Social Representations of Democracy Among Citizens in Türkiye

Öz

Scientific, political, and ideological concepts are perceived and evaluated differently by laypersons compared to the knowledge of experts. When such concepts find a place in daily life, they transform into social representations and integrate into individuals’ discourse and the world of thought. This study focuses on the social representations of the concept of "democracy", which is frequently used in politics. Democracy is addressed from a social psycho logical perspective within the framework of the social representations theory. The research was carried out with the participation of individuals from different demographic characteristics in Istanbul. Semi-structured interview questions on democracy were created due to the literature review and pilot interviews, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 participants with these questions. Fifteen interviews were conducted individually, while the other 15 were conducted as focus group interviews in groups of three. The obtained data were analyzed using the MAXQDA software and the thematic analysis method. As a result of the analysis, 11 main themes and 33 sub themes were revealed. Three basic social representations of democracy were identified through these themes: “democracy as a system based on liberal values,” “democracy as a disadvantaged system,” and “democracy as an impossible system.” Representation based on liberal values views democracy as a system dominated by freedom, equality, justice, and individual rights. Disadvantaged system representation sees democracy as a structure open to abuse and, therefore, problematic. Impossible system representation defines democracy as a utopia contrary to human nature and cannot be applied in real life. The results have shown that individuals’ views on democracy, while sharing some similarities with scientific knowledge, are shaped based on practical experiences. These findings are consistent with the predictions of the social representations theory and reveal that the social reality of democracy is constructed in a multifaceted structure. At the same time, they have similarities and differences with the results of other studies in the literature examining the social representations of democracy and how laypersons conceptualize democracy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Democracy
• social representations
• laypeople
• everyday knowledge
• qualitative analysis

Türkiye’deki Vatandaşların Demokrasiye İlişkin Sosyal Temsilleri

Öz

Bilimsel, politik ve ideolojik kavramlar, uzmanların bilgisine kıyasla sıradan insanlar tarafından farklı şekillerde algılanır ve değerlendirilir. Bu tür kavramlar günlük hayatta yer bulduğunda sosyal temsillere dönüşerek bireylerin söylem ve düşünce dünyasına entegre olur. Bu çalışmanın odağında, politika alanında sıkça kullanılan "demokrasi" kavramının sosyal temsilleri yer almıştır. Demokrasi, sosyal temsiller kuramı çerçevesinde sosyal psikolojik bir bakış açısıyla ele alınmıştır. Araştırma, İstanbul’dan farklı demografik özelliklere sahip bireylerin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Demokrasiye dair yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları, alanyazın taraması ve pilot görüşmeler sonucunda oluşturulmuş, bu sorularla toplamda 30 katılımcıyla derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Bu görüşmelerin 15’i bireysel, diğer 15’i ise üç kişilik gruplar hâlinde odak grup görüşmeleri şeklinde yürütülmüştür. Elde edilen veriler, tematik analiz yöntemiyle MAXQDA yazılımında analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda 11 ana tema ve 33 alt tema ortaya çıkarılmış; bu temalar üzerinden demokrasinin üç temel sosyal temsili belirlenmiştir: “Liberal değerlere dayalı bir sistem olarak demokrasi,” “dezavantajlı bir sistem olarak demokrasi” ve “mümkün olmayan bir sistem olarak demokrasi.” Liberal değerlere dayalı demokrasi temsilinde, demokrasi özgürlük, eşitlik, adalet ve bireysel haklar gibi değerlerin üzerine kurulu bir sistemi ifade etmektedir. Dezavantajlı sistem temsili, demokrasiyi kötüye kullanıma açık, dolayısıyla sorunlu bir yapı olarak görmektedir. Mümkün olmayan sistem temsili ise demokrasiyi, insan doğasına aykırı ve gerçek hayatta uygulanamaz bir ütopya olarak tanımlamaktadır. Sonuçlar, bireylerin demokrasiye ilişkin görüşlerinin, bilimsel bilgilerle bazı benzerlikler taşımakla birlikte, pratik deneyimlere dayalı olarak şekillendiğini göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, sosyal temsiller kuramının öngörüleriyle uyumlu olup demokrasiye ilişkin sosyal gerçekliğin çok yönlü bir yapıda inşa edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Aynı zamanda, alanyazında demokrasinin sosyal temsillerini ve demokrasinin sıradan insanlar tarafından nasıl kavramsallaştırıldığını inceleyen diğer çalışmaların sonuçlarıyla da benzerlikler ve farklılıklar taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Demokrasi
• sosyal temsiller
• sıradan insan
• gündelik bilgi
• nitel analiz

