GÖÇMENLERE KARŞI TUTUMLARIN PARTİ TERCİHLERİNE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

2011’de Suriye İç Savaşı’nın başlamasıyla bugüne kadar Türkiye’ye göç eden 3 milyon 750 bin civarındaki sığınmacı ile birlikte Türkiye siyasetinde göçmenlere karşı tutumlar da araştırılmaya başlanmıştır. Önceki çalışmalar göçmenlere karşı tutumların çeşitli boyutlarını analiz etmiş olsa da bu tutumların parti tercihlerine etkisi diğer ülkelere kıyasla Türkiye’de daha az çalışılmış bir konudur. Amaç: Bu çalışma 2018 yılında toplanan Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2019) verisini kullanarak Türkiye’de göçmenlere karşı tutumların parti tercihine olan etkisini nicel yöntemler ile analiz etmektedir. Yöntem: Göçmenlere karşı tutumların parti tercihine etkisi farklı lojistik regresyon modelleri ile yapılan analizlerle ölçülmüştür. Kontrol değişkenleri olarak Türkiye siyasetinde daha önceden çalışılmış dindarlık ve sol-sağ düzlemindeki konum gibi merkez-çevre teorisine dayanan ve ekonomik oy verme davranışını ölçen değişkenler ile demografik değişkenler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Sonuçlar göstermektedir ki göçmenlere karşı olumsuz tutumlar arttıkça İyi Parti’ye oy verme olasılığı artarken, AK Parti’ye oy verme olasılığı azalmaktadır. Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi’ne oy verme tercihi ile göçmenlere karşı tutumlar arasında sadece demografik değişkenlerle kontrol edildiğinde olumlu bir ilişki varken, dindarlık ve seçmenin sol-sağ düzlemindeki konumu ile birlikte kontrol edildiğinde ise bu etki istatistiksel olarak anlamsızlaşmaktadır. Son olarak ekonomik değerlendirmeler de regresyona eklendiğinde göçmenlere karşı tutumların parti tercihine etkisi tüm modellerde istatistiksel olarak anlamsız hale gelmektedir. Özgünlük: Veri setindeki diğer ülkeler ile kıyaslandığında Türkiye’de göçmenlere karşı olumsuz tutumlar oldukça yüksekken bu tutumların parti tercihini belirlemede zayıf kalması yanıtlanması önemli bir soru olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• göçmen karşıtı tutumlar
• parti tercihi
• oy verme davranışı
• türkiye
• iyi parti

THE EFFECTS OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS IMMIGRANTS ON PARTY PREFERENCE: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Öz

The immigration of around 3.750 million refugees to Turkey since 2011 due to the Syrian Civil War has raised questions about the attitudes toward immigrants in Turkey. Although previous studies have analyzed various dimensions of attitudes towards immigrants, the effect of these attitudes on party preference is relatively understudied in Turkey compared to other countries. Purpose: This study analyzes the effect of attitudes towards immigrants on party preference in Turkey using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2019) dataset collected in 2018 using quantitative methods. Methodology: Different logistic regression models were established to test the impact of attitudes towards immigrants on party preference. Based on the previous studies on Turkish politics that measure party preference, the center-periphery cleavage (religiosity and self-positioning on the left-right spectrum), economic voting, and demographic variables are included as control variables in the regression models. Findings: The results illustrate that as negative attitudes towards immigrants increase, the probability of voting for the Good Party increases while voting for the AK Party decreases. While there is a positive relationship between the voting for the Republican People's Party and anti-immigration after controlling for demographic variables, this effect becomes statistically insignificant when controlled for religiosity and self-positioning on the left-right spectrum. Finally, when economic evaluations are included in the regression, the effect of attitudes towards immigrants on party preference becomes statistically insignificant in all models. Originality: In Turkey, negative attitudes towards immigrants are pretty high compared to other countries in the dataset. However, the weak effect of anti-immigration on party preference emerges as an essential question to be analyzed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• anti-immigration attitudes
• party preference
• voting behavior
• turkey
• good party

