 7(3), 330-337. Müller, K. B. (2006). The Civil Society–State Relationship in Contemporary Discourse: A Complementary Account from Giddens’ Perspective. BJPIR, 8, 311–330 .
52. Nevitte, N., A. & Canton, S. (1997). The role of domestic observers. Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 47-61.
53. Norris, P. (2004). Electoral engineering: voting rules and political behavior. New York: Cambridge University press.
54. Norris, P. (2012a). Are There Global Norms and Universal Standards of Electoral Integrity and Malpractice?
55. Comparing Public and Expert Perceptions. HKS Working Paper No. RWP12-010.
56. Norris, P. (2012b). Why Electoral Malpractices Heighten Risks of Electoral Violence. APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2104551, last seen at 25.07.2017.
57. Norris, P. (2013(a)). The new research agenda studying electoral integrity. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 563-575.
58. Norris, P. (2013(b)). Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 576-588.
59. Norris, P. (2014a). Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Norris, P., & Grömping, M. (2017). Populist Threats to Electoral Integrity: The Year in Elections, 2016-2017. Sydney: University of Sydney.
61. Norris, P., Frank, W. R., & Martinez I Coma, F. (2014b). Measuring Electoral Integrity around the World: A New Dataset. PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(4), 789-798.
62. Norris, P., Martínez i Coma, F., Nai, A., & Grömping, M. (2016). The Year in Elections 2015. Sydney: University of Sydney.
63. OECD, Republic of Turkey Constitutional referendum 16 april 2017, OSCE/ODIHR Limited Referendum Observation Mission Final Report, 22 june 2017, Warsaw, Available at http://www.osce.org/odihr/ elections/turkey/324816, last seen at 25.07.2017.
64. Oliver, J. E., & Rahn M. W. (2016), The rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election. ANNALS, AAPSS, 667, 189-206.
65. Oy ve Otesi, https://oyveotesi.org/hakkinda/biz-kimiz/, last seen at 25.07.2017.
66. Oy ve Otesi, Referendum degerlendirmesi, 22 april 2017, available at http://oyveotesi.org/referandumdegerlendirmesi/, last seen at 25.07.2017.
67. Panizza, F. (2005). (Eds.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso.
68. Poblete, E. M. (2015). How to assess populist discourse through three current approaches. Journal of Political Ideologies, 20(2), 201-218.
69. Pran, V., & Merloe, P. (2007). Monitoring electronic technologies in electoral processes. An NDI guide for political parties and civic organizations. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), 1-162.
70. Santa-Cruz, A. (2005). Constitutional Structures, Sovereignty, and the Emergence of Norms: The Case of International Election Monitoring. International Organization 59(3), 663–693.
71. Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: the Dynamics of Unfree Competition. London: Lynne Rienner and Boulder.
72. Seligman, A. (1992). The Idea of Civil Society. New York: Free Press.
73. Seligman, A. (2000). Trust and civil society. In F. Tonkiss and A. Passey (Eds). Trust and Civil Society (pp.12- 30). London: Macmillan Press.
74. Sharon, F. L. (2007). Democracy Assistance to Domestic Election Monitoring Organizations: Conditions for Success. Democratization, 14(2), 289-312.
75. Sharon, F. L. (2007). Democracy assistance to domestic election monitoring organizations: conditions for success. Democratization, 14(2), 289-312.
76. Simpser, A. (2012). Does electoral manipulation discourage voter turnout? Evidence from Mexico. The Journal of Politics, 74, 782–95.
77. Spruyt, B., Keppens, G., &Van Droogenbroeck, F. (2016). Who supports populism and what attracts people to it? Political Research Quarterly, 69(2), 335-346.
78. Stanley, B. (2008). The thin ideology of populism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 95-110.
79. Stavrakakis, Y. (2004). Antinomies of formalism: Laclau’s theory of populism and the lessons from religious populism in Greece. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(3), 253-267.
80. Turkiye Sosyal-Siyasal Egilimler Arastirmasi, Kadir Has University, Center of Turkey Researches, 2016. Available at http://www.khas.edu.tr/news/1498, last seen 25.07.2017.
81. Van Ham, C. (2015). Getting elections right? Measuring electoral integrity. Democratization, 22(4), 714-737.
82. Van Ham, C., & Lindberg, S. (2015). When guardians matter most: exploring the conditions under which electoral management body institutional design affects electoral integrity. Irish Political Studies, 30(4), 454-481.
83. White, D., & Herzog, M. (2016). Examining state capacity in the context of electoral authoritarianism, regime formation and consolidation in Russia and Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4), 551-569.
84. Wigell, M. (2008). Mapping ‘Hybrid Regimes’: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics. Democratization, 15(2), 230-250.
85. Woods, D., & Wejnert, B. (Eds.) (2014). The many faces of populism: current perspectives. Research in Political Sociology, 22, 1-163.
86. Yves, M. & Yves, S. (2002). (Eds.) Democracies and the Populist Challenge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.