Türkiye’de Parti Kurumsallaşma Düzeyinin Ölçülmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 305 - 321, 08.11.2022

Mustafa Bölükbaşı

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1100558

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, parti kurumsallaşmasına yönelik kuramsal yaklaşımları, ampirik operasyonelleştirmeyle bir araya getirmektir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye demokrasisi örneğinde, farklı göstergeler kullanarak parti kurumsallaşması kavramının sistematik bir operasyonelleştirmesini sunmaktadır. Türk parti sistemi hakkında oldukça geniş bir literatür bulunmasına rağmen, Türkiye’de parti kurumsallaşması hakkında çok az tartışma yapılmıştır. Çoğu araştırmanın en zayıf noktası, parti kurumsallaşmasının nasıl ölçüleceği sorusuna yeterli bir cevap verememesidir. Bu sorunun üstesinden gelebilmek için, bu makale Parti Kurumsallaşma Endeksi’ni (PII) önermektedir. PII, parti kurumsallaşmasının dört boyutunun sistematik olarak operasyonelleştirilmesiyle elde edilmektedir: istikrar, sistemlilik, somutlaştırma ve kökleşme. Bu araştırma, bir siyasi partinin her bir boyutta önemli ölçüde farklı puanlara sahip olabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, daha yüksek üyelik gücüne, coğrafi olarak yaygın büyük ölçekli örgütlere, daha yüksek kronolojik yaşa, daha fazla sayıda lider değişimine, daha düşük düzeyde seçim oynaklığına ve daha büyük seçim başarısına sahip siyasi partilerin daha fazla kurumsallaşacağını ve daha uzun süre varlığını sürdüreceğini öne sürmektedir. Bu araştırmanın bulguları, kurumsallaşma düzeyi en yüksek olan partinin CHP olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma aynı zamanda HDP dışındaki siyasi partilerin görece yüksek düzeyde kurumsallaşma sergilediğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

Parti kurumsallaşması, Parti örgütlenmesi, Türk siyaseti, Türkiye’de siyasi partiler

Measuring the Level of Party Institutionalization in Turkey

Abstract

The main aim of this research is to combine theoretical approaches to party institutionalization with empirical operationalization. This study provides a systematic operationalization of the concept of party institutionalization using different indicators in the case of Turkish democracy. Although there has been extensive literature on the Turkish party system, there has been little discussion on party institutionalization in Turkey. The main weakness of most research is the failure to address how to quantify and measure party institutionalization. To overcome this problem, this paper offers the Party Institutionalization Index (PII). The PII is produced by the systematic operationalization of four dimensions of party institutionalization: stability, systemness, reification, and rootedness. The research shows that a political party may have significantly different scores on each dimension. This study argues that political parties with higher membership strength, geographically large-scale units, higher chronological age, more leadership changes, lower electoral volatility, and greater electoral success will become more institutionalized and survive longer. The results indicate that the CHP is the most institutionalized party in Turkey. This study also shows that political parties in Turkey, except for the HDP, display a relatively high level of institutionalization.

Keywords

Party institutionalization, Party organization, Turkish politics, Political parties in Turkey, Parti kurumsallaşması, Parti örgütlenmesi, Türk siyaseti, Türkiye’de siyasi partiler

