Demokraside Gerileme Sürecinde Aktör-Yapı Mücadelesi ve Aktörün Etkisi Üzerine Düşünceler

Year 2025, Volume: 16 Issue: 47, 1088 - 1106, 31.08.2025

Tayyar Süngü

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1574965

Abstract

Bu makalede, son yıllarda ileri demokrasiler de dâhil olmak üzere birçok ülkede görülen demokraside gerileme kavramı ve bu kavramın demokratik bir sistemde aktör-yapı gerilimi/çatışmasıyla ilişkisi ele alınmaktadır. Ancak bu inceleme yapılırken, öncelikle demokrasi bir sistem yaklaşımıyla ele alınmakta, demokratik sistem tanımlanmakta ve demokratik sistemde yaşanacak aktör-yapı geriliminin muhtemel çatışma alanları ve sistem üzerinde yaratacağı etkiler oyun teorisi mantığıyla irdelenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, aktör ve yapı kavramları demokratik sistemin belirli parametreleri doğrultusunda karşılıklı olarak ele alınmakta ve hangi konularda çatışma alanları oluşabileceği ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Çalışmada, demokratik sistemde aktör odaklı olduğu değerlendirilen demokratik elitizm ile aktörün daima ön planda göründüğü ve yapıyı tasfiye etmeye çalıştığı popülizm/halk yardakçılığının demokratik sistem üzerindeki etkileri üzerinde de durulmaktadır. Sonuçta, sağlıklı bir demokratik sistemin yapı üzerinde şekillendiği savunulmaktadır. Çünkü yapı tüm süreci ve sistemi dengede, ayakta tutan ana unsur olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu niteleme, aynı zamanda ‘yapı’ olarak da tanımlanan, kurumların özerk olması gerektiğini ve siyasi bir gücün tahakkümü altına girecek kurum yozlaşıp kendisinden beklenen fonksiyonu icra edemeyeceğine işaret etmektedir. Sonuçta, aktör ancak yapının oluşturduğu kararlı ve dengeli yapıyı bozamayacak ölçüde, demokratik anayasal çerçevenin öngördüğü, yasalarla sınırlanmış, denetlenebilir bir manevra alanı içinde kaldığı sürece demokratik sistem kararlı bir yapı sergileyebilmektedir.

Keywords

Demokratik Sistem , Entropi , Demokraside Gerileme , Aktör , Yapı

Thoughts on the Actor-Structure Struggle and the Impact of the Actor on the Process of Democratic Backsliding

Abstract

The study examines democratic backsliding, which has been seen in many countries including advanced democracies in recent years, and its relationship with actor-structure tension/conflict in a democratic system. However, while conducting the examination, democracy is first handled through a system approach, and then the democratic system is defined, and the possible conflict areas of actor-structure tension in the democratic system are examined through a game theory. In this context, the concepts of actor and structure are mutually addressed in line with certain parameters of the democratic system and an attempt is made to reveal the issues on which conflict areas may occur. The study also focuses on the effects of democratic elitism, which is considered to be actor-oriented in the democratic system, and populism/public stooge, where the actor always appears in the foreground and tries to eliminate the structure, on the democratic system. As a result, it is argued that a healthy democratic system is shaped on the structure since the structure emerges as the main element that keeps the entire process and system in balance and standing. This qualification indicates that institutions, also known as ‘structures’, must be autonomous and that an institution that falls under the domination of political power would degenerate and would not be able to perform the function expected of it. Ultimately, the democratic system can exhibit a stable structure only as long as the actor remains within an accountable field that is limited by the laws; therefore, the actor cannot disrupt the stable and balanced system created by the structure.

