Siyasal Tutumların Sol-Sağ Cetvelinde Gerçek ve Zannedilen Yerleşimleri: Türkiye’ye Dair Temsili Bulgular

Year 2022, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 235 - 253, 08.11.2022

Alper H. Yağcı

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1146772

Abstract

Bireylerin sol-sağ cetveline kendilerini nasıl yerleştirdikleri (sol-sağ özdeğerlendirmeleri) özellikle seçmen davranışına ilişkin çalışmalarda sıklıkla gündeme gelmekte, fakat bu cetvelin anlam içeriği mevcut literatürde sorgulanmadan kalmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’yi temsil niteliği taşıyan bir orijinal anketin verilerine dayanarak, sıradan insanlar için sol-sağ ayrımının gerçek ve atfedilen anlamları arasındaki farkı incelemektedir. Örneğin, ekonomik meseleler sübjektif sol-sağ özdeğerlendirmeleri için insanların zannettiği kadar önemli mi? Bu soruyu ampirik olarak yanıtlamak için, sorunun her iki bileşeniyle ilgili ölçüler geliştirilerek, hem belirli ekonomik pozisyonları destekleyen insanların kendilerini sol-sağ cetvelinde nereye yerleştirdikleri, hem de bu pozisyonları desteklediği bildirilen hipotetik bireyi aynı cetvelde nereye yerleştirdiklerine dair veriler elde edildi. Ekonomi dışı alanları da kapsayacak şekilde altı politika meselesine dair sorular soruldu. Özdeğerlendirmelere ilişkin bulguların gösterdiği üzere Türkiye’de sol-sağ cetveli daha çok ekonomi dışı bir mesele olan sekülerizm ile ilgili olup halk arasında da böyle anlaşılmaktadır; bununla birlikte sol-sağ cetveli çevrecilikle zannedilenden daha çok ve ekonomik meselelerle zannedilenden daha az ilgilidir. Ayrıca cinsiyet eşitliği ve düşünce özgürlüğü de cetvelin solunda yerleşim ile yakından ilintili olup bu konuda farkındalık da mevcuttur.

Keywords

Sol-Sağ İdeolojiler, Siyasal Tutumlar, Türkiye, Oy Davranışı, İdeoloji

Supporting Institution

Boğaziçi Üniversitesi

Project Number

Bilimsel Araştırma Fonu (BAP) 17701

Actual and Popularly Attributed Placement of Political Attitudes on the Left-Right Scale: Results from a Representative Survey of Turkey

Abstract

Individuals’ self-placement on the left-right scale continues to be a staple of voting studies, but the semantic content of this scale is rarely explored. This study aims to examine the discrepancy between the actual and perceived meanings of the political left-right divide among ordinary people, based on original data from a representative sample of Turkey. Are economic issues as pertinent to subjectively held left-right placements as people think? In order to empirically address this question, we develop measures for both parts of the question, i.e. how people endorsing certain economic positions place themselves on the left-right scale, as well as what left-right placement they attribute to a hypothetical person endorsing the same positions. We ask similar questions about non-economic issue positions too, all together comparing six issues. The results show that while the semantic content of the left-right scale in contemporary Turkey is mostly about secularism—a non-economic issue—and is popularly understood as such, it is more about environmentalism, and less about economic issues, than what people think. Endorsement of gender equality and freedom of thought also prove to be substantial correlates of a leftward self-placement and they are popularly recognized as such.

Keywords

Left-Right Ideology, Political Attitudes, Turkey, Voting Behavior, Ideology, Sol-Sağ İdeolojiler, Siyasal Tutumlar, Türkiye, Oy Davranışı, İdeoloji

