The Analysis of Twitter Use in The Process of 2014 Presidential Election in Turkey in Terms of Deliberative Democracy and Agonistic Democracy Approaches

Öz

This study aims at analyzing communication on Twitter using the deliberative democracy and agonistic democracy approaches in terms of the case of Twitter use in the process of 2014 presidential election in Turkey. The approaches of deliberative democracy and agonistic democracy provide participative frameworks alternative to liberal democracy approach to explain political communication on social media. These approaches provide opportunity to evaluate the communication on Twitter, as a social media platform, in terms of the concepts of equality, freedom, rationality, pluralism, communicative power, interactivity, criticism, and struggle. In this study, political communication on Twitter is studied using the approaches of agonistic democracy and deliberative democracy, and messages shared on Twitter during the presidential election on August, 10, 2014 which is the first election consists of citizens’ votes in Turkey. The method of this study consists of content analysis. According to the results of this study, Twitter has a potential to develop participation and communication. However, it has important limits about equality, freedom, rationality, pluralism, communicative power, interactivity, criticism, and struggle.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Twitter
• Political Communication
• Deliberative Democracy
• Agonistic Democracy
• Content Analysis

Türkiye’de 2014 Yılı Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçim Sürecinde Twitter Kullanımının Müzakereci Demokrasi ve Agonistik Demokrasi Yaklaşımları Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Twitter’da gerçekleştirilen iletişimi müzakereci demokrasi ve agonistik demokrasi yaklaşımları çerçevesinde Türkiye’de 2014 yılı cumhurbaşkanlığı seçim sürecinde Twitter kullanımı örneği üzerinden incelemektir. Agonistik demokrasi ve müzakereci demokrasi yaklaşımları sosyal medyada gerçekleştirilen siyasal iletişim sürecini açıklamak bakımından liberal demokrasi yaklaşımına alternatif katılımcı kuramsal çerçeveler sunmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımlar, bir sosyal medya platformu olan Twitter’daki iletişimin eşitlik, özgürlük, rasyonellik, çoğulculuk, iletişimsel güç, etkileşim, eleştirellik ve mücadele gibi kavramlar çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesine imkân sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Twitter’da siyasal iletişim, agonistik demokrasi ve müzakereci demokrasi yaklaşımları kullanılarak, 10 Ağustos 2014 tarihinde Türkiye’de halkın ilk defa oy kullandığı Cumhurbaşkanı seçimi sürecinde Twitter’da gerçekleştirilen paylaşımlar üzerinden incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın yöntemi içerik çözümlemesine dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre, Twitter’ın katılım ve iletişim konusunda belirli bir potansiyele sahip olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Ancak eşitlik, özgürlük, rasyonellik, çoğulculuk, iletişimsel güç, etkileşim, eleştirellik ve mücadele olanakları bakımından önemli sınırlılıkları bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Twitter
• Siyasal İletişim
• Müzakereci Demokrasi
• Agonistik Demokrasi
• İçerik Çözümlemesi

Kaynakça

1. Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9 (1), 62- 82.
2. Ampofo, L., Anstead, N. & O’Loughlin, B. (2012). Trust, confidence, credibility. In Brian D. Loader ve Dan Mercea (Eds.), Social media and democracy (s. 91-108). Oxon: Routledge.
3. Ausserhofer, J. & Maireder, A. (2013). National politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 16 (3), 291-314.
4. Benhabib, S. (1999). Müzakereci demokratik meşruiyet modeline doğru. In Seyla Benhabib (Ed.). Demokrasi ve farklılık (s.101-139). (Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel, Çev.) İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı. (Orjjinal Basım Yılı: 1996)
5. Bennett W. L. & Segerberg, A. (2012). Digital media and the personalization of collective action. In B. D. Loader ve D. Marcea (Eds.) Social media and democracy (s. 13-38). Routledge: New York.
6. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political ıdentity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 644 (20).
7. Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. E. (2011). ‘#Ausvotes: how Twitter covered the 2010 Australian Federal Election. Communication, Politics and Culture, 44 (2), 37–56.
8. Castells, M. (2013). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür – ağ toplumunun yükselişi, (Ebru Kılıç, Çev.). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. (Orijinal Basım Yılı 2000).

