Freedom House ve Metodolojisi Üzerine Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme: Demokrasinin Araçsallaştırılması

Yıl 2024, , 171 - 191, 20.03.2024

Omer Taylan

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1237927

Öz

Merkezî Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin (ABD’nin) Washington eyaletinde bulunan ve uluslararası bir düşünce kuruluşu olan Freedom House, ülkelerin demokrasi düzeyini ölçmede kendine özgü bir metod kullanarak ve İnsan Hakları Evrensel Beyannamesini referans alarak devletlerin demokratik durumlarını etkin bir şekilde izlediğini ve özgürlüğün gelişimine katkı sunduğunu iddia etmektedir. Söz konusu iddiadan hareketle çalışma, Freedom House’un demokrasiyi ölçerken nasıl bir metod ve puanlama yöntemi kullandığını ve ABD’nin Freedom House aracılığıyla nasıl bir hegemonya kurguladığını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Böylelikle Freedom House’a salt bir bilgi kaynağı olarak yaklaşmak yerine, onun nasıl bir politik ve ideolojik arka plana sahip olduğu eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla irdelenecektir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Freedom House, ABD, Demokrasi, Hegemonya, Freedom House, ABD, Demokrasi, Hegemonya

Kaynakça

• Abelson, D. E. (2002). Think thanks and U.S. foreign policy: An historical perspective, An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State, 7(3), 9-12.
• Adcock, R. and D. Collier (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research, The American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529-546.
• Archibugi, D. (2006). Can democracy be exported https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democracy_exported_4052jsp/, Erişim tarihi 12.08.2021.
• Armstrong II, D. A. (2011). Stability and change in the freedom house political rights and civil liberties measures, Journal of Peace Research, 48(5), 653-662.
• Aslan, S. (2010). Sivil toplum ve demokrasi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 357-374.
• Banks, A. S. (1963). Cross-polity time-series data, Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Becker, L. B. and T. Vlad (2015). Methodological issues in measuring media freedom in a global context, (Presented to the International Communication Association, Puerto Rico), 1-36.
• Boese, Vanessa A., (2019). How (not) to measure democracy. International Area Studies Review, 22(2), 95–127.
• Bollen, Kenneth A. (1993). Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1207-1230.
• Bollen, Kenneth A., (1980). Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review, 45(3), 370-390.
• Bollen, Kenneth A., and Pamela Paxton (2000). Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 33(1), 58–86.
• Bozbaş, Gökhan (2017). Batı’nın demokrasi paradoksu, ‘demokratik darbe’ kavramsallaştırması ve 15 temmuz darbe kalkışması. Bengül Güngörmez ve Mahmut Hakkı Akın (Ed.). Akademinin Gözünden 15 Temmuz ‘Darbe Taammüden Öldürür’ İçinde, Ankara: Kadim Yayınları.
• Bradley, C. G. (2015). International organizations and the production of ındicators: The case of freedom house. Sally Engle Merry, Kevin E. Davis, Benedict Kingsbury (Ed.). The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law, (ss. 27-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Brogi, Elda and Pier Luigi Parcu (2018). “A comparison of a new ındex based on the media pluralism monitor with some other indices ranking freedom of expression. European University Institute, 1-18.
• Coppedge, Michael ve diğerleri (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. in Perspectives on Politics 9(2), 247-267.
• Çiçek, Ali (2021). Türk dünyasında demokrasi: İndekslerin karşılaştırılması. Haluk Cömertoğlu (Ed.). Al Farabi 10th International Conference on Social Sciences Prooceding Book, 505-514, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357811934_TURK_DUNYASINDA_DEMOKRASI_INDEKSLERIN_KARSILASTIRILMASI, erişim tarihi 15.10.2022.
• Davis, Kevin E., Benedict Kingsbury, and Sally Engle Merry (2015). Introduction: The local-global life of indicators: law, power, and resistance. Sally Engle Merry, Kevin E. Davis, Benedict Kingsbury (Ed.). The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law In, (s. 1-26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Denk, Thomas (2013). How to measure polyarchy with freedom house: a proposal for revision. Quality & Quantity International Journal of Methodology, 47(6), 3457-3471.
• Doğanay, Muharrem Akın (2019). Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde kurumlar ve ekonomik büyüme: Dinamik panel veri analizi. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Trabzon, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
• Ertugay, Fatih (2006). “Medeniyetin inşasında ‘epistemik topluluklar’-üstünlük iddiası ve sömürü ilişkisi: Antik Yunan üzerinden bir değerlendirme”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1), 27-43.
• Eshima, Nobuoki (2022). An introduction to latent class analysis: methods and applications. Singapore.
• Finkel, Steven E., Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, and Mitchell A. Seligson (2007). The effects of u.s. foreign assistance steven on democracy building, 1990–2003. World Politics, 59(3), 404-438.
