Deliberation in the Contexts of Ethnic Conflict: Peace Process Example in Turkey

Abstract

This research examines the Democratic Opening debates in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) in November 2009 and the debates on the Law on Combating Terrorism and Strengthening Social Integration in July 2014. The deliberation quality of these draft laws was measured by the Discourse Quality Index method, which was inspired by Jürgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action and Discourse Ethics. In this way, the question of how deliberative democracy functions in a ‘divided society’ is addressed. The aim is to make an original empirical contribution to the deliberation literature. Most deliberation studies have been conducted in Western societies where liberal democracies have been institutionalized and non-violent issues with less conflict. According to these studies, opposition groups act more democratically and deliberatively when there is a favorable institutional environment for negotiation. This environment encourages participants to behave respectfully, while a well-reasoned proposal for the common good can persuade individuals with different views. In this context, the ‘ethnic division’ in the country and decades-long violent conflict make Turkey a unique example. The sessions held in the TBMM within the scope of the negotiation process for the solution to the Kurdish Question took place in a highly contentious atmosphere. Therefore, this study, on the one hand, analyses how the negotiation process works in a divided society, and on the other hand, discusses whether this process has changed the attitudes of the political parties towards the Kurdish Question and whether it has led to a consensus among political elites regarding its solution.

Keywords

• Deliberation
• Divided Societies
• Ethnic Conflict
• Peace Process
• Turkey

ETNİK ÇATIŞMA BAĞLAMINDA MÜZAKERE: TÜRKİYE'DEKİ BARIŞ SÜRECİ ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'nde (TBMM) Kasım 2009'da gerçekleştirilen Demokratik Açılım Tartışmaları ve Temmuz 2014'te Terörle Mücadele ve Toplumsal Bütünleşmenin Güçlendirilmesi Hakkında Kanun Tartışmalarına odaklanmaktadır. Bu yasa tasarılarının müzakere kalitesi, Jürgen Habermas'ın İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı ve söylem etiği çalışmalarından ilham alınarak oluşturulan Söylem Kalitesi Endeksi yöntemiyle iki farklı araştırmacı tarafından ölçülüp karşılaştırılmıştır. Böylelikle “bölünmüş bir toplum”da müzakereci demokrasinin nasıl işlediği sorusuna yanıt aranmıştır. Amaç, müzakere literatürüne orijinal bir ampirik katkı sağlamaktır çünkü müzakere çalışmalarının çoğu, liberal demokrasilerin kurumsallaştığı Batı toplumları ve daha az çatışmanın olduğu, şiddet içermeyen konular üzerinde yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmalara göre, müzakere için uygun ortam oluştuğunda karşıt gruplar daha demokratik ve müzakereci hareket etmektedir. Doğru bir kurumsal tasarım, katılımcıları saygılı davranmaya iterken; ortak faydaya yönelik iyi gerekçelendirilmiş bir eylem önerisi, farklı görüşlere sahip bireyleri ikna edebilmektedir. Bu bağlamda ülkede onlarca yıldır var olan “etnik bölünmüşlük” ve çatışma ortamı Türkiye'yi özgün bir örnek haline getirmektedir. Barış Süreci olarak bilinen Kürt Sorunu'nun çözümüne yönelik müzakere süreci kapsamında TBMM'de yapılan oturumlar oldukça çekişmeli bir atmosferde gerçekleşmiştir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada bir yandan bölünmüş bir toplumda müzakere sürecinin nasıl işlediği incelenirken, diğer yandan bu sürecin TBMM'deki siyasi partilerin Kürt Sorunu'na ve bu meselenin çözümüne dair tutumlarını değiştirip değiştirmediği, siyasi elitler arasında bir fikir birliğine yol açıp açmadığı tartışılmıştır. Nihayetinde resmi parlamento görüşmeleri üzerinden söz konusu müzakere sürecinin Türkiye'deki “etnik kutuplaşmayı” azaltıp azaltmadığı anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Müzakere
• Bölünmüş Toplumlar
• Etnik Çatışma
• Barış Süreci
• Türkiye

References

1. Addis, A. (2009). Deliberative Democracy in Severely Fractured Societies. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16(1), 59-83.
2. Akgül, Ç. G., & Akgül, M. (2022). Patterns of the Parliamentary Debates: How Deliberative are Turkish Democratic Opening Debates?. Politics in Central Europe, 18(2), 175-199.
3. Arıboğan, D. Ü., & Ülke, D. (2017). Duvar: Tarih Geri Dönüyor. İnkılap Kitabevi, İstanbul.
4. Azmanova, A. (2010). Deliberative Conflict and ‘the Better Argument’Mystique. The Good Society, 19(1), 48-54.
5. Baser, B., & Ozerdem, A. (2021). Conflict Transformation and Asymmetric Conflicts: A Critique of the Failed Turkish-Kurdish Peace Process. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(8), 1775-1796.
6. Bashir, B. (2016). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Integrative Solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The Middle East Journal, 70(4), 560-578.
7. Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (2021). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton University Press.
8. Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. MIT Press.