9. D’heer, E. & Verdegem, P. (2014). An Intermedia understanding of the networked Twitter ecology. In Bogdan Pătrut & Monica Pătruţ (Eds.). Social media in politics: Case studies on the political power of social media (s. 81-96). Switzerland: Springer.
10. Dahlberg L., & Siapera, E. (2007). Tracing radical democracy and the Internet. In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.) Radical democracy and the Internet (s. 1-16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Dahlberg, L. (2007). The Internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Ed.) Radical democracy and the Internet (s. 128-147). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Demirhan, K. (2017). Yeni medya’da siyasal iletişim sürecinin kavramsallaştırılmasında alternatif modeller: müzakereci ve agonistik demokrasi yaklaşımları. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 5 (1), 174-200.
13. Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy: politics, policy and sience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Enli, G. S. & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16 (5), 757-774.
15. Fenton, N. & Barassi, V. (2011). Alternative media and social networking sites: The politics of ındividuation and political participation. The Communication Review, 14 (3),179-196.
16. Finlayson, A. (2009). Rhetoric and radical democratic political theory. In A. Little & M. Lloyd (Ed.). The politics of radical democracy (s.13-32). UK: Edinburgh University Press.
17. Fraia, G. D. & Missaglia, C. (2014). The use of Twitter in 2013 Italian political election. In B. Pătrut & M. Pătruţ (Eds.). Social media in politics: Case studies on the political power of social media (s. 63-80). Switzerland: Springer.
18. Fraser, N. (2004). Kamusal Alanı Yeniden Düşünmek: Gerçekte Varolan Demokrasinin Eleştirisine Bir Katkı. Meral Özbek (Ed.). Kamusal Alan (s. 103-132). İstanbul: Hil Yayın.
19. Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet. Philosophy Social Criticism, 27 (4), 21-39.
20. Gladwell, M., (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. Twitter, Facebook, and Social activism. The New Yorker 86 (30), 42-9.
21. Grossman, L. (2009). Iran protests: Twitter, the medium of the movement time. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html
22. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology.
23. Habermas, J. (1997). Popular Sovereignty as Procedure. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Ed.). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (s. 35-66). USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology.
24. Habermas, J. (1999). Demokrasinin üç normatif modeli. In S. Benhabib (Ed.). Demokrasi ve farklılık (s. 37-50). (Zeynep Gürata ve Cem Gürsel, Çev.). İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı. (Orijinal Basım Yılı: 1996)
25. Habermas, J. (2010). Kamusallığın Yapısal Dönüşümü. (Tanıl Bora ve Mithat Sancar, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim. (Orijinal Basım Yılı 1962)
26. Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. L. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1159-1168.
27. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
28. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S. & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ıdeology exposure on Twitter. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 18, 154–174
29. Hong, S. & Nadler, D. (2012). Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign? The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience. Government Information Quarterly, 29 (4), 455–461.
30. Hsu, C. & Park, H. W. (2012). Mapping online social networks of Korean politicians. Government Information Quarterly 29, 169–181.
31. Jensen, J. L. (2003a). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26 (4), 349-74.
32. Jensen, J. L. (2003b). Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians, Information Polity 8, 29–47.
33. Jensen, J. L. (2014). Online deliberation and beyond? A time-based and comparative study of Danish political debates online. MedieKultur 56, 23-43.
34. Knight, J. & Johnson, J. (1997). What sort of equality does deliberative democracy require?, In James Bohman ve William Rehg (Ed.). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (s. 279-320). USA: Massachusette Institute of Technology.
