Güçlü ve Köklü Bir ‘Sivil’ Toplum Bastırılabilir mi?

Öz

Sivil toplumun son beş yılını mercek altına alma amacını taşıyan bu çalışmada üç soruya cevap aranmaktadır. Bu sorular 1. Sivil toplum küresel ölçekte son beş yılda ciddi bir geri çekilme yaşamakta mıdır?. 2. Eğer bir geri çekilme söz konusuysa bu geri çekilme tarihsel olarak çoğulcu geçmişe sahip poliarşik ülkeri de kapsamakta mıdır?. 3. Çoğulcu ve poliarşik ülkelerde de sivil toplum ve sivil alan zarar görümüşse çoğulcu ve poliarşik olmayan ve pandemi dönemini popülist iktidarla atlatmaya çalışan ülkelerde sivil alan ne kadar zarar görmüştür? Masa başı çalışması olarak gerçekleştirilen çalışmada sivil toplumun küresel ölçekte son beş yılına ışık tutmak için CIVICUS raporları ve Carnegie Protest Tracker verileri referans alınmış, ayrıca 6 ülke ölçeğinde yapılan karşılaştırmalar için ise The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIC), Freedom House, V-Dem (Varience of Democracy/Demokrasi Çeşitleri) ve son olarak Skaaning Ölçeği’nden faydalanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda tespit edilen bulgular: 1. küresel ölçekte sivil toplumun son beş yılda ciddi bir gerileme yaşadığı, 2. bu gerilemenin tarihsel olarak çoğulcu geçmişe sahip poliarşik ülkeleri çok ciddi bir şekilde etkilemediği, 3. tarihsel olarak çoğulcu ve plüralist olmasa da demokratik endekslerde üst sıralarda yer alan ülkelerde pandemi dönemi popülist iktidarlarla birleştiğinde özellikle siyasal özgürlüklerin ciddi anlamda olumsuz etkilendiği lakin sivil alanın direnmeye devam etmekte olduğudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sivil Toplum
• sivil toplum örgütleri
• demokrasiden uzaklaşma
• bastırma

Can a Strong and Deep-Routed Civil Society be Repressed?

Abstract

This study aims to examine the last five years of civil society and seeks answers to these three questions: 1. Has civil society experienced a severe recession in the last five years on a global scale? 2. If there is a withdrawal, does it include the polyarchic countries with a historically pluralistic past? 3. If civil society and civil space have been damaged in pluralist and polyarchic countries, how much has civil space been damaged in countries that are not pluralistic and polyarchic and are trying to overcome the pandemic period with populist regimes? In the study, which was carried out as a desk study, the data of the CIVICUS reports and the Carnegie Protest Tracker database were taken as a reference to shed light on the last five years of civil society on a global scale. Also, the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIC), Freedom House, V-Dem (Varience of Democracy) and finally, the Skaaning Scale were used to answer other questions. Findings determined as a result of the study 1. that civil society on a global scale has experienced a serious decline in the last five years, 2. this decline has not seriously affected polyarchic countries with a historically pluralistic past, 3. in countries that are not historically pluralist and polyarchic but rank high in democratic indexes, when the pandemic is combined with populist governments, especially political freedoms are seriously negatively affected, but the civil space continues to resist this regression.

Keywords

• Civil society
• civil society organizations
• de-democratization
• repression

Kaynakça

1. Anheier, H., Glasius, M., & Kaldor, M. (2001). Introducing global civil society. Global Civil Society, 2001, 3–22.
2. Banks, N., & Hulme, D. (2012). The role of NGOs and civil society in development and poverty reduction. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2072157
3. Batliwala, S. (2002). Grassroots movements as transnational actors: Implications for global civil society. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13, 393–409.
4. Berman, S., & Snegovaya, M. (2019). Populism and the decline of social democracy. Journal of Democracy, 30(3), 5–19.
5. Brewer, E. W. (2012). Secondary data analysis. Sage Secondary Data Analysis, 1, 165–176.
6. Cai, Q., Okada, A., Jeong, B. G., & Kim, S. J. (2021). Civil society responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of China, Japan, and South Korea. China Review, 21(1), 107–137.
7. Caiani, M., & Graziano, P. (2019). Understanding varieties of populism in times of crises. West European Politics, 42(6), 1141–1158.
8. Carnegie. (2023). Global Protest Tracker.