Kaynakça

1. Akboğa, S., & Şahin, O. (2018). Türkiye’de demokrasi algıları: Cinsiyet, etnik ve dini dinamikler. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 57, 1-28. DOI: 10.26650/JECS356672 google scholar
2. Alacapınar, F. G. (2020). Üniversite öğrencilerinin demokrasi konusundaki değerleri. Pearson Journal, 5(5), 117-131. DOI: 10.46872/pj.26 google scholar
3. Amnesty International. (2018). Turkey: Crackdown on civil society continues with full force despite end of the state of emergency (Amnesty International Public Statement EUR 44/9419/2018). Retrieved March 15, 2025, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/ europe-and-central-asia/turkey/ google scholar
4. Arensmeier, C. (2010). The democratic common sense: Young Swedes’ understanding of democracy—theoretical features and educa-tional incentives. Young, 18(2), 197-222. DOI: 10.1177/110330881001800205 google scholar
5. Baviskar, S., & Malone, M. F. T. (2004). What democracy means to citizens and why it matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, 76, 3–23. DOI: 10.18352/erlacs.9682 google scholar
6. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd Ed.). Allyn & Bacon. google scholar
7. Bratton, M., & Mattes, R. B. (2001a). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental. British Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 447-474. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123401000175 google scholar
8. Bratton, M., & Mattes, R. B. (2001b). How people view democracy: Africans’ surprising universalism. Journal of Democracy, 12, 107–121. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2001.0002 google scholar

