Türk Parti Sistemi Üzerine Bir Yeniden Değerlendirme

Year 2021, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 277 - 289, 30.10.2021

Mustafa Bölükbaşı

Abstract

Türkiye’de modern siyasi kurumların geçmişi eskidir ancak 1945’e kadar olan sınırlı rekabet ve 1960, 1971, 1980 ve 1997’deki askeri müdahaleler nedeniyle parti sistemi istikrarlı bir şekilde gelişememiştir. Ayrıca seçim sistemi, özellikle 1980 sonrasında uygulanan %10’luk seçim barajı, Türk parti sistemini doğrudan etkilemiştir. Demokratik olmayan güçler tarafından kesintiye uğratılan ve siyasi mühendislik ile oluşturulmaya çalışılan Türk siyasi partilerinin ve parti sisteminin gelişimi doğrusal olmamıştır. Son yıllarda, Türk parti sistemi üzerine artan sayıda bir literatür bulunmaktadır. Ancak, çoğu çalışma yetersiz ampirik veriye dayandığından ve 1990’lar ve 2000’lerle sınırlı olduğundan, genellikle hakim parti sistemine odaklanmış ve parti sistemlerine ilişkin tartışmaları eleştirel olarak gözden geçirememiştir. Bu makale 1950’den günümüze Türk parti sistemini nicel yöntemle analiz etmektedir. İlgili parti sayısı ve partilerin göreli büyüklükleri kriterlerini benimseyen bu çalışma, etkin parti sayısı ve parçalanma gibi farklı göstergeleri kullanmaktadır. Bu makale, Türkiye’nin 1950’den beri dört temel parti sistemi biçimini deneyimlediğini öne sürmektedir: iki partili sistem (1950-1960 ve 2002), iki buçuk partili sistem (1960-1980), partiler arasında dengenin olduğu ılımlı çok partili sistem (1991-1999) ve hakim partinin bulunduğu ılımlı çok partili sistem (1983-1987 ve 2007-2018).

Keywords

Parti sistemleri, Siyasi partiler, Türk parti sistemi, Etkin parti sayısı, Parti sistemleri tipolojileri

A Reassessment of the Turkish Party System

Abstract

Modern political institutions have a long history in Turkey but because of limited competition until 1945 and military interventions in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997, the party system has not developed consistently. Moreover, the electoral system, particularly the 10% electoral threshold applied after 1980, directly affected the Turkish party system. Having been interrupted by non-democratic forces and attempted to be formed via political engineering, the development of Turkish political parties and party systems has not been linear. In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on the Turkish party system. However, since most studies were based on inadequate empirical data and limited to the 1990s and the 2000s, they have generally focused on the predominant party system and failed to critically review discussions on party systems. This paper analyzes Turkish party systems from 1950 to the present using the quantitative method. Adopting the criteria of the number of relevant parties and their relative strengths, this study applies different indicators such as the effective number of parties and fragmentation. This paper argues that Turkey has experienced four main different forms of party systems since 1950: a two-party system (1950-1960 and 2002), a two and a half party system (1960-1980), a moderate multiparty system with a balance among parties (1991-1999), and a moderate multiparty system with one dominant party (1983-1987, and 2007-2018).

Keywords

Party systems, Political parties, Turkish party system, the effective number of parties, the typologies of party systems

