DEMOKRASİ VE GÜVENLİK BİRLİKTELİĞİNİN BİR İZDÜŞÜMÜ: TÜRKİYE SEÇİMLERİNE YÖNELİK AGİT RAPORLARINDA MEDYA

Abstract

Araştırma kapsamında Türkiye’nin katılımcı devleti olarak yerini aldığı Avrupa Güvenlik ve İşbirliği Teşkilatı’nın (AGİT) Demokratik Kurumlar ve İnsan Hakları Ofisi ile AGİT Parlamenterler Asamblesinin Türkiye’de güvenlik anlayışlarının bir parçası olarak düzenli ve sistematik bir biçimde izlemeye başladıkları seçim süreçlerinde “medya” alanı, inceleme konusu edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda AGİT’in ilgili birimlerince hazırlanan raporları ve broşürleri taranarak her seçim dönemine ilişkin AGİT’in ilgili misyon veya delegasyonlarınca ortaya koyulan durum bildiren yargılar, olumlu ve olumsuz vurgular ve ilgili beklentilerini içeren önerileri tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Böylece seçim dönemlerinde Türkiye’deki medyanın AGİT tarafından görünümü doküman taraması yapılarak betimlenmeye ve sınıflandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu noktada AGİT’in ilgili rapor ve broşürlerinin seçim kampanyaları döneminde medyanın durumuna, işleyişine ve geleceğine ilişkin Türkiye’nin sahip olduğu her türlü kriz, mesele ve gelişmesinden bağımsız normlar oluşturma ısrarı içerisinde tutum aldığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu açıdan AGİT’in Türkiye’de seçim kampanyaları döneminde medya alanına ilişkin olarak özellikle yasal, yönetsel ve kurumsal bakımdan yeniden bir inşa sürecinin başlatılarak ifade özgürlüğünü güvence altına alan bir demokratikleşme beklentisi içerisinde olduğu anlaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• AGİT
• Demokrasi
• Seçimler
• Medya
• Türkiye

A REFLECTION OF THE COEXISTENCE OF THE SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY: MEDIA IN OSCE REPORTS ON ELECTIONS IN TÜRKİYE

Abstract

Within the scope of this research, the “media” field was examined during the election processes, which the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), both of which are part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), in which Türkiye is a participating state, began to monitor regularly and systematically as part of their understanding of security in Türkiye. In this context, reports and brochures prepared by the relevant OSCE units were reviewed to identify the position-setting judgments, highlighting positive and negative developments, and propositions indicating relevant expectations put forth by the relevant OSCE observation missions or delegations for each election period. Thus, the OSCE’s view of the media in Türkiye during election periods was attempted to be described through a document review. It was concluded that the relevant OSCE reports and brochures insisted on establishing international norms regarding the state, functioning, and future of the media during election campaigns, independent of any crises, issues, or developments Türkiye faced. In this respect, it has been understood that the OSCE expects a democratization process that will guarantee freedom of expression by starting a reconstruction process, especially in legal, administrative and institutional terms, in the media sphere in Türkiye during the campaign period.

Keywords

• OSCE
• Democracy
• Elections
• Media
• Türkiye

References

1. Ahrens, G. H. (2012, March). Election observation and its parliamentary dimension: 15 years of co-operation. OSCE Yearbook 2011 (s. 265-277) içinde. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and Co. KG.
2. Alizadeh, Z. (2005). The OSCE and elections in Azerbaijan. Helsinki Monitor, 16, 127.
3. Atabek, N. (2002). Kamuoyu, medya ve demokrasi. Kurgu Dergisi, (19), 223-238.
4. Atay, S. (2025). The role of independent and alternative media in conducting investigative journalism. Bulletin of LN Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Journalism Series, 150(1), 7-18.
5. Bader, M. (2011). The challenges of OSCE electoral assistance in the former Soviet Union. Security and Human Rights, 22(1), 9-18.
6. Bader, M. (2012). OSCE electoral assistance and the role of election commissions. Security and Human Rights, 23(1), 19-29.
7. Binder, C. (2007). International election observation by the OSCE and the political participation of women. Helsinki Monitor, 18, 224.
8. Brodowski, J. (2025). The OSCE and human dimension in the republic of Georgia: Reflections on current developments. Politeja, 22(2 (96/2)), 333-346.