Kaynakça

1. Akarca, A. T. (2019). Economic voting in Turkey: single-vs. multi-party governments. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 19(4), 523-539.
2. Akarca, A. T. (2015). Putting Turkey’s June and November 2015 election outcomes in perspective. Insight Turkey, 17(4), 81-104.
3. Akarca, A. T., & Tansel, A. (2006). Economic performance and political outcomes: An analysis of the Turkish parliamentary and local election results between 1950 and 2004. Public Choice. 129(1), 77-105.
4. Akdeniz, E. (2020, 1 Ağustos). Irkçı saldırının adresi bu kez Küçükçekmece. Evrensel. https://www.evrensel.net/haber/410688/irkci-saldirinin-adresi-bu-kez-kucukcekmece. (Erişim Tarihi: 02.02.2022)
5. Akşener ile Özdağ arasında sığınmacı kavgası. (2022, 23 Mart) Odatv. https://odatv4.com/siyaset/aksener-ile-ozdag-arasinda-siginmaci-kavgasi-233260. (Erişim Tarihi: 05.02.2022)
6. Altındağ, O., & Kaushal, N. (2021). Do refugees impact voting behavior in the host country? Evidence from Syrian refugee inflows to Turkey. Public Choice, 186(1), 149-178.
7. Arzheimer, K., & Berning, C. C. (2019). How the alternative for Germany (AfD) and their voters veered to the radical right, 2013–2017. Electoral Studies, 60, 1-10.
8. Aytaç, S. E. (2020). Economic voting during the AKP era in Turkey. İçinde G. M. Tezcür (der.), The Oxford handbook of Turkish politics. Oxford University Press.

