Going Beyond the Democratic Models: Objection, Opennes and Pluralism

Öz

Starting from the criticism of the model-based approaches of democratic politics in Turkey, the article presents a framework for analysing democratic politicst hrough a post-foundational manner in order to overcome the limitations of these approaches. Critically analysing the model-based democratic analyses of the post-1980 military coup period, the studies examining the democratic potentials of the period when the Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002, and finally the claims that the Justice and Development Party has become ‘authoritarian’ in the post-2013 period, the study aims to overcome the conceptual deficiencies identified. The study argues that model-based approaches are not sufficiently sensitive to the democratic significance of the boundaries of the political sphere, the democratic qualities of inclusion and exclusion as political practices, and the concepts of objection, openness and pluralism. On the contrary, the institutional framework put forward in the article, based on an approach that is sensitive to the contingency and openness of the political sphere, presents an understanding of political space in which there is no founding principle or logic and which is only temporarily stabilised. The importance of an understanding of democratic politics that is sensitive to demands and practices of objection and that takes into account new forms of subjectivity based on the notion of heterogeneity is underlined for a comprehensive analysis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Democracy
• Democratic Politics
• Hegemony
• Openness
• Pluralism

Demokratik Modellerin Ötesine Geçmek: Uyuşmazlık, Açıklık ve Çoğulculuk

Öz

Türkiye’de demokratik siyasete dair yaygın değerlendirme biçimlerinin model temelli yaklaşımlarının eleştirisinden hareket eden bu çalışma bu yaklaşımların sınırlılıklarını aşmak amacıyla “kurucu temellerin ötesinde” bir demokratik siyaset analizi çerçevesi sunmaktadır. Model temelli demokratik analizlerin kuramsal ve analitik önermelerini eleştirel olarak ele alan çalışma bu noktada tespit ettiği kavramsal eksiklikleri önerdiği çerçeve ile aşmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, model temelli yaklaşımların siyasal alanın sınırları, birer siyasal pratik olarak içerme ve dışlamanın demokratik nitelikleri, itiraz, açıklık ve çoğulculuk kavramlarının demokratik önemlerine dair yeterince duyarlılık göstermediği iddiasını öne sürer. Buna karşın makalede öne sürülen kuramsal çerçevede siyasal alanın olumsallığına ve açıklığına duyarlı bir yaklaşımdan hareketle, kurucu bir ilke ya da mantığın olmadığı ve ancak geçici olarak istikrar kazanan bir siyasallık anlayışı savunulmaktadır. Taleplere ve itiraz pratiklerine hassasiyet gösteren, heterojenlik nosyonuna yaslanarak yeni öznelik biçimlerini dikkate alan bir demokratik siyaset anlayışının kapsamlı bir analiz için öneminin altı çizilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Demokratik Siyaset
• Hegemonya
• Açıklık
• Çoğulculuk
• Demokrasi

Kaynakça

1. Akçay, Ü. (2021). Authoritarian consolidation dynamics in Turkey. Contemporary Politics, 27(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1845920
2. Arbatlı, E. (2014). Turkey’s new path: The rise of electoral authoritarianism. Research Turkey, 3, 76–92.
3. Arslantaş, D. & Kaiser, A. (2023). The competitive authoritarian turn in Turkey: Bandwagoning versus reality. Third World Quarterly, 44(3), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597. 2022.2147061
4. Durdu, Z. (2016). Türkiye’de demokrasi söylemi ve radikal demokrasi olanağı. Sosyoloji Dergisi, (Armağan Sayısı), 75–88.
5. Esen, B. & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2016). Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1581–1606. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732
6. Foucault, M. (2004). Society must be defended. Penguin.
7. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Clarendon Press.

9. Heper, M. (1988). The state and politics in Turkey. Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 12(2), 96–102.
10. Howarth, D., & Glynos, J. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Routledge.
11. İnsel, A. (2003). AKP and normalizing democracy in Turkey. South Atlantic Quarterly, 102, 293–308.
12. Karpat, K. (1988). Military interventions: Army-civilian relations in Turkey before and after 1980. M. Heper & A. Evin (Ed.), State, democracy and military: Turkey in the 1980s (s. 137–159). Walter de Gruyter.
13. Keenan, A. (2003). Democracy in question: Democratic openness in a time of political closure. Stanford University Press.
14. Keyman, F. (2000). Türkiye’de radikal demokrasi: Geç modern zamanlarda siyaset ve demokratik yönetim. Alfa.
15. Keyman, F. & Onis, Z. (2003). Turkey’s delayed encounter with global third way politics: The AKP and the possibility of democratization. Journal of Democracy, 14(2), 95–107.
16. Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. Verso.
17. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
18. Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
19. Lefort, C. (1988). Democracy and political theory. Polity Press.
20. Levitsky, S. & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
21. Marchart, O. (2007). Post-foundational political thought: Political difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh University Press.
22. Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics. Daedalus, 102(1), 169–190.
23. Norval, A. (2007). Aversive democracy: Inheritance and originality in the democratic tradition. Cambridge University Press.
24. O'Donnell, G. A. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55–69.
25. Öktem, K. & Akkoyunlu, K. (2016). Exit from democracy: Illiberal governance in Turkey and beyond. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2016.1253231
26. Rancière, J. (1990). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. University of Minnesota Press.
27. Rancière, J. (2006). Hatred of democracy. Verso.
28. Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. Continuum.
29. Sunar, İ. & Sayarı, S. (1986). Democracy in Turkey: Problems and prospects. G. O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter, & L. Whitehead (Ed.), Transitions from authoritarian rule: Southern Europe (s. 165–187). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Tansel, C. B. (2018). Authoritarian neoliberalism and democratic backsliding in Turkey: Beyond the narratives of progress. South European Society and Politics, 23(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2018.1479945
31. Taş, H. (2015). Turkey – From tutelary to delegative democracy. Third World Quarterly, 36(4), 776–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1024450
32. Tepe, S. (2005). Turkey’s AKP: A model Muslim democratic party. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2005.0053
33. Tziarras, Z. (2018). Erdoganist authoritarianism and the ‘new’ Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 18(4), 593–598. : https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2018.1540408
34. Üstüner, F. (2007). Radikal demokrasi: “Liberalizm mi? Demokrasi mi? Evet, lütfen!”. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 34(Aralık), 313–336.