9. Carothers, T. (1997). The rise of election monitoring: The observers observed. Journal of Democracy, 8(3), 17-31. Chetaikina, S. ve Vashchanka, V. (2017). Gap for improvement: Election observation and political representation of women in the OSCE region. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 35(4), 392-406.
10. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. The University of Chicago Press.
11. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
12. Eicher, P. (2009). Improving OSCE election observation. Security and Human Rights, 20(4), 264-276.
13. Esposito, K. ve Diaz-Plaja, R. E. (2012, March). Parliaments in the principles and practice of the OSCE. OSCE Yearbook 2011 (s. 393-409) içinde. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and Co. KG.
14. Evers, F. (2010, March). OSCE Election observation commitments, methodology, criticism. OSCE Yearbook 2009 (s. 233-257) içinde. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and Co. KG.
15. Forget-Vandemoortele, A. (2006). The OSCE and the institutionalization of security in Europe (1990-2006).
16. Galbreath, D. J. (2007). The organization for security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Routledge.
17. Ghebali, V. Y. (2005). Debating election and election monitoring standards at the OSCE: Between technical needs and politicization. OSCE Yearbook, 11, 215.
18. Habegger, B. (2006). Democratic control of the OSCE: The role of the parliamentary assembly. Helsinki Monitor, 17, 133.
19. Hopmann, P. T. (2025a). Expansion and decline of the OSCE after the end of the cold war. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe at 50 içinde. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86916-7_4
20. Hopmann, P. T. (2025b). The organizational structures and roles of the OSCE. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe at 50: Conflict Management During and After the Cold War (s. 83-102) içinde. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
21. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
22. Hutcheson, D. S. (2011). Elections, international observers and the politicisation of democratic values. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(4), 685-702.
23. Isaacs, R. (2018). The micro-politics of norm contestation between the OSCE and Kazakhstan: Square pegs in round holes. Third World Quarterly, 39(9), 1831-1847.
24. Jastrzębski, M. (2024). Pandemic elections in European Union countries in the assessment of OSCE observing missions reports. Elections in Times of a Pandemic–Dilemmas and Challenges: Experiences of the European Countries, 59, 119-133.
25. Kakabadse, A. P. ve Kakabadse, N. (2022). Strengthening the democratic project: Information as the foundation of the fourth estate. Open Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 232-255.
26. Kavrakoğlu, F. (2018, 19 Ocak). Huntington’ın demokrasi dalgaları. https://kavrakoglu.com/huntingtonin-demokrasi-dalgalari/ adresinden 30 Ekim 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
27. Keaveney, P. (2022). Election observation around the world. Political Insight, 13(2), 14-16.
28. Kelley, J. (2008). Assessing the complex evolution of norms: The rise of international election monitoring. International Organization, 62(2), 221-255.
29. Kulachai, W., Lerdtomornsakul, U. ve Homyamyen, P. (2023). Factors influencing voting decision: A comprehensive literature review. Social Sciences, 12(9), 469.
30. Lemon, E., Antonov, O. ve Petersson, B. (2025). Muddying the waters through authoritarian election monitoring: The case of the CIS interparliamentary assembly. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 33(1), 63-86.
31. Lidauer, M., Rabitsch, A. ve O’Rourke, I. (2017). Mapping legislation for citizen and international election observation in Europe: A comparative analysis on the basis of OSCE/ODIHR reports. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 35(4), 360-374.
32. Massicard, E. (2025). The production of electoral results in Turkey: Actors, struggles, controversies. Turkish Studies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2025.2581594
33. Mayo, H. B. (1964). Demokratik teoriye giriş. (E. Kongar, Çev.). Ayyıldız Matbaası.
34. Misev, V., Martin-Rozumilowicz, B. ve Past, L. (2024). Improving the observation of ICT in elections-widening the methodological scope. In E-Vote-ID 2024 (pp. 205-211). Gesellschaft für Informatik.
35. Nünlist, C. ve Hakkarainen, P. (2019). Political dynamics and institutional reforms in the OSCE. The Legal Framework of the OSCE, 29-47.
36. Nwokora, Z., Isakhan, B. ve Pan, C. (2022). The real fourth estate? Portrayals of Trump’s rise in the foreign media of friendly countries. Policy Studies, 43(4), 838-859.
37. ODIHR (2002, 4 December). Republic of Turkey parliamentary elections: 3 November 2002. OSCE/ODIHR report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/6/16346.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
38. ODIHR (2007, 27 November). Republic of Turkey parliamentary elections: 22 July 2007, OSCE/ODIHR election assessment mission report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/b/29180.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
39. ODIHR (2011, 31 October). Republic of Turkey parliamentary elections: 12 June 2011. OSCE/ODIHR election assessment mission report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/6/84588.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
40. ODIHR (2014, 18 November). Republic of Turkey presidential election: 14 August 2014. OSCE/ODIHR limited election observation mission final report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/2/126851.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
