Yasamayı Engelleme Amaçlı Lobicilik: Filibuster

Year 2009, Issue: 21, 157 - 169, 01.02.2009

Kadir Canöz

Abstract

Kamuda karar alma makamında bulunan seçilmişleri istenilen yönde karar aldırmayıamaçlayan lobicilik, bunun için çok çeşitli taktikler ve yöntemler kullanmaktadır ki; bunlardan bir tanesi de “filibuster” olmaktadır. Filibuster, yasama meclislerinde söz alan konuşmacılar tarafından kürsünün sonu belli olmayan süreliğine işgal edilmesi anlamında kullanılan bir terimdir. Bu durum Avrupa’nın bazıülkelerinde ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde azınlık parlamenterler tarafından sıkça kullanılan bir uygulama yöntemidir.

Keywords

Filibuster, Lobicilik, Yasama, Parlamenter, Senato

Lobbying For Blocking Legislature: Filibuster

Abstract

Lobbying tries various tactics and methods to influence the legislature in accordance to a desired output. Among these numerous and different practices are providing information, drawing up reports, making speeches, making in-depth research, giving dinners, conferences, support with funding, making publicity for advocacy and to impede legislative processes by filibustering. The most different, most attention attracting and the one seen as a last stand by lobbyists is filibustering. Filibustering is defined as impeding the functioning of the legislature by occupying the rostrum with time consuming long speeches with the aim to prevent the passing through of a law and the senator who does this is named as “Filibusterer” or “Filibustier”. To achieve obstruction, the Filibustier uses his right of speech in the legislature to make a never ending speech related or unrelated to the issue under discussion with the aim to extend the sessions beyond endurance and so trying to thwart the legislation unwanted by him/her. Attempts of this kind are relatively frequent used in Canada, France, the UK, and the USA while they are rarely to be seen in some European democracies as Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Filibustering arises from the attempt of member s of the legislative body to delay and so impede the passing through of a particular opposed bill by making irrelevant long speeches that drag out the process. As “opposed to death” issues come into agenda, some opposing parliamentary members have been seen as actually blocking the going over to the voting process by climbing up the podium with meal boxes, fruit, dessert and water, prepared to speak for hours, even days. The theme of the speech is not supposed to be in any relation with the subject under discussion, it is said that Senators reciting Shakespeare or cake recipes of their wives were witnessed. Although not definitely and sufficiently documented, according to Binder and Smith, the historical roots of Filibustering go back to the Dutch word “Vrijbuiter”, pronounced in early years in English as “flibutor”, to be transformed with time into the English synonymous “Freebooter”, both used for Pirate. During the XVII. century, these Freebooters consisted mainly of British, Dutch and French pirates which formed sometimes large groups called “Flibustiers” to plunder the then Spanish Colony of The West Indies. The transformation to “Filibuster” is documented in early as 1851. It was used for North American adventurers pursuing to overthrow particularly Latin American regimes. In the USA, Filibustering came into existence in 1806 when time limits for speeches of senators –as different from speeches of the representatives- have been removed. However, it remained only as a theoretical option until 1841, when it began to be used more frequently, causing disturbance which led to the formation of the opinion of filibustering as a regulation that obstructs legislation. But through the developing decades of democracy, the belief of its necessity came into demand again and from on the beginnings of the new century, the word has been used regularly as a revolting technique of opposition senators to hinder bills unwanted by them. Today, speaking in the Senate for filibustering is known as an