• Freedom House (2010). Freedom in the World 2010, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2011). Freedom in the World 2011, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2012). Freedom in the World 2012, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2013). Freedom in the World 2013, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2014). Freedom in the World 2014, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2015). Freedom in the World 2015, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2016). Freedom in the World 2016, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2017). Freedom in the World 2017, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2018). Freedom in the World 2018, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2019). Freedom in the World 2019, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2020). Freedom in the World 2020, USA: Washington.
• Freedom House (2021). Freedom in the world research methodology. https://freedomhouse.org/reports/freedom-world/freedom-world-research-methodology, Erişim tarihi 12.01.2021.
• Freedom House Inc. (2023). https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131656647 (Erişim tarihi 7.12.2023).
• Gastil, Raymond D., (1978). Freedom in the world: political rights and civil liberties, 1978. New York: Freedom House.
• Gastil, Raymond D., (1990). “The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 25(1), 25-50.
• Geissel, Brigitte, Marianne Kneuer and Hans-Joachim Lauth (2016). “Measuring the quality of democracy: introduction”. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 571–579.
• Giannone, Diego (2010). Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the freedom house case. Democratization, 17(1), 68-97.
• Gramsci, Antonio (1992). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
• Guilhot, Nicolas (2005). The democracy makers: Human rights and international order. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Haass, Richard N., (2002) “Think tanks and u.s. foreign policy: a policy–maker’s perspective. https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/15506.htm, (Erişim tarihi 02.08.2020).
• Herman Edward S., ve Noam Chomsky (2012). Rızanın imalatı: kitle medyasının ekonomi politiği, (Çev. Ender Abadoğlu), 2. Baskı, İstanbul: bgst Yayınları.
• Holtz-Bacha, Christina (2004). “What is ‘good’ press freedom? the difficulty of measuring freedom of the press worldwide. International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), 1-15.
• Högström, John (2013). “Does the choice of democracy measure matter? Comparisons between the two leading democracy indices, Freedom House and Polity IV”. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 201221.
• Joya, Angela, (2018). The military and the state in egypt: Class formation in the post-arab uprisings. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1-21.
• Lagon, Mark P., (2015). U.S. Interests in Human Rights: Leveraging Prudent Policy Tools. Written Testimony by Mark P. Lagon.
• Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
• Mainwaring, Scott, Daniel Brinks and Aníbal Pérez-Linán (2001). Classifying political regimes in latin america, 1945–1999. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 37-65.
• Munck, Gerardo L., and Jay Verkuilen (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34.
• Parenti, Michael (2002). İmparatorluğa hayır: Abd’nin küresel hegemonyasının içyüzü, (Çev.Serpil Demirci ve İbrahim Yıldız), Ankara: Ütopya Yayınları.
• Puddington, Arch (2013). Freedom in the world 2013: democratic breakthroughs in the balance, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW%202013%20Booklet%20-%20for%20Web_0.pdf, Erişim Tarihi 18.12.2018.
• Robinson, William I. (1996). Promoting polyarchy: Globalization, U.S. intervention, and hegemony. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Rummel, R. J. (1967). Understanding factor analysis. Conflict Resolution, 11(4), 444-480.
• Schneider, Laura (2014). Media freedom ındices-what they tell us-and what they don’t, Deutsche Welle Akademie.
• Scobie, Harry M. and Wiseberg, Lauire S., (1981). Problems of comparative research on human rights. Ved P. Nanda, James R. Scarritt, and George W. Shepherd (Ed.). Global human rights: public policies, comparative measures, and ngo strategies In, (s. 147–171), Boulder: Westview Press.
• Silver, Marc (2016). You can have our millions — But first you must pass our test. NPR.
• Steiner, Nils D., (2016). Comparing freedom house democracy scores to alternative indices and testing for political bias: are us allies rate as more democratic by freedom house? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 18(4), 329-349.
• Tsygankov, Andrei P. and David Parker (2015). The securitization of democracy: freedom house ratings of russia. European Security, 24(1), 77-100.
• Zerndt, Emily A., (2016). The House that Propaganda Built: Historicizing the Democracy Promotion Efforts and Measurement Tools of Freedom House. For the Degree of Doctor of Political Science Western Michigan University.