ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND SAFETY (RESULTS INDICATED BY VARIANCE ANALYSIS)

Öz

This study aims to acknowledge whether there is a relationship between democracy and safety parameters through democratic country categories. For this purpose, this study compares the averages of the four subgroups. These four subgroups are full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime subgroups. The study's conceptual framework comprises democracy, safety, and democratic peace theory. In the study, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is performed for independent groups to compare multiple group averages. ANOVA results indicate whether there is a statistically significant difference between groups as a whole. The study proposes that people living in democratic countries live in a much safer environment. Data indicate that crime is universal and point out the positive effects of high-income level, prosperity, education and low population density on crime. However, it should be kept in mind that the evaluations in this paper are valid for crimes included in the safety index including theft, violence, bribery, and so on. The results, based on data between 2018 and 2022, reveal that the expanded propositions of democratic peace theory can only be valid for full democracy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Democracy
• Democratic Peace Theory
• Full Democracy
• Safety
• Variance Analysis

DEMOKRASİ VE GÜVENLİK İLİŞKİSİ ÜZERİNE (VARYANS ANALİZİNİN İŞARET ETTİĞİ SONUÇLAR)

Öz

Bu çalışma, demokrasi ve güvenlik parametreleri arasında bir ilişki olup olmadığını, demokrasi ülke kategorileri üzerinden ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla dört alt grubun ortalamaları karşılaştırılmaktadır. Bu dört alt grup; tam demokrasi, kusurlu demokrasi, hibrit rejim ve otoriter rejim alt gruplarıdır. Çalışmanın kavramsal çerçevesini demokrasi, güvenlik ve demokratik barış teorisi oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada çoklu grup ortalamalarının karşılaştırılabilmesi amacıyla bağımsız gruplar için tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) yapılmaktadır. ANOVA sonuçları grupların bir bütün olarak değerlendirildiğinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olup olmadığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, demokratik ülkelerde yaşayan insanların çok daha güvenli bir çevrede yaşadığı önermesine sahiptir. Veriler suçun evrensel olduğunu ancak yüksek gelir düzeyi, refah, eğitim ve düşük nüfus yoğunluğunun suç üzerindeki olumlu etkilerine işaret etmektedir. Ancak bu makaledeki değerlendirmelerin hırsızlık, şiddet, rüşvet gibi güvenlik endeksine dahil edilen suçlar için geçerli olduğu unutulmamalıdır. 2018 ile 2022 yılları arasındaki verilere dayanan sonuçlar, demokratik barış teorisinin genişletilmiş önermelerinin ancak tam demokrasi için geçerli olabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Demokrasi
• Demokratik Barış Teorisi
• Tam Demokrasi
• Güvenlik
• Varyans Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Albright, M and Jomaa, M. (2017). Democracy remains the best path to security. Accessed date: 24 April 2024, https://www.defenseone.com/ ideas/2017/09/democracy-remains-best-path-security/140930/.
2. Alexander, A. C., Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2011). Measuring effective democracy: A defense. International Political Science Review 33(1): 41-62.
3. Aslaksen, S. (2010). Oil and democracy: More than a cross-country correlation? Journal of Peace Research 47(4): 421-431.
4. Avilés, W. and Celis, L. (2017). Democracy, repression, and the defense of human rights. Latin American Perspectives 44(5): 4-12.
5. Balaev, M. (2014). Taking time seriously: Delayed effects of economic development on democracy, 1960–2010. Sociological Perspectives 58(2): 311-330.
6. Banai, H. (2013). Democratic solidarity: Rethinking democracy promotion in the New Middle East. Security Dialogue 44(5-6): 411-429.
7. Boese, V. A. (2019). How (not) to measure democracy. International Area Studies Review 22(2): 95-127.
8. Burns, R. (2020). A Covid-19 panacea in digital technologies? Challenges for democracy and higher education. Dialogues in Human Geography 10(2): 246-249.