obstructive act which doesn’t need a diplomatic, very technical and noble language. Established rules in the U.S. Senate give a senator or a group of senators the right to speak freely on any issue chosen by them, until a 3/5 majority of the Senate demands to end the debate and go on with voting. This right is called the “filibuster right”. This right which gives senators the right for speaking indefinitely on the basis of freedom of speech can serve the purpose to predict and prevent a law that has incomplete, negative and deficient sides. With time, filibustering has changed and gone beyond an act done solely by speaking, which one of them is “procedural filibustering”. Practiced more by parliamentarians belonging to the opposition, filibustering is not an unlimited right. There are some rules that set limits to its use, for instance the “cloture” used in the U.S. Senate. Cloture is a regulation that allows in some stages of the legislative process the shortening of the debates to accelerate legislation activities. With this regulation, the obstruction of legislation by opponent members is prevented. Procedures as these are called restrictive procedures. In the instance of the U.S. Senate which consists of 100 members, a simple majority of 51 votes is enough for passing a bill, though; to stop filibustering as “opposition to the death” requires sometimes 60 votes. 60 votes form the legal limit of saving the legislation from being savaged. In American political tradition, filibustering -the right to legal piracy- can not be used against bills that received 60 votes or more in the first voting. This 3/5 “super majority” is named “cloture” with a loanword from French. Although filibustering which is practiced particularly by senators of the minority party or individual senators is aimed towards hindering the legislation, it has also a function of alerting and informing those who might be affected by a particular legislation –a function appreciated by lawmakers and lobbyists as well. Particularly in instances where the parliamentarians don’t have enough information about the bill under discussion, the staging of a filibustering of well informed parliamentarians can shake the public to incite an informing and reviving debate. Added to the information function, the interest of lukewarm citizens and parliamentarians as well can be aroused. Particularly “taking advantage from inattentiveness” as used in Wagner-style lobbying can be prevented. The bill getting a real discussion by every aspect, can expose overlooked or unexpected flaws, predict crippled functions, deficiencies and can help making laws complete. While parliamentarians as representatives of the people resort to filibustering to prevent the passing of unwanted bills, they abolish also the single-voiced in the legislature and carry alternative views and thoughts into the agenda; this constitutes a vital contribution to maintain a democratic environment. In the Turkish Great National Assembly, the legislative body in Turkey, filibuster-style long speeches are not possible because the 58th, the 59th, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68 and 69th articles of the internal regulation contain rules related to speeches. These regulations set detailed limits to who, which group, how long, how many times, in which instances is allowed to speak. As a result, the opposition or minority parliamentarians who don’t defend the issue are not allowed to make legislation hindering lobbying by making long speeches. In the viewpoint of Turkey, the valid reason for this is pointed out as enabling the legislation to proceed faster. In conclusion, in the legislatures of some countries, filibustering which can give minority parliamentarians a chance for expressing their standpoints and for being heard, can enable also the bills to be discussed elaborately, but also can be used as a lobbying technique for preventing the passing of a law. Attributing this right to Turkish parliamentarians may contribute to the progress of the democratic environment