9. Bagci, S. C., Turnuklu, A., & Tercan, M. (2020). Positive intergroup contact decreases the likelihood that prejudicial attitudes become avoidant behavioral tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 597-613.
10. Başlevent, C., & Kirmanoğlu, H. (2016). Economic voting in Turkey: perceptions, expectations, and the party choice. Research and Policy on Turkey, 1(1), 88-101.
11. Başlevent, C., Kirmanoğlu, H., & Şenatalar, B. (2009). Party preferences and economic voting in Turkey (now that the crisis is over). Party Politics, 15(3), 377-391.
12. Başlevent, C., Kirmanoğlu, H., & Şenatalar, B. (2005). Empirical investigation of party preferences and economic voting in Turkey. European Journal of Political Research, 44(4), 547-562.
13. Baslevent, C., Kirmanoglu, H., & Senatalar, B. (2004). Voter profiles and fragmentation in the Turkish party system. Party Politics, 10(3), 307-324.
14. Bolu Belediye Başkanı Özcan hakkında soruşturma başlatıldı, CHP 'Özcan'ın açıklamaları parti politikamız ile zıt' dedi. (2021, 27 Temmuz). BBC. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-57986642. (Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2022)
15. Bolu Belediye Meclisi'nden karar: Yabancılara su dolarla, nikah 100 bin TL. (2021, 22 Kasım). Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/bolu-belediye-meclisinden-karar-yabancilara-su-dolarla-nikah-100-bin-tl-1886893. (Erişim Tarihi: 22.02.2022)
16. CSES (2019). The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 5. https://cses.org/data-download/cses-module-5-2016-2021. (Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2022)
17. Çarkoğlu, A. (2012). Economic evaluations vs. ideology: Diagnosing the sources of electoral change in Turkey, 2002–2011. Electoral Studies, 31(3), 513-521.
18. Çarkoğlu, A., & Elçi, E. (2021). Populist attitudes towards Syrian refugees in Turkey. İçinde E. Uslaner & N. Holtug (der.), National values and social cohesion. Colchester: ECPR Press.
19. Çarkoğlu, A., & Hinich, M. J. (2006). A spatial analysis of Turkish party preferences. Electoral Studies, 25(2), 369-392.
20. Çirakoğlu, O. C., Demirutku, K., & Karakaya, O. (2021). The mediating role of perceived threat in the relationship between casual contact and attitudes towards Syrian refugees in Turkey. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 2984-2999.
21. De Haas, H., Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2020). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. Red Globe Press.
22. Erçetin, T. (2020). Popülist Arzu: “İhtiyacınız olan tek şey sarayın ekranlarından ziyade halkın kalbi”. REFLEKTİF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 49-79.
23. Erdoğan, M. M. (2020). “Securitization from society” and “social acceptance”: Political party-based approaches in Turkey to Syrian refugees. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 17(68), 73-92.
24. Erdoğan, E., & Uyan-Semerci, P. (2020). Scapegoats to Be “Served Hot”: Local Perceptions About Syrians in a Fragile Context. JCTS, 8(1), 28-52.
25. Ergüder, Ü. (1980). Changing patterns of electoral behavior in Turkey. Boğaziçi University Journal, 8, 45-81.
26. ESHİD (2021). Irkçı saldırılar ve nefret suçları özel bülteni. Eşit haklar için izleme derneği. https://www.esithaklar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Irkci-Saldirilar-ve-Nefret-Suclari-Ozel-Bulteni-2021.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 12.03.2022)
27. Fisunoğlu, A., & Sert, D. Ş. (2019). Refugees and elections: the effects of Syrians on voting behavior in Turkey. International Migration, 57(2), 298-312.
28. Guia, A. (2016). The concept of nativism and anti-immigrant sentiments in Europe. EUI Working Paper MWP 2016/20, https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/43429 (Erişim Tarihi: 22.02.2022)
29. Hervik, P. (2012). Ending tolerance as a solution to incompatibility: The Danish ‘crisis of multiculturalism’. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(2), 211-225.
30. Hooghe, M., & Dassonneville, R. (2018). Explaining the Trump vote: The effect of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 528-534.
31. Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory: A historical review. Social and personality psychology compass, 2(1), 204-222.
32. Kalaycioğlu, E. (1994). Elections and party preferences in Turkey: Changes and continuities in the 1990s. Comparative Political Studies, 27(3), 402-424.
33. Kibris, A. (2011). Funerals and elections: The effects of terrorism on voting behavior in Turkey. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(2), 220-247.
34. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Kurtoglu Eskisar, G. M., & Durmuslar, T. (2021). Responses of far right parties to refugees in hybrid regimes: the case of MHP in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2021.2005557
36. Küçük, M., & Diktepe, B. (2018, 16 Haziran). Meral Akşener: Suriye politikasını değiştireceğim. Hürriyet. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/meral-aksener-suriye-politikasini-degistirecegim-40869030. (Erişim Tarihi: 25.02.2022)
37. Lazarev, E., & Sharma, K. (2017). Brother or burden: An experiment on reducing prejudice toward Syrian refugees in Turkey. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(2), 201-219.
38. Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?. Daedalus, 102(1), 169-190.
39. Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. Cambridge: Polity.
40. Mudde, C. (2010). The Relationship Between Immigration and Nativism in Europe and North America. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
41. Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2018). Studying populism in comparative perspective: Reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative political studies, 51(13), 1667-1693.
42. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
43. Pak, H., & Elitsoy, Z. A. (2020). Socioeconomic conflict between host community and Syrian refugees in urban Turkey: The mediating role of political trust. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 40(2), 579-597.
44. Pappas, T. S. (2016). The specter haunting Europe: Distinguishing liberal democracy's challengers. Journal of democracy, 27(4), 22-36.
45. Rooduijn, M. (2018). What unites the voter bases of populist parties? Comparing the electorates of 15 populist parties. European Political Science Review, 10(3), 351-368.
46. Sert, D. Ş., & Danış, D. (2021). Framing Syrians in Turkey: State control and no crisis discourse. International Migration, 59(1), 197-214.
47. Smeekes, A., & Verkuyten, M. (2015). The presence of the past: Identity continuity and group dynamics. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 162-202.
48. Tajfel, H. (1982). Introduction. İçinde H. Tajfel (Ed.) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Taşdemir, F. (2019, 16 Aralık). İYİ Parti genel başkanı Akşener, 'Suriyelilerin dönüşlerini sağlayacak üç aşamalı planı' açıkladı. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/politika/iyi-parti-genel-baskani-aksener-suriyelilerin-donuslerini-saglayacak-uc-asamali-plani-acikladi/1675311. (Erişim Tarihi: 02.02.2022)
50. UNHCR (2022, February). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Refugee agency fact sheet. https://www.unhcr.org/tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2022/03/UNHCR-Turkey-Factsheet-February-2022.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 19.02.2022)
51. Üstubici, A., Kirişçioğlu, E., & Elçi, E. (2021). Migration and development: measuring migration aspirations and the impact of refugee assistance in Turkey. ADMIGOV Deliverable, 6. https://admigov.eu/upload/Deliverable_61_Ustubici_Kiriscioglu_Elci_2021_Aspirations_Turkey.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 11.02.2022)
52. Ümit Özdağ: 10 milyon imzayı TBMM'ye teslim edeceğiz. (2021, 20 Kasım) Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/siyaset/umit-ozdag-10-milyon-imzayi-tbmmye-teslim-edecegiz-1886309. (Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2022)
53. Van Spanje, J. (2011). The wrong and the right: A comparative analysis of ‘anti-immigration’ and ‘far right’ parties. Government and Opposition, 46(3), 293-320.
54. Yagci, A., & Oyvat, C. (2018). Economic voting and media influence in a competitive authoritarian setting: Evidence from Turkey. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3295038 (Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2022)
55. Yanasmayan, Z., Üstübici, A., & Kasli, Z. (2019). Under the shadow of civilizationist populist discourses. New Diversities, 21(2), 37-51.
56. Yitmen, Ş., & Verkuyten, M. (2020). Support to Syrian refugees in Turkey: The roles of descriptive and injunctive norms, threat, and negative emotions. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(3), 293-301.
57. Yitmen, Ş., & Verkuyten, M. (2018). Positive and negative behavioural intentions towards refugees in Turkey: The roles of national identification, threat, and humanitarian concern. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 28(4), 230-243.