Project Number

Bilimsel Araştırma Fonu (BAP) 17701

References

• Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Wlezien, C. (2016). The company you keep: how voters infer party positions on European integration from governing coalition arrangements. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 811-823.
• Arıkan, G., & Şekercioğlu, E. (2014). Türkiye'de Muhafazakarlaşma: Kuşak Farkı Var mı?. Alternative Politics/Alternatif Politika, 6(1).
• Aytaç, S. E. 2022. Economic voting during the AKP era in Turkey. In G. M. Tezcür (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Turkish Politics.
• Bakker, Ryan, Seth Jolly, and Jonathan Polk. 2012. “Complexity in the European Party Space: Exploring Dimensionality with Experts.” European Union Politics 13(2): 219–45.
• Bauer, P. C., Barberá, P., Ackermann, K., & Venetz, A. (2017). Is the left-right scale a valid measure of ideology?. Political Behavior, 39(3), 553-583.
• Benoit, K, Laver, M (2012) The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics 13(2): 194–218.
• Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2018). On the left and right ideological divide: Historical accounts and contemporary perspectives. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 49–83.
• Çarkoğlu, A. (2007). The nature of left–right ideological self-placement in the Turkish context. Turkish Studies, 8(2), 253–271.
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Hinich, M. J. (2006). A spatial analysis of Turkish party preferences. Electoral Studies, 25(2), 369-392.
• Carkoglu, A., & Kalaycioglu, E. (2021). Fragile But Resilient?: Turkish Electoral Dynamics, 2002-2015. University of Michigan Press.
• Çarkoğlu, A., Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2009). The rising tide of conservatism in Turkey. Springer.
• Cochrane, C. (2013). The asymmetrical structure of left/right disagreement: Left-wing coherence and right-wing fragmentation in comparative party policy. Party Politics, 19(1), 104-121.
• Cochrane, C. (2010) ‘Left/Right Ideology and Canadian Politics’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 43: 583–605.
• Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
• Converse, P. E., & Pierce, R. (1986). Political representation in France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Dalton, R. J. (2009). Ideology, partisanship and democratic development. In L. LeDuc, R. Niemi, & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing democracies 3 (pp. 143-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dalton, Russell, David Farrell, and Ian McAllister. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (2006). The egalitarian face of Islamic orthodoxy: Support for Islamic law and economic justice in seven Muslim-majority nations. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 167–190.
• Ecevit and Celep 2018. = Pol Perceptions of Party voters and members in Tr in Party politics in Turkey: A comparative perspective. Routledge.
• Esmer, Y. (2002) “At the Ballot Box: Determinants of Voting Behavior,” in S. Sayarı and Y. Esmer, eds., Politics, Parties and Elections in Turkey, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
• Franklin, M. N., Mackie, T. T., & Valen, H. (2009). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries. ECPR Press.
• Freire, A. (2015). Left–right ideology as a dimension of identification and of competition. Journal of Political Ideologies, 20(1), 43–68.
• Granberg, D., & Brown, T. A. (1992). The perception of ideological distance. Western Political Quarterly, 45(3), 727-750.
• Huber, J. (1989). Values and partisanship in left–right orientations: Measuring ideology. European Journal of Political Research, 17, 599–621.
• Huber, J., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics, 1(1), 73–111.
• Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (1976). Party identification, ideological preference and the left–right dimension among Western mass publics. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, & D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond: Representations of voting and party competition. Chichester: Wiley.
• Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2018). Two elections and a political regime in crisis: Turkish politics at the crossroads. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 18(1), 21-51.
• Kinder, D. R. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline. Washington, D.C.: The American Political Science Association.
• Klingemann, H. D. (1979). The background of ideological conceptualization. In S. H. Barnes, & M. Kaase, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Knutsen, O. (1997). The partisan and the value-based components of left–right self-placement: A comparative study. International Political Science Review, 18, 191–225.
• Laver, M. (2014). Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 207-223.
• Mair, P. (2007). Left–Right Orientations. In R. S. Dalton and H. D. Klingemann (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford University Press.
• Meyer, T. M., & Wagner, M. (2020). Perceptions of parties’ left-right positions: The impact of salience strategies. Party Politics, 26(5), 664–674.
• Özbudun, E. (2013). Party Politics & social cleavages in Turkey. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Stimson, J. A., Thiébaut, C., & Tiberj, V. (2012). The evolution of policy attitudes in France. European Union Politics, 13(2), 293-316.
• Yağcı, A. H. Türkiye’de Bireylerin Sol-Sağ Ayrımına Göre Konumlanışı: Dünya Değerler Araştırması 1990-2018 Verilerinin İncelenmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 21-50.
• Yagci, A. H., Harma, M., & Tekgüç, H. (2020). Who wants left-wing policies? Economic preferences and political cleavages in Turkey. Mediterranean Politics, 1-26.
• Yagci, A. H., & Oyvat, C. (2020). Partisanship, media and the objective economy: Sources of individual-level economic assessments. Electoral Studies, 66, 102135.
• Zechmeister, E., 2006. What’s left and who’s right? A Q-method study of individual and contextual influences on the meaning of ideological labels. Political Behavior, 28(2), pp.151-173.