Çatışma mı konsensus mu? Demokrasi kuramının son otoriterleşme dalgasına yanıtı

Öz

Son otoriterleşme dalgasının bazı ortak özellikleri bulunmaktadır. Yürütme erkine sahip popülist liderler yavaş, aşamalı ve seçmeli biçimde kendi ülkelerindeki demokratik kurumları bir yasallık görüntüsünün arkasında ortadan kaldıran otoriterleşme eyleminde bulunmaktadırlar. Bunu yaparken aynı zamanda olağanüstü halleri de kendi lehlerine kullanmaktadırlar. Bu özellikler güncel demokrasi kuramının çatışmacı ve oydaşmacı tarafları arasındaki tartışmaya yeni içgörüler sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, bu içgörüleri kullanarak agonistik demokrasi ve müzakereci demokrasi arasında bir karşılaştırma yapmayı amaçlamaktadır. Karşılaştırmanın sonucunda agonistik demokrasi tarafından benimsenen stratejilerin ve aynı zamanda bu yaklaşımın demokrasiyi temellendirme biçiminin mevcut otoriterleşme dalgası dahilinde sorunlu gözüktüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Agonistik stratejiler otoriterleşmenin faillerinin kullandığı stratejilerle bazı ortak özelliklere sahiptir ve bu yüzden bu stratejilerin demokrasiyi radikalleştirme ve derinleştirme amacıyla kullanılması olumsuz sonuçlanabilir. Bunun yerine müzakereci yapıların geliştirilmesinin ve güçlü bir kamusal alana sahip çıkılmasının vatandaşları otoriterleştirici güçlere karşı kuvvetlendireceği ve toplumda demokratik bir ethos'un varlığını sürdürmesini daha olası kılacağı öne sürülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Demokrasi Kuramı
• Otoriterleşme
• Agonistik Demokrasi
• Müzakereci Demokrasi
• Çatışma
• Konsensus

Conflict or Consensus? How Democratic Theory Responds to the Recent Wave of Autocratization

Öz

The recent wave of autocratization has some common characteristics. Populist chief executives engage in an act of autocratization that slowly, gradually, and selectively dismantle democratic institutions in their respective countries behind a legal façade. Doing this, they also use states of emergency in their favor. These characteristics provide new insights on a debate between conflictual and consensual camps within contemporary democratic theory. This study aims to provide a comparison between agonistic democracy and deliberative democracy using these insights. The comparison suggests that the strategies adopted by agonistic democracy as well as its fundamental justification of democracy appear problematic within the context of current wave of autocratization. Agonistic strategies share some characteristics with those of enablers of autocratization and, therefore employing them to radicalize and deepen democracy could prove to be counterproductive. Instead, it is suggested that improving deliberative structures and maintaining a strong public sphere is more likely to empower citizens against autocratizing forces and maintain a democratic ethos in the society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Democratic Theory
• Autocratization
• Agonistic Democracy
• Deliberative Democracy
• Conflict
• Consensus

Kaynakça

1. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. University of Chicago Press.
2. Benhabib, S. (1994). Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy. Constellations, 1(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00003.x
3. Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 67-94). Princeton University Press.
4. Benhabib, S. (2006). Democratic iterations: The local, the national, and the global. In R. Post (Ed.), Another cosmopolitanism (pp. 45–74). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183221.003.0003
5. Benhabib, S. (2010). The return of political theology: The scarf affair in comparative constitution-al perspective in France, Germany and Turkey. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 36(3–4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709358546
6. Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012
7. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.), The good polity (pp. 17–34). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
8. Connolly, W. E. (1991). Identity/difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Univer-sity of Minnesota Press.

9. Connolly, W. E. (2017). Aspirational fascism: The struggle for multifaceted democracy under Trumpism (Forerunners: Ideas first). University of Minnesota Press.
10. Diamond, L. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0009
11. Forst, R. (2001). The rule of reasons: Three models of deliberative democracy. Ratio Juris, 14(4), 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00186
12. Forst, R. (2012). The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice (J. Flynn, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
13. Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press.
14. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and de-mocracy. MIT Press.
15. Honig, B. (1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Cornell University Press.
16. Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton University Press.
17. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
18. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
19. Lafont, C. (2019). Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative de-mocracy (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848189.001.0001
20. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2015). The myth of democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0007
21. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die (1st ed.). Crown.
22. Lührmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019). A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it? Democratization, 26(7), 1095-1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
23. Lührmann, A., & Rooney, B. (2020). Autocratization by decree: States of emergency and demo-cratic decline (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3582527). Social Science Research Net-work. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3582527
24. Lührmann, A., Dahlum, S., Lindberg, S. I., et al. (2018). V-Dem annual democracy report 2018: Democracy for all?
25. Lührmann, A., Grahn, S., Morgan, R., et al. (2019). State of the world 2018: Democracy facing global challenges. Democratization, 26(6), 895–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1613980
26. Mouffe, C. (1995). Radical democracy or liberal democracy? In D. Trend (Ed.), Radical democra-cy: Identity, citizenship, and the state (pp. xx–xx). Routledge.
27. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66, 745–758.
28. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.
29. Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. Verso.
30. Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. Verso.
31. Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x
32. Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford Universi-ty Press.
33. Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.
34. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian popu-lism (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108595841
35. Rogenhofer, J. M. (2018). Antidemocratic populism in Turkey after the July 2016 coup at-tempt. Populism, 1(2), 116–145. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-00001010
36. Rostbøll, C. (2019). Populism and publicity: The participant perspec-tive. https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2019-hdx7q
37. Runciman, D. (2018). How democracy ends. Profile Books.
38. Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. University of Chicago Press.