Keywords

Filibuster, lobbying, legislation, parliamentarian, senate

References

• Akandere, Osman (2003). Bir Demokrasi Beyannamesi Olarak “Dörtlü Takrir’in” Amacı ve Mahiyeti. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (9), 5-28.
• Arı, Tayyar (2000). Amerika’da Siyasal Yapı Lobiler ve Dış Politika: Türk, Yunan, Ermeni, İsrail ve Arap Lobilerinin ABD’nin Dış Politikasına Etkileri. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
• Aşukin, N.S., Butırskiy, N.P., Veber, A.B., Davidov, A.İ., vd. (1979). Politika Sözlüğü, (Çeviren: Mazlum Beyhan). İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar.
• Bayramoğlu, N. Nisa (1987). Avrupa Topluluğu Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’nin Tanıtımı. Ankara: TBMM Kültür, Sanat ve Yayın Kurulu Yayınları No: 34.
• Bealey, Frank (1999). The Balckwell Dictionary of Political Science. British: Blackwell Publishers.
• Bennedsen, Morten ve Feldmann, Sven E. (2002). Lobbying and Legislative Organization: The Effect of the Vote of Confidence Procedure, Business and Politics, 4 (2), 187-203
• Binder, Sarah A. and Smith, Steven S. (1997). Politics Or Principle?: Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings İnstitution Press.
• Bogdanor, Vernon (1999). Blackwell’in Siyaset Bilimi Ansiklopedisi I, (Çevirenler: Bülent Peker, Erhan Yükselci ve Leyla Keskiner), (Yayıma Hazırlayan: Bülent Peker), Ankara: Ümit Yayıncılık
• Canöz, Kadir (2007). Halkla İlişkiler Uygulaması Olarak Lobicilik. İstanbul: NKM Yayını
• Çaha, Havva (1997). Çıkar ve Baskı Gruplarının İktisadi Analizi, Yeni Türkiye Sivil Toplum Özel Sayısı, 18, 417-428
• Demir, Cemal (2008). “Gelse O Korsanlar Senato'ya…”, Haber 7, Newyork, http://www.haber7.com/haber/20081120/Gelse-o-korsanlar-Senatoya.php+filibuster, (Erişim Tarihi:13 Ocak 2009)
• Dincer, Müjde Ker (1998). Lobicilik. İzmir: Alfa Yayını.
• Döring, Herbert (1995). Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda, Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Herbert Döring (ed.) içinde, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 223- 246
• Dursun, Davut (2004). Siyaset Bilimi. İstanbul: Beta Yayını.
• Ergül, Ozan (2002). Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin TBMM İçtüzük Değişikliğini İptal Kararı Işığında Özel Yasama Yöntemine Bir Bakış. Ankara Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 51 (4), 99-130
• Eroğlu, Hamza (1985). İdare Hukuku: Genel Esaslar, İdari Teşkilat ve İdarenin Dentlenmesi. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
• Gök, Nejdet (2008). Osmanlı Beratları Kapsamında Diplomatika İlmi veya “İlm-i İnşa”. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (20), 731-746
• Grunig, James E. ve Hunt, Todd (1984). Managing Public Relations. Belmont C.A.: Thomson Wardsworth
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster, (Erişim Tarihi: 30 Ocak 2009)
• http://sozluk.sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=filibuster, (Erişim Tarihi:10 Kasım 2008)
• http://sozluk.turkcebilgi.com/filibuster, (Erişim Tarihi: 13 Ocak 2009)
• http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/William-Walker, (Erişim Tarihi: 13 Ocak 2009)
• http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/tbmm-gorev.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 15 Aralık 2008)
• http://www.logsozluk.com/filibuster-k.html, (Erişim Tarihi:30 Aralık 2008)
• http://www.medyakulak.com/index.php?option, (Erişim Tarihi:28.12.2008)
• http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/ictuzuk/ictuzuk.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 7 Mayıs 2009)
• http://www.yenisafak.com.tr//dunya/?t=26.10.2007&c, (Erişim Tarihi:11.11.2008
• Kantarcı, Şenol (2004). Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde Ermeniler ve Ermeni Lobisi. İstanbul: Aktüel Yayıncılık.
• Mack, Charles S. (1989). Lobbying and Government Relations: A Guide For Executives. New York: Quorum Books.
• Mahood, H.R. (2000). Interest Groups in American National Politics: An Overview. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• McLean, Iain (1996). Concise Dictionary of Politics. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
• Turan, Nurettin, Ersoy, Ertuğrul ve Akyalçın, Ahmet (2001). Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlar Dergisi (Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayın İşleri Müdürlüğü’nce, Resmi Gazete’nin Özgün Metninden Tıpkı Basımla Kitap Haline Getirilmiştir). 2 (36). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 637-650.
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası 1982. İstanbul: Yasa Yayınları.
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Resmi Gazete (13.04.1973). Sayı:14506, Üçüncü Kısım
• Yıldırım, Selahattin (1993). Yerel Yönetim ve Demokrasi. Ankara: Başbakanlık Toplu Konut İdaresi Başkanlığı (BTKİB) Yayını
• Yüksel, Nahit (2007). Yasama Sürecinin “Söylem” Sorunları (5018 Sayılı Yasaya Eleştirel Bakış Denemesi), Bütçe Dünyası, 2 (25), 16-27.