Keywords

Democratic System , Entropy , Democratic Backsliding , Actor , Structure

References

• Ajagbe, S. (2016). Aligning the two main approaches to the study of democratization. Transience, 7(1), 83-99.
• Almond, A. G. ve Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture, political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton.
• Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19.
• Best, H. ve Higley, J. (2010). Democratic elitism: New theoretical and comparative perspectives. Brill, Leiden Boston.
• Best, H. ve Higley, J. (2018). The palgrave handbook of political elites. Palgrave Mc Millan.
• Bratton, M. ve Walle, Nicolas V. D. (1997). Democratic experiments in Africa regime transitions in comparative perspective. Cambridge Press.
• Byeon, J. H. (2005). A systems approach to entropy change in political systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 22(3), 223-231.
• Chomsky, N. (2017). Güç ve ideoloji dersleri üzerine Managua dersleri. (Ş. Duran ve T. Doğan, Çev.). Bgst Yayınları.
• Clark, W. R. (1998). Agents and structures: Two views of preferences, two views of institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 42(2), 245-270.
• Collier, D. ve Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430-451.
• Çınar, M. (2023). Demokrasi, kavram, kurum, süreç. M. Çınar (Ed.). İletişim Yayınları.
• Dahl, R. (1972). Polyarchy. Yale University.
• Dahl, R. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy. Yale University.
• Dahl, R. (2001). Demokrasi üstüne. (B. Kadıoğlu, Çev.). Phoenix.
• Dahl, R., Shapiro, I ve Antonio, C. J. (2003). The democracy sourcebook. R. Dahl (Ed.). MIT Press.
• Dahl, R. (2006). A preface to democratic theory. The University of Chicago Press.
• De La Torre, C. (2017). Populism in Latin America. Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, And Pierre Ostiguy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Populism içinde. Oxford Press.
• De Meur, G. ve Berg-Schlosser, D. (1994). Comparing political systems: Establishing similarities and dissimilarities. European Journal of Political Research, 26, 192-219.
• Diamond, L. (2015). Democracy in decline. L. Diamond and M.F.Plattner (Eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Diamond, L. (2021). Democratic regression in comparative perspective: Scope, methods, and causes. Democratization, 28(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1807517
• Duncan, M. D. (1972). James G. Miller’s Living systems theory: Issues for management thought and practice, a review essay. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 513-523.
• Duverger, M. (2017). Siyaset sosyolojisi (sociologie de la politique). (Ş.Tekeli, Çev.). Varlık Yayınları. Easton, D. (1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383-400.
• Easton, D. (1965). A system analysis of political life. University of Chicago.
• Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. University of California.
• Haggard, S. ve Kaufman, R. (2021). Backsliding democratic regress in the contemporary world. Cambridge.
• Hawkins K., Read M. ve Pauwels T. (2017). Populism and its causes. C. R. Kaltwasser (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Populism, Political Science, Political Behavior Online Publication Date: Nov 2017 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.013.13.
• Higley, J. (2018). Continuities and discontinuities in elite theory. H. Best ve J. Higley (Ed.). The Plagrave Handbook of Political Elites içinde (s. 26-27). Palgrave Macmilan.
• Huntington, S. P. (1991). How countries democratize. Political Science Quarterly, 106(4), 579-616.
• Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Imbroscio, D. L. (1999). Structure, agency and democratic theory. Polity, 32(1), 45-66.
• Kaltwasser, C. R. (2014). The responses of populism to Dahl’s democratic dilemmas. Political Studies, 62(3), 470-487
• Kaltwasser, C. R. ve Mude, C. (2019). Populizm, kısa bir giriş. (S.E. Türközü, Çev.). Nika.
• Kaltwasser, C. R. (2021). Professor Kaltwasser: Turkey cannot be considered a democratic system anymore. Interview by Selcuk Gültaşlı.
• Linz, J. J. ve Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. The John Hopkins University Press.
• Linz, J. J. ve Stepan, A. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes. The John Hopkins University Press.
• Lipset, M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
• Mahoney, J. ve Synder R. (1999). Rethinking agency and structure in the study of regime change. Studies in Comparative International Development, 34, 3-32
• Mainwaring, S. ve Pérez-Liñán, A. (2013). Democracies and dictatorships in Latin America emergence, survival, and fall. Cambridge University Press.
• March, J. G. ve Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734-749.
• Marquez, X. (2019). Demokrasi dışı siyaset, otoriterlik, diktatörlük ve demokratikleşme. (İ. Çekem, Çev.). İletişim.
• Moore Jr., B. (2016). Diktatörlüğün ve demokrasinin toplumsal kökenleri. (Ş. Tekeli ve A. Şenel, Çev.). İmge.
• Mouffe, C. (2019). Sol popülizm. (A. Yanık, Çev.). İletişim.
• Mudde, C ve Kaltwasser, C. R. (2018). Studying populism in comparative perspective: Reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1667-1693.
• Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
• O'Donnell, G. A. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism. Studies in South American Politics, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
• O’Donnell, G. A. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55-69.
• O’Donnell, G. A. (2010). Democracy, agency and the state. Oxford.
• Ostiguy, P. (2017). Populism: A socio-cultural approach. cristóbal rovira kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P. O. Espejo ve P. Ostiguy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Populism içinde. Oxford Press.
• Pappas T. S. (2019). Populism and liberal democracy a comparative and theoretical analysis. Oxford.
• Pareto, V. (2016). Demokrasinin dönüşümü. (K. Z. Sezer, Çev.). Pinhan.
• Parkinson, J. ve Mansbridge, J. (2012). Deliberative systems. Cambridge University Press.
• Pavone, T. (2014). Structure, agency, and the design of social inquiry.
• Przeworski, A. (2019). Crises of democracy. Cambridge University.
• Purdy, M. ve Rhodes, R. (2021). Raising the flag: Democratic elitism and the protest in Chile. Cambridge Press.
• Rhee, Y. P. (2000). Complex systems approach to the study of politics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 17(6), 487-491.
• Rustow, D. A. (1970). Transition to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 337-363.
• Sartori, G. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
• Schmitter, P. C. (2018). Democratization: The role of elites. European University Institute.
• Schumpeter, A. J. (2021). Kapitalizm sosyalizm ve demokrasi, (V. A. Çosar, Çev.). Dorlion.
• Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current 3 research. Cambridge University Press.
• Synder, R. (1998). Paths out of sultanistic regimes combining structural and voluntarist perspective. H. E. Chehabi ve J. J. Línz (Ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Tilly, C. (2011). Demokrasi, (E. Arıcan, Çev.). Phonenix.
• Uhlin, A. (1995). The struggle for democracy in Indonesia: An actor–structure approach. Scandinavian Political Studies, 18(3), 133-158.
• Urbinati, N. (1998). Democracy and populism. Blackwell Publisher.
• Vergin, N. (2019). Siyasetin sosyolojisi, kavramlar, tanımlar, yaklaşımlar. Doğan Kitap.
• Waldner, D. ve Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 93-113.
• Ware, A. (2002). The United States: Populism as political strategy. Democracies and The Populist Challange. Y. Meny ve Y. Surel (Ed.), (s. 101-119). Palgrave.
• Weyland, K. (2017). Populism: A political-strategic approach. C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P. O. Espejo ve P. Ostiguy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Populism içinde. Oxford Press.
• Weyland, K. (2020). Populism’s threat to democracy: Comparative lessons for the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 389-406.