Şulman'ın Siyaset Bilimi Eleştirisi ve Hibrit Rejimler

Öz

Tüm dünyada Soğuk Savaş sonrası ortaya çıkmaya başlayan yarı otokratik yarı demokratik siyasal rejimler ‘hibrit rejimler’ olarak adlandırılmıştır. Başlangıçta hibrit rejimler tam demokrasiye geçiş öncesindeki bir aşama olarak görülmüştür. Ancak yıllar içerisinde bazı hibrit rejimler demokratikleşmesine rağmen bazıları değişim göstermemiş, bir kısmı ise daha da otokratikleşmiştir. Bu nedenle hibrit rejimlerle ilgili teoriler de gelişmeye başlamıştır. Bu makalede Rus siyaset bilimci Yekaterina Mihaylovna Şulman’ın siyaset bilimi eleştirisi ve hibrit rejimlerle ilgili görüşleri ele alınmıştır. Rusya’nın en etkili siyaset bilimcileri ve en etkili kadınları arasında gösterilen Şulman’ın hibrit rejimler ile ilgili fikir ve tespitleri içeriden ve özgün bir bakış sunduğu için değerlidir. Nitekim hibrit rejim kavramının oluşumunda ana omurgayı batılı teorisyenler inşa etmiştir. Ancak Şulman’ın yaklaşımı batılı teorisyenlerin fikirlerinin yerel bir uyarlaması olmaktan öteye gitmiştir. Kavramanın kuramsal çerçevesini genişleten Şulman, teoriyi geliştirmiş, kuram ve hakikat arasında dengeli bir bağ kurmuştur. Makalede Şulman’ın siyaset bilimine eleştirisine yer verildikten sonra, hibrit rejimler ile ilgili fikirleri ele alınmış, hibrit rejimlerde karar alma süreçlerinin işleyişi, iktidarın ne şekilde el değiştirdiği, otokratikleşme ve demokratikleşme eğilimi gibi konular irdelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hibrit rejimler
• Karar alma
• Rusya
• Siyaset bilimi
• Şulman
• Decision-making
• Hybrid regimes
• Political science
• Russia
• Schulmann

Schulmann's Critique on Political Science and Hybrid Regimes

Öz

The semi-autocratic and semi-democratic political regimes that started to emerge after the Cold War were called ‘hybrid regimes’. In the beginning, hybrid regimes were seen as a stage before the transition to full democracy. Although some hybrid regimes have democratized over the years, some have not changed at all, and even some of them have become more autocratic. Therefore, theories about hybrid regimes have started to evolve. In this article, Russian political scientist Ekaterina Mikhailovna Schulmann's views on political science criticism and hybrid regimes are discussed. Schulmann is shown among the most influential political scientists and most influential women in Russia. Schulmann’s ideas and observations on hybrid regimes are valuable as they offer an insider and original view. In fact, western theorists built the main lines in the formation of the concept. However, her approach went beyond being a local adaptation of the ideas of western theorists. Expanding the theoretical framework of the concept, Shulman developed the theory and established a balanced link between theory and truth. The article includes Schulmann's critique of political science. Her ideas about hybrid regimes are discussed. Issues such as the functioning of decision-making processes in hybrid regimes, how the power has changed hands, and the tendency of autocratization and democratization have been examined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Decision-making
• Hybrid regimes
• Political science
• Russia
• Schulmann

Kaynakça

1. Yayımlanmış Eserler
2. Acemoğlu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2015). Ulusların düşüşü: Güç, zenginlik ve yoksulluğun kökenleri. Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık ve Yapımcılık.
3. Batırov, T. (2022). Politolog yekaterina şulman uyehala iz rossii. Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2022, https://www.forbes.ru/society/462287-politolog-ekaterina-sul-man-uehala-iz-rossii
4. Bayulgen, O. (2003). Polarizing effects of globalization: Political regimes that attract oil investments (Doktora tezi, The University of Texas at Austin).
5. Bogaards, M. (2009). How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340902777800
6. Bonet, L., & Zamorano, M. M. (2021). Cultural policies in illiberal democracies: A conceptual framework based on the Polish and Hungarian Governing experiences. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(1), 559-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1806829
7. Clark, G., & Gray, R. (2014). Geography is not destiny: Geography, institutions and literacy in England, 1837-1863. Oxford Economic Papers, 66(4), 1042-1069. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpu020
8. De Walle, N. V., & Butler, K. S. (1999). Political parties and party systems in Africa's illiberal democracies. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 13(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557579908400269