9. Choi, S. W. and James, P. (2014). Why does the United States intervene abroad? Democracy, human rights violations, and terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60(5): 899-926.
10. Dahl, R. A. (2017). Demokrasi üzerine [On democracy]. (B. Kadıoğlu, Trans.) Ankara: Phoenix.
11. Davis, F. (2010). The human rights act and jurisdification: Saving democracy from law. Politics 30(2): 91-97.
12. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2023). Democracy index 2022: Frontline democracy and the battle for Ukraine. Accessed date: 04 January 2024, https://www.eiu.com/n/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Democracy-Index-2022_FV2.pdf?li_fat_id=f1fbad7e-a282-4b9e-9f8f-6a6d5a9fe6b8.
13. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022). Democracy index 2021: The China challenge. Accessed date: 04 January 2024, https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/ democracy-index-2021.
14. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). Democracy index 2020: In sickness and in health? Accessed date: 04 January 2024, https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020.
15. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Democracy index 2019: A year of democratic backsliding and popular protest. Accessed date: 04 January 2024, https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/ democracy-index-2019.
16. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019). Democracy index 2018: Me too? Political participation, protest and democracy. Accessed date: 04 January 2024, https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2019.
17. Fernandez, L. (2022). Digital technology and democratic theory. Contemporary Sociology 51(4): 274:276.
18. Geissel B., Kneuer, M. and Lauth, H.J. (2016). Measuring the quality of democracy: Introduction International Political Science Review 37(5): 571-579.
19. Grace, G. (2012). Faith schools: Democracy, human rights and social cohesion. Policy Futures in Education 10(5): 500-506.
20. Hamlett, P.W. (2003). Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values 28(1): 112-140.
21. Harff, B. (2003, February). No lessons learned from the holocaust? Assessing risks of genocide and political mass murder since 1955. American Political Science Review 97(1): 57-73.
22. Huntington, S. P. (2007). Üçüncü dalga: 20. yüzyıl sonlarında demokratlaşma [The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century]. (E. Özbudun, Trans.) Ankara: Kıta Yayınları.
23. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2006). Democracy, conflict and human security. Accessed date: 04 May 2024, https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/ democracy-conflict-and-human-security-handbook-volume-1.pdf.
24. Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. Accessed date: 03 May 2024, http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/ Kant/Immanuel %20Kant,%20_Perpetual%20Peace_.pdf.
25. Kayama, M. and Narukawa M. (2014). Consideration of factors affecting the safety index in early clinical drug development. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 48(4): 436-443.
26. Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy. International Political Science Review 37(5): 666-678.
27. Knutsen, C.H. (2010). Measuring effective democracy. International Political Science Review 31(2): 109-128.
28. Krauthammer, C. (2008). Charles Gibson’s gaffe. Accessed date: 27 August 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/09/ 12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1]washingtonpost.com[/url.
29. Kreiss, D. (2015). The problem of citizens: E-democracy for actually existing democracy. Social Media + Society 1(2): 1-11.
30. Kweon, Y.J. and Kim, K.S. (2009). National traffic safety index. Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2137(1): 13-19.
31. Lijphart, A. (2014). Demokrasi modelleri, otuz altı ülkede yönetim biçimleri ve performansları [Patterns of democracy, government forms and performance in thirty-six countries] (G. Ayas and U.U. Bulsun, Trans.) İstanbul: İthaki.
32. Longlay, R. (2022). What is the democratic peace theory? Definition and examples. Accessed date: 02 May 2024, https://www.thoughtco.com/democratic-peace-theory-4769410.
33. Marine Corps University. (2017). Woodrow Wilson, war message delivered to Congress, April 2, 1917. Accessed date: 03 May 2024, https://www.iwp.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/20150114_Wilson WarMessage.pdf.
34. Nadeau, R, Daoust, J.F. and Dassonneville, R. (2021). Winning, losing and the quality of democracy. Political Studies 00(0): 1-18.
35. National Statistics, Republic of China (Taiwan). (2024). Latest indicators. Accessed date: 07 May 2024, https://eng.stat.gov.tw/Point.aspx?sid=t.9&n= 4208&sms=11713.
36. Novak, M. (2007). The first institution of democracy. Tocqueville on religion: What faith adds to reason. European View 6(1): 87-101.
37. NUMBEO. (2024). Crime index. Accessed date: 03 January 2024, https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings.jsp.
38. Olatunji, F.O. (2013). Democracy and the challenge of the rules of law in developing democratic society. Beytulhikme an International Journal of Philosophy 3(2): 67-79.
39. Pickel, S, Breustedt, W. and Smolka, T. (2016). Measuring the quality of democracy: Why include the citizens’ perspective? International Political Science Review 37(5): 645-655.
40. Sartori, G. (2017). Demokrasi teorisine geri dönüş [The theory of democracy revisited]. (T. Karamustafaoğlu and M. Turhan, Trans.) Istanbul: Sentez.
41. Schemeil, Y. (2020). Democracy before democracy? International Political Science Review 21(2): 99-120.
42. Schwartz, R. and Fayer, H. (2006). Law, society, and democracy: Comparative perspectives. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 603(1): 292-328.
43. Sloam, J. (2008). Teaching democracy: The role of political science education. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 10(3): 509-524.
44. Tadic, D., Savovic, I., Misita, M., Arsovski, S. and Milanovic, D.D. (2012). Development of a fuzzy logic-based inherent safety index for food industries. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 228(1): 3-13.
45. Terzi, M. (2018). İkinci Körfez Savaşı ve kolektif güvenlik bağlamında Bush Doktrini’nin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the Bush Doctrine in the context of the Second Gulf War and collective security]. M. Terzi and S. Yenal. (Ed.) Uluslararası güvenlik ve terörizm [International security and terrorism] (pp. 309-350). Ankara: Gece Akademi.
46. Tocqueville, A.D. (2016). Amerika’da demokrasi [Democracy in America]. (S.S. Özdemir, Trans.) İstanbul: İletişim.
47. Ungureanu, C. (2008). The contested relation between democracy and religion: Towards a dialogical perspective? European Journal of Political Theory 7(4): 405-429.
48. Uygun, O. (2017). Demokrasi-Tarihsel, siyasal ve felsefi boyutlar [Democracy-Historical, political and philosophical dimensions]. İstanbul: On İki Levha.
49. Wang, Y., Mechkova, V. and Andersson, F. (2019). Does democracy enhance health? New empirical evidence 1900–2012. Political Research Quarterly 72(3): 554-569.
50. Wesche, T. (2021). Democratic deliberation and economic democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism 47(1): 65-68.
51. Wolff, J. and Wurm I. (2011). Towards a theory of external democracy promotion: A proposal for theoretical classification. Security Dialogue 42(1): 77-96.
52. World Bank. (2024). Data by country. Accessed date: 07 May 2024, https://data.worldbank.org/country.
53. Zafirovski, M. (2020). Some dilemmas of economic democracy: Indicators and empirical analysis. Economic and Industrial Democracy 43(1): 252-302.