9. Chandhoke, N. (2005). How global is global civil society? Journal of World-Systems Research, 355–371. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2005.388
10. CIVICUS. (2017). State of Civil Society report. https://www.civicus.org/index.php/state-of-civil-society-report-2017
11. CIVICUS. (2018). State of civil society report.
12. CIVICUS. (2019). Global report: twıce as many people lıve ın repressed countrıes compared to a year ago.
13. CIVICUS. (2020). State of civil society report. https://www.civicus.org/index.php/state-of-civil-society-report-2020
14. CIVICUS. (2021). People power under attack. https://findings2021.monitor.civicus.org/
15. CIVICUS. (2022). Global assesment of protest rights.
16. Clayton, A., Oakley, P., & Taylor, J. (2000). Civil society organizations and service provision. Civil Societies and Social Movements Programme, 2, 1–25.
17. Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2016). Measuring high level democratic principles using the V-Dem data. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 37(5), 580–593.
18. Dahl, R. A. (1984). Polyarchy, pluralism, and scale. Scandinavian Political Studies.
19. Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy. Yale university press.
20. Dayson, C., & Damm, C. (2020). Re-making state-civil society relationships during the COVID 19 pandemic? An English perspective. People, Place and Policy Online, 14(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.2020.5796569834
21. Devarajan, S., Khemani, S., & Walton, M. (2011). Civil society, public action and accountability in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5733, 68.
22. Edwards, M. (2009). Civil society. Polity.
23. Erdoğan-Tosun, G., & Tepeciklioğlu, E. (2016). Sivil Toplum ve Baskı Grupları. H. Çetin (Ed.), Siyaset Bilimi.
24. Eslen-Ziya, H. (2022). Knowledge, counter-knowledge, pseudo-science in populism. In Populism and Science in Europe (pp. 25–41). Springer.
25. EUI. (2023). Civil liberties,2021.
26. Global Civil Society. (n.d.). In Britannica.
27. Hegedus, Z. (1989). Social movements and socıal change ın self-creatıve socıety: new cıvıl ınıtıatıves ın the ınternatıonal arena. International Sociology, 4(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858089004001002
28. Hoover Green, A., & Cohen, D. K. (2021). Centering human subjects: The ethics of “desk research” on political violence. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(2), ogaa029.
29. House, F. (2021). Freedom in the World 2020 Methodology introduction-history of freedom in the world. Index, L. (2023a). Political liberties, 2021.
30. Index, L. (2023b). Polyarch, 212. https://doi.org/https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/polyarchy-lied?country=ARG~AUS~BWA~CHN
31. Keane, J. (2009). Civil society, definitions and approaches. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 461–464.
32. Lindberg, S. I. (2003). 'It’s our time to" chop"’: Do elections in africa feed neo-patrimonialism rather than counter-act ıt? Democratization, 10(2), 121–140.
33. Lindberg, S. I., Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., & Teorell, J. (2014). V-Dem: A new way to measure democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 159–169.
34. Malena, C., & Heinrich, V. F. (2005). The CIVICUS civil society index. Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, 341–364.
35. Mohan, M., Rue, H. A., Bajaj, S., Galgamuwa, G. A. P., Adrah, E., Aghai, M. M., Broadbent, E. N., Khadamkar, O., Sasmito, S. D., Roise, J., Doaemo, W., & Cardil, A. (2021). Afforestation, reforestation and new challenges from COVID-19: Thirty-three recommendations to support civil society organizations (CSOs). Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112277
36. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
37. Paffenholz, T. (2014). Civil society and peace negotiations: Beyond the Inclusion-Exclusion Dichotomy. Negotiation Journal, 30(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12046
38. Parry, G. (1966). Elites and polyarchies. Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 4(3), 163–179.
39. Ringe, N., & Renno, L. (2023). Populists and the pandemic how populists around the world responded to COVID-19. Routledge Taylor&Francis Group.
40. Robinson, J. A., & Acemoglu, D. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. Profile London.
41. Roßteutscher, S. (2002). Advocate or reflection? associations and political culture. Political Studies, 50(3), 514–528.
42. Shapiro, J. (2013). CIVICUS: Monitoring and Evaluation.
43. Skaaning, S.-E., Gerring, J., & Bartusevičius, H. (2015). A lexical index of electoral democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 48(12), 1491–1525.
44. Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M. A. (1993). Secondary research: Information sources and methods (Vol. 4). Sage. Taylor, C. (1990). Modes of civil society. Public Culture, 3(1), 95–118.
45. Teorell, J., Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2019). Measuring polyarchy across the globe, 1900–2017. Studies in Comparative International Development, 54, 71–95.
46. Tracker, G. P. (2020). Carnegie endowment for ınternational peace. Washington DC.
47. Unit, E. I. (2012). Hot spots. Benchmarking global city competitiveness. Londres: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited.
48. V-Dem. (2023a). Civil society participation, 2021.
49. V-Dem. (2023b). Respect for counterargumnets, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/respect-for-counterarguments?country=ARG~AUS~BWA~CHN
50. Walzer, M. (1992). The civil society argument. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 94(1).
51. Yumatle, C. (2015). Pluralism. The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, First Edition. Edited by Michael T. Gibbons, Published.