References

• Amundsen, I. (1997). In Search of a Counter-force: State, Power and Civil Society in the Struggle for Democracy in Africa. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Tromsø.
• Arslantaş, D., & Arslantaş, Ş. (2021). The evolution of the party model in Turkey: from cadre to cartel parties? British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1-18.
• Arslantaş, D., Arslantaş, Ş., & Kaiser, A. (2020). Does the Electoral System Foster a Predominant Party System? Evidence from Turkey. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(1), 125-143.
• Arter, D., & Kestilä-Kekkonen, E. (2014). Measuring the Extent of Party Institutionalisation: The Case of a Populist Entrepreneur Party. West European Politics, 37(5), 932-956.
• Ayan-Musil, P. (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.
• Aydın Düzgit, S. (2019). The Islamist-Secularist divide and Turkey's descent into severe polarization. T. Carothers, & A. O'Donohue içinde, Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (s. 17-37). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Basedau, M., & Stroh, A. (2008). Measuring Party Institutionalisation in Developing Countries: A New Research Instrument Applied to 28 African Political Parties. German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA)(69), 1-27.
• Bedelski, R. E. (1994). The Transformation of South Korea. London: Routledge.
• Bértoa, F. C. (2017). Political parties or party systems? Assessing the ‘myth’ of institutionalisation and democracy. West European Politics, 40(2), 402-429.
• Bolleyer, N., & Ruth-Lovell, S. P. (2019). Party institutionalization as multilevel concept: base-versus elite-level routinization. Z Vgl Polit Wiss(13), 175-198.
• Bölükbaşı, M. (2021). A Reassessment of the Turkish Party System. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 30(2), 277-289.
• Celep, Ö. (2021). A Contemporary Analysis of Intra-Party Democracy in Turkey’s Political Parties. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 23(5), 768-794.
• 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.
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2007). Turkish democracy today. New York, NY: I.B.Tauris.
• Dix, R. (1992). Political Parties, Democratization and the Institutionalisation of Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 24(4), 488–511.
• Duverger, M. (1964). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. (B. North, & R. North, Trans.) London: Methuen.
• Esen, B., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2017). A Small Yes for Presidentialism: The Turkish Constitutional Referendum of April 2017. South European Society and Politics, 22(3), 303-326.
• Gunther, R., & Hopkin, J. (2002). A Crisis of Institutionalization: The Collapse of the UCD in Spain. In R. Gunther, J. Ramon, & J. Linz, Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (pp. 191-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gümüşçü, Ş. (2013). The emerging predominant party system in Turkey. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 223-244.
• Hale, W. (1994). Turkish politics and the military interventions. London: Routledge.
• Harmel, R., & Svåsand, L. (1993). Party leadership and party institutionalisation: Three phases of development. West European Politics, 16(2), 67-88.
• Harmel, R., Svåsand, L., & Mjelde, H. (2018). Institutionalisation (and de-Institutionalisation) of Rightwing protest parties: The progress parties in Denmark and Norway. Colchester: Ecpr Press.
• Harmel, R., Svåsand, L., & Mjelde, H. (2019). Party Institutionalisation: Concepts and Indicators. In R. Harmel, & L. Svasand, Institutionalization of Political Parties: Comparative Cases (pp. 9-24). London: ECPR Press.
• Hicken, A., & Kuchonta, E. (2014). Party System Institutionalization in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 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.
• Huntington, S. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Janda, K. (1980). Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: Free Press.
• Kuenzi, M., & Lambright, G. (2001). Party System Institutionalisation in 30 African Countries. Party Politics, 7(4), 437-468.
• Kumbaracıbaşı, A. C. (2020). Models of party institutionalization and problems of democratic consolidation. Mediterranean Politics, 25(2), 215-244.
• Levitsky, S. (1998). Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, the Case and the Case for Unpacking the Concept. Party Politics, 4(77), 77-92.
• Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. R. (Dü). (1995). Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
• Manacra, R. C., & Tan, A. C. (2005). Manufacturing Parties: Re-Examining the Transient Nature of Philippine Political Parties. Party Politics, 4(1), 77-92.
• Musella, F., & Vercesi, M. (2019). Definitions and measures of party institutionalization in new personal politics: The case of the 5-star movement. Z Vgl Polit Wiss(13), 225-247.
• Öney, B., & Selck, T. J. (2017). Exploring the level of party system institutionalization and party system type in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 18(2,), 209-228.
• Özbudun, E. (2000). Contemporary Turkish politics: Challenges to democratic consolidation. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Özbudun, E. (2006). From Political Islam to Conservative Democracy: The Case of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. South European Society & Politics, 11(3-4), 543-557.
• Özbudun, E. (2011). The constitutional system of Turkey: 1876 to the present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Panebianco, A. (1988). Political parties: organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pedahzur, A., & Brichta, A. (2002). The Institutionalisation of Extreme Right-Wing Charismatic Parties: A Paradox? Party Politics, 8(1), 31-49.
• Randall, V., & Svåsand, L. (2002). Party Institutionalization in New Democracies. Party Politics, 8(1), 5-29.
• Rose, R., & Mackie, T. T. (1988). Do parties persist or fail? The big trade-off facing organizations. In K. Lawson, & P. H. Merkl, When parties fail: emerging alternative organizations (pp. 533-558). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Sayarı, S. (1976). Aspects of Party Organization in Turkey. Middle East Journal, 30(2), 187-199.
• 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.
• Selçuk, O., Hekimci, D., & Erpul, O. (2019). The Erdoğanization of Turkish politics and the role of the opposition. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 19(4), 541-564.
• Travits, M. (2013). Post-Communist Democracies and Party Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Türsan, H. (1995). Pernicious party factionalism as a constant of transitions to democracy in Turkey. Democratization, 2(1), 168-184.
• Ufen, A. (2007). Political Party and Party System Institutionalisation in Southeast Asia: A Comparison of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Giga Working Papers(44), 1-30.
• Van Biezen, I., 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.
• Veugelers, J. W. (1995). The Institutionalization of France's Front National. Department of Sociology. Unpublished Thesis: Princeton University.
• Weghorst, K., & Bernhard, M. (2014). From Formlessness to Structure? The Institutionalization of Competitive Party Systems in Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 47(2), 1707-1737.
• Weissenbach, K., & Bukow, S. U. (2019). Travelling concepts of party institutionalization? A comparative perspective. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 13(2), 157-174.
• Yardımcı-Geyikçi, Ş. (2015). Party institutionalization and democratic consolidation: Turkey and Southern Europe in comparative perspective. Party Politics, 21(4), 527-538.
• Yıldırım, K. (2020). Clientelism and dominant incumbent parties: party competition in an urban Turkish neighborhood. Democratization, 27(1), 81-99.