9. Caluwaerts, D., & Ugarriza, J. E. (2012). Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 8(1).
10. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge University Press.
11. Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford University Press, USA.
12. Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University of Pennsylvania.
13. Ensaroglu, Y. (2013). Turkey's Kurdish Question and the Peace Process. Insight Turkey, 15(2), 7-17.
14. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press.
15. Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 40, 284-298.
16. Gastil, J., Bacci, C., & Dollinger, M. (2010). Is Deliberation Neutral? Patterns of Attitude Change During" The Deliberative Polls™". Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2), 3.
17. Gormley-Heenan, C., & Macginty, R. (2008). Ethnic Outbidding and Party Modernization: Understanding the Democratic Unionist Party's Electoral Success in the Post-Agreement Environment. Ethnopolitics, 7(1), 43-61.
18. Görgün, Ç. (2020). Türkiye’de Demokratik Müzakere: AK Parti İktidarının Siyasal ve Demokratik Açılım Süreçleri (2002-2016). (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
19. Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?. Political Behavior, 37, 995-1020.
20. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy?. Princeton University Press.
21. Gunes, C., & Lowe, R. (2015). The Impact of the Syrian War on Kurdish Politics Across the Middle East (p. 4). London: Chatham House.
22. Gunes, C. (2018). The Rise of the Pro-Kurdish Democratic Movement in Turkey. In Routledge Handbook on the Kurds (pp. 257-269). Routledge.
23. Habermas, J. (2001). İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı. İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
24. Habermas, J. (1989). The Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois society., Polity Press.
25. Hamlett, P. W., & Cobb, M. D. (2006). Potential Solutions to Public Deliberation Problems: Structured Deliberations and Polarization Cascades. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 629-648.
26. Horowitz, D. L. (1991). A Democratic South Africa?: Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society (Vol. 46). Univ of California Press.
27. Horowitz, D. L. (1993). The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict: Democracy in Divided Societies. Journal of Democracy, 4(4), 18-38.
28. Horowitz, D. L. (2000). Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Updated Edition with a New Preface. Univ of California Press.
29. Horowitz, D. L. (2003). The Cracked Foundations of the Right to Secede. Journal of Democracy, 14(2), 5-17.
30. Kaldor, M. (2013). New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era. John Wiley & Sons.
31. King, S. D. (2018). Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History. Yale University Press.
32. Lijphart, A. (1975). The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (2nd edn, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
33. Luskin, R.C., O’Flynn, I., Fishkin, J.S. and Russell, D. (2012) ‘Deliberating Across Deep Divides’, Political Studies, Early. View. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01005.x
34. Maddison, S. (2015). Relational Transformation and Agonistic Dialogue in Divided Societies. Political Studies, 63(5), 1014-1030.
35. Maoz, I., & Ellis, D. G. (2008). Intergroup Communication as a Predictor of Jewish-Israeli Agreement with Integrative Solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: The Mediating Effects of Out-Group Trust and Guilt. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 490-507.
36. Mill, J. S. (2017). Demokratik Yönetim Üzerine Düşünceler. Özgüç Orhan (Çev.). İstanbul: Pinhan Yayınları.
37. Nenkov, G. Y., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Pre-Versus Postdecisional Deliberation and Goal Commitment: The Positive Effects of Defensiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 106-121.
38. Nykänen, J. (2013). Identity, Narrative and Frames: Assessing Turkey's Kurdish Initiatives. Insight Turkey, 15(2), 85.
39. O'FLYNN, I. A. N. (2007). Divided Societies and Deliberative Democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 731-751.
40. O’Leary, B. (2005). “Debating Consociational Politics: Normative and Explanatory Arguments”. In From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies, ed. S. Noel (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press), 3–34.
41. Ok, E. (2011). Are We Becoming More Distant?: Exploring the Nature of Social Polarization along Ethnic Lines in the City of Izmir (Doctoral dissertation).
42. Rabushka, A., & Shepsle, K. A. (1972). Politics in Plural Societies. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 232.
43. Rawls, J. (1997). The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765-807.
44. Rawls, J. (2020). A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Harvard university press.
45. Robert, D. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven.
46. Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does Deliberative Democracy Work?. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 8(1), 49-71.
47. Savran, A. (2020). The Peace Process between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, 2009–2015. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 22(6), 777-792.
48. Schneiderhan, E., & Khan, S. (2008). Reasons and Inclusion: The Foundation of Deliberation. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 1-24.
49. Schwarzmantel, J. (2010). ‘Democracy and Violence: A Theoretical Overview,’ Democratization, Special Issue, 17, 217–34.
50. Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48.
51. Steiner, J. (2012). The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge University Press.
52. Sunstein, C. R. (1999). The Law of Group Polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, (91).
53. Ugarriza, E., & Caluwaerts, D. (Eds.). (2014). Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies:: From Conflict to Common Ground. Springer.
54. Ugarriza, J. E., Caluwaerts, D., Orozco, M. M., & Ugarriza, J. E. (2014). The Citizens, the Politicians and the Courts: A Preliminary Assessment of Deliberative Capacity in Colombia. Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies: From Conflict to Common Ground, 73-88.
55. Vasilev, G. (2013). Preaching to the Choir or Converting the Uninitiated? The Integrative Potential of in-Group Deliberations. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16(1), 109-129.
56. Väyrynen, R. (2023). To Settle or to Transform: Perspectives on the Resolution of National and International Conflicts. in Raimo Väyrynen: A Pioneer in International Relations, Scholarship and Policy-Making: With a Foreword by Olli Rehn and a Preface by Allan Rosas (pp. 279-299). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
57. Wojcieszak, M. E. (2012). On Strong Attitudes and Group Deliberation: Relationships, Structure, Changes, and Effects. Political Psychology, 33(2), 225-242.