9. Bratton, M., Mattes, R. B., & Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2005). Public opinion, democracy, and market reform in Africa. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa google scholar
11. Canache, D. (2012). Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political signifi-cance. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1132–1158. google scholar
12. Canache, D., Mondak, J. J., & Seligson, M. A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4), 506-528. DOI: 10.1086/323576 google scholar
13. Caprara, G. V. (2022). Democracy as a moral challenge. In Weinberg, A. (Ed.), Psychology of democracy: Of the people, by the people, for the people (pp. 307-331). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
14. Condor, S. (1997). ‘And so say all of us?’: Some thoughts on ‘experiential democratization’ as an aim for critical social psychologists. In T. Ibanez & L. Iniguez (Eds.), Critical social psychology (pp. 111–146). Sage. google scholar
15. Çelikadam, C., & Cesur, S. (2023). Demokrasinin gündelik kavramsallaştırması: Keşifsel bir inceleme. 4. Boyut Journal of Media and Cultural Studies - 4. Boyut Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, 22, 1–19. DOI: 10.26650/4boyut.2023.1257609 google scholar
16. Çelikadam, C. (in press). Themes of democracy in everyday knowledge. Kalem Eğitim ve İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi. google scholar
17. Çimen, H., & Bakan, S. (2019). Türkiye’de demokrasinin gelişim süreci bakımından dönemsel kritiği. Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 121-156. DOI: 10.20493/birtop.541803 google scholar
18. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K., & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107. google scholar
19. Dewey, J. (2000). Democracy and education. Free Press. google scholar
20. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press. google scholar
21. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press. google scholar
22. Dahl, R. A. (2001). On democracy (6th ed., B. Kadıoğlu, Trans.). Phoenix Yayınları. (Original work published 1998) google scholar
23. Dalton, R. J., Shin, D. C., & Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156 google scholar
24. Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (2008). How people view democracy. John Hopkins University Press. google scholar
25. Ertugay, F. (2022). Türkiye'de politik kutuplaşmanın tarihsel kökenleri/kolektif hafıza. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 55(2), 27-62. google scholar
26. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.) Sage. google scholar
27. Flick, U., & Foster, J. L. H. (2008). Social representations. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 195–214). Sage. google scholar
28. Flick, U., Foster, J., & Caillaud, S. (2015). Researching social representations. In G. Sammut, E. Andreouli, G. Gaskell, & J. Valsiner (Eds.) The google scholar
29. Cambridge handbook of social representations (pp. 64-80). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
30. Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Turkey. Retrieved March 15, 2025, from https://freedomhouse.org google scholar
31. Forgas, J. P., & Lantos, D. (2020). Understanding populism: Collective narcissism and the collapse of democracy in Hungary. In J. P. Forgas, W. D. Crano, & K. Fiedler (Eds.) Applications of social psychology (pp. 267-291). Routledge. google scholar
32. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
33. Kaufmann, N., & Stadelmaier, U. (2020). Measuring meanings of democracy—methods of differentiation. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 14, 401-423. DOI:10.1007/s12286-020-00461-6 google scholar
34. Kemahlıoğlu, Ö., & Keyman, F. (2011). Türkiye’de demokrasi algısı. Istanbul Policy Center google scholar
35. Keyman, E. F. (2013). Türkiye’de demokrasinin sorunları. In N. Boztekin (Ed.), Demokrasi ve siyasal katılım (pp. 32-38). Heinrich Böll Stiftung Derneği Türkiye Temsilciliği. google scholar
36. Keyman, E. F., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2014). Democracy, identity, and foreign policy in Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
37. Magioglou, T. (2008). The creative dimension of lay thinking in the case of the representation of democracy for Greek youth. Culture & Psychology, 14(4), 442-466. DOI: 10.1177/1354067X08096510 google scholar
38. Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
39. Marková, I. (2023). The making of a dialogical theory: Social representations and communication. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
40. Moghaddam, F. M. (2018). The road to actualized democracy: A psychological exploration. In B. Wagoner, I. Bresco de Luna, & V. Glaveanu google scholar
41. (Eds.), The road to actualized democracy: A psychological exploration (pp. 3-23). Information Age Publishing. google scholar
42. Montiel, C., & Wessells, M. (2001). Democratization, psychology and the construction of cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of google scholar
43. Peace Psychology, 7(2), 119-129. DOI: 10.1207/S15327949PAC0702_03 google scholar
44. Moscovici, S. (1961/2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public (D., Macey, trans.). Polity Press. google scholar
45. Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 181– 210). Academic Press. google scholar
46. Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
47. Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211-250. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180303 google scholar
48. Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations. Explorations in social psychology. Polity Press. google scholar
49. Moodie, E. (2005). Different meanings of democracy in post-communist Europe [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Stirling. google scholar
50. Moodie, E., Markova, I., & Plichtova, J. (1995). Lay representations of democracy: A study in two cultures. Culture and Psychology, 1, 423-453. DOI: 10.1177/1354067X9514002 google scholar
51. Özbudun, E. (2000). Contemporary Turkish politics: Challenges to democratic consolidation. Lynne Rienner Publishers. google scholar
52. Paker, K. O. (2000). Üniversite gençleri arasında modernliğin ve laikliğin sosyal temsilleri [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
53. Rawls, J. (2017). A theory of justice. In May, L., & Sharratt, S. C. (Eds.), Applied ethics (pp. 21-29). Routledge. google scholar
54. Sartori, G. (1993). Demokrasi teorisine geri dönüş (T. Karamustafaoğlu & M. Turhan, Trans.). Türk Demokrasi Vakfı Yayınları. (Original work published 1987) google scholar
55. Schedler, A., & Sarsfield, R. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 637–659. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00708.x google scholar
56. Shin, D. C., Dalton, R. J., & Jou, W. (2007). Popular conceptions of democracy. Political Concepts Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series, (15). Retrieved March 15, 2025, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2j74b860 google scholar
57. Sen, A. K. (1999). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3–17. DOI: 10.1353/jod.1999.0055 google scholar
58. Tessler, M., Jamal, A., & Robinson, M. (2012). New findings on Arabs and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 23(4), 89–103. DOI: 10.1353/ jod.2012.0066 google scholar
59. Tilly, C. (2011). Demokrasi (E. Arıcan, Trans.). Phoenix Yayınları. (Original work published 2007). google scholar
60. Topakkaya, A., & Şahin, B. Ö. (2015). Sakıncalı rejim demokrasi: Platon-Aristoteles örneği. FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 191-210. google scholar
61. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık. google scholar