35. Laclau, E. & Mouffe C. (2012). Hegemonya ve sosyalist strateji. (A. Kardam, Çev.). İstanbul. İletişim. (Orijinal Basım Yılı 1985)
36. Lloyd, M. & Little A. (2009). Introduction. In Adrian Little & Moya Lloyd (Ed.). The politics of radical democracy (s. 1-12). UK: Edinburgh University Press.
37. Loader, B. D. & Marcea, D. (2012). Networking democracy? Social Media ınnovations in participatory politics. In Brian D. Loader & Dan Mercea (Ed.). Social Media and Democracy (s. 1-10). Routledge: USA.
38. Losifidis, P. (2011). The public sphere, social networks and public service media. Information, Communication & Society, 14 (5), 619-637.
39. Loveland, M. T. & Popescu D. (2011). Democracy on the web. Information, Communication & Society, 14 (5), 684-703
40. Maireder, A. & Schwarzenegger, C. (2012). A Movement of connected individuals. Information, Communication & Society, 15 (2), 171-195.
41. Mouffe C. (2001). Demokratik Paradoks. (A. C. Aşkın, Çev.) Epos: Ankara. (Orijinal Basım Yılı 2000)
42. Mouffe C. (2005). For an agonistic public sphere. In L. Tonder & L. Thomassen (Ed.). Radical democracy (s. 123-132). Manchester: Manchester University.
43. Mouffe, C. (2010). Siyasal üzerine (M. Ratip, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim. (Orijinal Basım Yılı 2005)
44. Morozov, E. (2009). Think again: Twitter. Foreignpolicy. Retrieved October 23, 2014 from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/06/think_again_twitter
45. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. & Munteanu, I. (2009). Moldova’s “twitter revolution”. Journal of Democracy 20 (3).
46. Murru, M. F. (2009). New media – new public spheres? An analysis of online shared spaces becoming public agoras. In N. Carpentier, T. Olsson & E. Sundin (Eds.). Communicative Approaches to Politics and Ethics in Europe (s.141–153). Estonia: Tartu University Press.
47. Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social communication in the twitter age. UK: Polity.
48. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, ınformation poverty, and the Internet worldwide. USA: Cambridge.
49. Polat, R. K. (2012). Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government Information Quarterly 29, 589–596.
50. Price V. & Capella J. N (2003). Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000. IT & Society (1), 303-328
51. Rahimi, B. (2011). The agonistic social media: Cyberspace in the formation of dissent and consolidation of state power in postelection Iran. The Communication Review, 14 (3), 158-178.
52. Shirazi, F. (2008). The Contribution of ICT to freedom and democracy: An Empirical analysis of archival data on the middle east, The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries 35.
53. Simons, J. (2005). The radical democratic possibilities of popular culture. In L. Tonder & L. Thomassen (Ed.). Radical democracy (s. 149-166). Manchester: Manchester University.
54. Small, T. A. (2012). What the hashtag? A Content analysis of canadian politics on Twitter. In Brian D. Loader & Dan Mercea (Ed.). Social media and democracy (s. 109-128). New York: Routledge.
55. Smith, A. M. (1998). Laclau and Mouffe the Radical Demeocratic Imaginary. London: Routledge.
56. Stalker, G. J. & Wood, L. J. (2013). Reaching beyond the net: Political circuits and participation in toronto's g20 protests. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 12(2), 178-198.
57. Theocharisa, Y., Loweb, W., van Dethc, J. W. & García-Albaceted, G. (2014). Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 202- 220.
58. van Dijk, J. (2006). The Network society: Social aspects of new media. London: Sage.
59. Woo-Young, C. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media, Culture & Society, 27, 925-935.
60. Wright, S. & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media Society 9.
61. Yıldız, M. (2010). Digital divide in Turkey: A General Assessment. In Enrico Ferro, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, J. R. Gil-Garcia & M. D. Williams (Eds.). Handbook of research on overcoming digital divides: Constructing an equitable and competitive ınformation society. New York: Information Science Reference.
62. Young, I. M. (1999). İletişim ve öteki: Müzakereci demokrasinin ötesinde. In Seyla Benhabib (Ed.). Demokrasi ve Farklılık (s. 174 - 196). (Z. Gürata & C. Gürsel, Çev.). İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı. (Orijinal Basım Yılı 1996).