41. ODIHR (2015, 18 August). Republic of Turkey parliamentary elections: 7 June 2015. OSCE/ODIHR limited election observation mission final report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/3/d/177926.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
42. ODIHR (2016, 28 January). Republic of Turkey early parliamentary elections: 1 November 2015. OSCE/ODIHR limited election observation mission final report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/8/219201.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
43. ODIHR (2017, 22 June). Republic of Turkey constitutional referendum: 16 April 2017. OSCE/ODIHR limited referendum observation mission final report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/2/324816.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
44. ODIHR (2018, 21 September). Republic of Turkey early presidential and parliamentary elections: 24 June 2018. ODIHR election observation mission final report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/4/397046_0.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
45. ODIHR (2023, 29 September). Republic of Türkiye: General elections 14 May and presidential election, second round 28 May 2023. ODIHR election observation mission final report. Warsaw, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/f/553966.pdf adresinden 6 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
46. Oliver, R. S. (1996). The OSCE parliamentary assembly. Helsinki Monitor, 7, 42.
47. Ortay, H. (2022). Medyanın siyaset üzerindeki tesiri. A. İşman vd. (Ed.), İletişim çalışmaları 2022 (s. 179-194) içinde. Eğitim Yayınevi.
48. OSCE (2002). Parliamentary elections, 3 November 2002. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/115703 adresinden 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
49. OSCE (2007). Early parliamentary elections, 22 July 2007. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/57933 adresinden 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
50. OSCE (2011). Parliamentary elections, 12 June 2011. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/77703 adresinden 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
51. OSCE (2025a). Who we are. https://www.osce.org/odihr/who-we-are adresinde 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
52. OSCE (2025b). Mandate. https://www.osce.org/odihr/mandate adresinden 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
53. OSCE (2025c). What is the human dimension?. https://www.osce.org/odihr/what-is-the-human-dimension adresinden 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
54. OSCE (2025d). Elections. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections adresinden 3 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
55. OSCE PA (2015). OSCE PA election observation: 1993-2015. https://www.oscepa.org/en/documents/election-observation/election-observation-reports/brochures/1841-2008-2014-election-observation-brochure/file adresinden 10 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
56. OSCE PA (2018). 2018 Election observation overview. https://www.oscepa.org/en/documents/election-observation/election-observation-reports/brochures/3772-osce-pa-election-observation-overview-2018/file adresinden 10 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
57. OSCE PA (2023). 2023 Election observation annual report. https://www.oscepa.org/en/documents/election-observation/election-observation-reports/brochures/5135-osce-pa-election-observation-overview-2023/file adresinden 10 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
58. OSCE PA (2025). Document of the Copenhagen meeting of the conference on the human dimension of the CSCE. https://www.oscepa.org/ru/dokumenty/election-observation/election-observation-reports/documents/1344-osce-copenhagen-document-1990-eng/file adresinden 10 Kasım 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
59. Özgöker, U. ve Yılmaz, S. (2016). NATO and Russia’s security dilemma within the European Union’s far neighbors. International Relations and Diplomacy, 4(10), 650-665. doi: 10.17265/2328-2134/2016.10.006
60. Pollak, M. (2025). Mimicking election observation: The politics of parallel election monitoring. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics and Policy, 24(2), 172-196.
61. Prins, D. ve Wurzner, H. (1996). Transition or tradition-the United Nations, the OSCE and electoral assistance. Helsinki Monitor, 7, 19.
62. Roberts, H. (2022). Election observation: Using law and international standards–a practitioner’s perspective. Routledge Handbook of Election Law (s. 124-135) içinde. Routledge.
63. Schultz, J. (1998). Reviving the fourth estate: Democracy, accountability and the media. Cambridge University Press.
64. Shlyk, A. (2022). International election observation and standards. Routledge Handbook of Election Law (s. 112-123) içinde. Routledge.
65. Tumber, H. (2002). Democracy in the Information Age: The role of the Fourth Estate in cyberspace. Culture and Politics in the Information Age (s. 31-45) içinde. Routledge.
66. Uslu, A. (2018). Demokrasi. (G. Atılgan ve E. A. Aytekin, Haz.), Siyaset bilimi: Kavramlar, ideolojiler, disiplinler arası ilişkiler (s. 137-151) içinde. Yordam Kitap.
67. Vahit, S. ve Temiztürk, H. (2025). Medya ve siyaset ilişkisi ekseninde haber üretimi ve tarafsızlık arayışı. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 13(2), 1054-1082.
68. Vollan, K. (2017). International election observation and standards for systems of representation: A critical view. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 35(4), 341-359.
69. Warkotsch, A. (2007). The OSCE as an agent of socialisation? International norm dynamics and political change in Central Asia. Europe-Asia Studies, 59(5), 829-846.
70. Whitten-Woodring, J. ve James, P. (2012). Fourth estate or mouthpiece? A formal model of media, protest and government repression. Political Communication, 29(2), 113-136.