References

• Biezen, V., Mair, P., & Poguntke, T. (2012). Going, going, . . . gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary europe. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 24-56.
• Blondel, J. (1968). Party systems and patterns of government in Western democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1(2), 180-203.
• Cop, B. (2017). Electoral systems in Turkey. İstanbul: Libra Kitap.
• Çarkoğlu, A. (1998). The Turkish party system in transition: party performance and agenda change. Political Studies, 46(3), 544–571.
• Çarkoğlu, A. (2011). Turkey's 2011 general elections: towards a dominant party system? Insight Turkey, 13(3), 43-62.
• Dahl, R. A. (1966). Patterns of opposition. In R. A. Dahl, Political oppositions in Western democracies (pp. 332-47). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Dalton, R. J. (2000). The decline of party identifications. In R. J. Dalton, & M. P. Wattenberg, Parties without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 19-36). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dalton, R. J., Mcallister, I., & Wattenberg, M. P. (2000). The consequences of partisan dealignment. In R. J. Dalton, & M. P. Wattenberg, Parties without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 37-63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Duverger, M. (1964). Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. (B. North, & R. North, Trans.) London: Methuen.
• Emanuele, V., & Chiaramonte, A. (2016). A growing impact of new parties: myth or reality? Party system innovation in Western Europe after 1945. Party Politics, 24(5), 475-487.
• Erder, N. (1999). Türkiye'de siyasi parti seçmenleri ve toplum düzeni [Political party constituencies and social order in Turkey]. İstanbul: TÜSES.
• Golosov, G. V. (2011). Party system classification: a methodological inquiry. Party Politics, 17(5), 539–560.
• Gümüşçü, Ş. (2013). The emerging predominant party system in Turkey. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 223-244.
• Hale, W. (1980). The role of the electoral system in Turkish politics. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 11(3), 401-417.
• Hale, W. (1994). Turkish politics and the military interventions. London: Routledge.
• Hopkin, J., & Paolucci, C. (1999). The business firm model of party organisation: cases from Spain and Italy. European Journal of Political Research, 35(3), 307-339.
• Karpat, K. H. (1988). Military interventions: army-civilian relations in Turkey before and after 1980. M. Heper, & A. Evin içinde, State, democracy and the military in Turkey in the 1980s (s. 137-158). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
• Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organisation and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics(1), 5-28.
• Kircheimer, O. (1966). The transformation of Western European party systems. In J. La Palombara, & M. Weiner, Political parties and political development (pp. 177-200). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Krouwel, A. (2006). Party Models. In R. S. Katz, & W. Crotty, Handbook of Party Politics (pp. 249-269). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
• Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), 3-27.
• Lijphart, A., Bowman, P. J., & Hazan, R. Y. (1999). Party systems and issue dimensions: Israel and thirty‐five other old and new democracies compared. Israel Affairs, 6(2), 29-51.
• Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: the case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Mair, P. (1997). Party system change: Approaches and interpretations. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mair, P. (2002). Comparing party systems. In L. Lawrence, R. G. Niemi, & P. Norris, Comparing democracies 2: New challenges in the study of elections and voting (pp. 88-107). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: a key to Turkish politics? Daedalus, 102(1), 169-190.
• Mudde, C. (2014). Fighting the system? Populist radical right parties and party system change. Party Politics, 20(2), 217-226.
• Musil, P. A. (2015). Emergence of a Dominant Party System After Multipartyism: Theoretical Implications from the Case of the AKP in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 20(1), 71-92.
• Neumann, S. (1956). Modern political parties: approaches to comparative politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Özbudun, E. (2000). Contemporary Turkish politics: challenges to democratic consolidation. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Panebianco, A. (1988). Political parties: organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rokkan, S. (1968). The growth and structuring of mass politics in smaller european democracies. Comparative Studies in Society and History(10), 173-210.
• Sartori, G. (2005). Parties and party systems. Colchester: ECPR Press.
• Sayarı, S. (2002). The changing party system. In S. Sayarı, & Y. Esmer, Politics, parties, and elections in Turkey (pp. 9-32). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
• Sayarı, S. (2007). Towards a new Turkish party system? Turkish Studies, 8(2), 197-210.
• Sayarı, S. (2012). Political parties. In M. Heper, & S. Sayarı, The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey (pp. 182-193). New York: Routledge.
• Sayarı, S. (2016). Back to a predominant party system: the november 2015 snap election in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 21(2), 263-280.
• Siaroff, A. (2000). Comparative European party systems: an analysis of parliamentary elections since 1945. New York: Garland Publishing.
• Siaroff, A. (2003). Two-and-a-half-party Systems and the Comparative Role of the 'Half'. Party Politics, 9(3), 267-290.
• Taagepera, R. (1999). Supplementing the effective number of parties. Eloctoral Studies, 18(4), 497–504.
• Wolinetz, S. B. (2006). Party Systems and Party System Types. In R. Katz, & W. Crotty, Handbook on Political Parties (pp. 51-62). London: Sage.
• Zürcher, E. J. (2017). Turkey: a modern history. London, New York: I.B.Tauris.