9. Diamond, L. J. (1996). Is the third wave over? Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 20-37.
10. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. John Wiley & Sons.
11. Ekman, J. (2009). Political participation and regime stability: A framework for analyzing hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 30(1), 7-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512108097054
12. Feynman, R. P. (1974). Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37(7), 10-13.
13. Friedman, J. (1974). Marxism, structuralism and vulgar materialism. Man, New Series, 9(3), 444-469.
14. Furman, D. (2007). The origins and elements of imitation democracies. Eurozine, 1-20.
15. Furman, D. (2008). Imitation democracies: the post-Soviet penumbra. New Left Review, 54, 28-47.
16. Galimova, N., & Kostina, Y. (2018). Politolog yekaterina şulman poluçila predlojeniye voyti v SPÇ. Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2022, https://www.rbc.ru/politics/29/11/2018/5bffff0e9a7947363e3247f5
17. Gandhi, J. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge University Press.
18. Geddes, B. (1999). Authoritarian breakdown: Empirical test of a game theoretic argument. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
19. Gervasoni, C. (2018). Hybrid regimes within democracies: Fiscal federalism and subnational rentier states. Cambridge University Press.
20. Golosov, G. (2015). Rossiya: “Elektoralnıy avtoritarizm” ili “gibridnıy rejim”? Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2022, https://republic.ru/posts/1607
21. Guliyev, F. (2009). Oil wealth, patrimonialism, and the failure of democracy in Azerbaijan. Caucasus Analytical Digest, 2, 2-5.
22. Hankiss, E. (1988). The “second society”: Is there an alternative social model emerging in contemporary hungary? Social Research, 55(1/2), 13-42.
23. Henderson, J. V. (1999). Overcoming the adverse effects of geography: Infrastructure, health, and agricultural policies. International Regional Science Review, 22(2), 233-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001799761012271
24. Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. Harper & Row.
25. Huntington, S. P. (1991). Democracy's third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 12-34. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0016
26. Jebens, H. (2004). Cargo, cult, and culture critique. University of Hawaii Press.
27. Johnson, D. (1995). Kurt tucholsky: Left-wing intellectual and politically-engaged journalist. Anthós, 1(4), 108-149.
28. Jowett, B. (1888). The Republic of Plato. Clarendon Press.
29. Kudaşeva, V., A., & Kolesni, A., Gangnus. (2021). İssledovaniye: Samıye vliyatelnıye politologi rossii. Erişim Tarihi: 09.03.2022, https://dailymoscow.ru/polit/reyting-samyh-vliyatelnyh-politologov-rossii
30. Latınina, Y. (2015). Patruşev i olbrayt: Kak fraza kremlevskih trolley stala simvolom verı kremlevskoy elitı. Erişim Tarihi: 14.02.2022, https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2015/06/22/64636-patrushev-i-olbrayt-kak-fraza-kremlevskih-trolley-stala-simvolom-very-kremlevskoy-elity
31. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). Elections without democracy: The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51-65.
32. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.
33. Magaloni, B. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.
34. Marks, R. G. (2009). Geography is not destiny: Historical contingency and the making of the Pearl River Delta. In K. Abeand & J. E. Nickum (Eds.), Good earths: Regional and historical insights into China's environment. Kyoto University Press.
35. McFaul, M. (2002). The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: Noncooperative transitions in the postcommunist world. World Politics, 54(2), 212-244.
36. Mikhailova, T. N. (2011). Geography is not destiny! (Comment on “The Siberian Curse” by F. Hill and Gaddy). Journal of Institutional Studies, 3(1), 97-103.
37. Morse, Y. L. (2012). The era of electoral authoritarianism. World Politics, 64(1), 161-198.
38. Motyl, A. J. (2005). Institutional legacies and systemic transformation in Eastern Europe: Ukraine, Russia, and the European Union. Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2022, https://www1.ku.de/ZIMOS/forum/docs/Motyl.html
39. Nachum, L., Livanis, G., & Hong, H. G. (2018). When near is far and far is near: A quantile regression model of FDI, location and connectivity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3412523
40. Noboa, E., & Upham, P. (2018). Energy policy and transdisciplinary transition management arenas in illiberal democracies: A conceptual framework. Energy Research & Social Science, 46, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.014
41. Nodia, G. (2009). Reading Russia: The wounds of lost empire. Journal of Democracy, 20(2), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0084
42. Ottaway, M. (2003). The challenge of semi-authoritarianism: An introduction. In M. Ottaway (Ed.), Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
43. Przeworski, A. (2019). A conceptual history of political regimes: Democracy, dictatorship, and authoritarianism. In J. J. Wiatr (Ed.), New authoritarianism: Challenges to democracy in the 21st century. Verlag Barbara Budrich.
44. Schedler, A. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford University Press.
45. Şulman, Y. (2014a). Kak prinimayutsya reşeniya v gibrıdnıh rejimah. Erişim Tarihi: 17.05.2022, https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2014/08/29/resheniya-chernogo-yaschika
46. Şulman, Y. (2014b). Tsarstvo politiçeskoy imitatsii. Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2022, https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2014/08/15/carstvo-imitacii
47. Şulman, Y. (2015). Zastençivıy avtoritarizm. poçemu v peterburge net ulitsı Putina. Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022, https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/60912
48. Şulman, Y. (2018). Praktiçeskaya politologiya. posobiye po kontaktu s realnostyu. İzdatelstvo AST.
49. Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2008). Conspiracy theories, Harvard Public Law. Working Paper, 8(3), 1-29.
50. Temir, E. (2019). Milliyetçi propagandanın Rus kamu politikalarına yansımaları: Vatanseverlik eğitimi programı örneği. Avrasya Etüdleri, 56(2), 5-32.
51. İnternet Kaynakları
52. Bismark Ne Govoril ob Ukraine to, Čto Emu Pripisyvajut SMI Rossii. (2014). Krym Realii. https://ru.krymr.com/a/26748832.html
53. Bobrakov, A. (2014). Pjatʹ let "Tesaku". "Carʹ"-ministr. Tenʹ Saraevo. Coj živ. Radio Svoboda. https://www.svoboda.org/a/26532017.html
54. Cargo Cult. (2022). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cargo-cult
55. Catastrophism. (n.d.). University of Oregon. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/catastrophism.html
56. Ekaterina Šulʹman, Jurij Dudʹ i Roman Dobrohotov Vneseny v Reestr SMI-Inoagentov. (2022). BBC NEWS Russkaja Služba. https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-61123521
57. Obnovlennyj Sostav SPČ: Bez Fedotova i Čikova, No s Fadeevym i Vyšinskim. (2019). BBC NEWS Russkaja Služba. https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-50124082
58. Tètčer i 15 Mln Celesoobraznyh Russkih. Rossijskij MID Soslalsja na Fejkovuju Citatu Britanskogo Premʹera. (2018). Nastojaŝee Vremja. https://www.currenttime.tv/a/29292463.html
59. Российская общественная инициатива. (n.d.). https://www.roi.ru