Temsili Demokrasi ve Temsil Kavramı: Meşrulaştırıcı mı Yoksa Kontrol Edici Bir İşleve mi Sahip?

Öz

Temsili demokrasi düşüncesi, yirminci yüzyıl boyunca etkili ve nispeten baskın bir demokrasi anlayışı olmuştur. Bu nedenle; temsili demokrasi, onun kurumları ve şu karar alma prosedürlerine odaklanan ve giderek gelişen bir akademik literatür oluşmuştur: seçimler, oy verme ve temsilcilerin rolleri ve işlevleri.Özellikle temsili demokrasinin işlevleri ele alındıında, Jonathan Macey, demokrasinin “hükümeti meşrulaştırmaya mı yoksa denetlemeye mi” hizmet etmesi gerektiği konusunda hayati bir soru sorar. Bu çalışma, hem temsil kavramını hem de akademik literatürde sıklıkla atıf yapılan temsili demokrasi tanım ve anlayışlarını inceleyerek bu soruya yanıt vermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu inceleme, demokrasinin normatif ve kurumsal olmak üzere iki boyutu olduğu bakış açısıyla yapılmıştır. İnceleme sonucunda, sıkça atıfta bulunulan temsil ve temsili demokrasi kavramına yönelik bazı yaklaşımların demokrasiyi meşrulaştırıcı bir faktör olarak gördüğünü, bazılarının ise demokrasinin bir denetleme işlevine sahip olduğunu savunduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Demokrasinin meşrulaştırıcı işlevi, herhangi bir (temsili) demokrasi anlayışında yerleşik olarak bulunabilecek ve bu anlayışlar tarafından ortak olarak paylaşılabilcek tarafsız bir niteliğe sahipken, denetleme işlevi daha çok normatif bir niteliğe sahip liberal bir içerik taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Temsil
• temsili demokrasi
• liberalizm

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE CONCEPT OF REPRESENTATION: DO THEY HAVE A LEGITIMIZING OR CHECKING FUNCTION?

Öz

The notion of representative democracy has been an influential and relatively dominant understanding of democracy throughout the twentieth century. A growing body of scholarly literature has therefore emerged focusing on representative democracy, its institutions, and the following decision-making procedures: elections, voting, and the roles and functions of representatives. Given especially the functions of representative democracy, Jonathan R. Macey raises a crucial question of whether democracy should “serve either to legitimize or to check government”. This study aims to answer this question by examining both the concept of representation and the oft-cited definitions and understandings of representative democracy in the scholarly literature. This examination is undertaken with the perspective that democracy has two dimensions: normative and institutional dimensions. As a result of the examination, it has been revealed that while some oft-cited perspectives on the concept of representation and representative democracy regard democracy as a legitimizing factor, some regard that it has a checking function. While the legitimizing function of democracy stands as a more neutral attribution embedded in and can be shared by any understanding of (representative) democracy, the checking function has a liberal content with a normative quality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Representation
• Representative Democracy
• Liberalism.

Kaynakça

1. Alkan, Y. S. (2015). Facilitative Secularism: The Place Of Religious Arguments In Public Political Debate (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Leicester.
2. Alkan, Y. S. (2020). Demokrasi ve Siyasal Katılımın Değeri: Doğrudan ve Temsili Demokrasi Üzerine Güncel Tartışmalar [Democracy and the Value of Political Participation: Recent Debates on Direct and Representative Democracy]. In T. Şener (Ed.), Siyaset, Medya ve Seçmen [Politics, Media, and Elector] (ss. 31-44). Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
3. Aydemir, N. and Vliegenthart,R. (2015). “Minority Representatives” in the Netherlands: Supporting, Silencing or Suppressing? Parliamentary Affairs, 69(1), 1-20.
4. Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1980). Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy. American Sociological Review, 45(3), 370-390.
6. Crick, B. (2002). Democracy: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
8. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

9. Dahl, R. A. (1982). Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critiques. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11. Dalton, R. J., Burklin W. P. and Drummond, A. (2001). Public Opinion and Direct Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 12(4), 141-153.
12. de Schweinitz, K. (1964), Industrialization And Democracy. New York: Free Press.
13. Diamond, L. J. (1990). Three Paradoxes of Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 1(3), 48-60.
14. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
15. Lon L Fuller (1969). The Morality of Law. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
16. Gagnon, J. P. (2009). The Element of Democracy: A Theory and Definition of Democracy Implications for the MDGS. Meeting the Millennium Development Goals: Old Problems, New Challenges Conference, Melbourne, 30 November – 1 December 2009. https://iuristebi.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-element-of-democracy-a-theory-and-definition-of-democracy.pdf
17. Hay, W. A. (2006). What is Democracy? Liberal Institutions and Stability in Changing Societies. Orbis, 50(1), 133-151.
18. Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Cambridge and Malden: Polity.
19. Jeong, H. W. (2005). Peacebuilding in Postconflict Societies: Strategy and Process. Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
20. Kelsen, H. (1955). Foundations of Democracy. Ethics, 66(1), 1-101.
21. Knopff, R. (1998). Populism and the Politics of Rights: The Dual Attack on Representative Democracy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 683-705.
22. Lenski, G. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.
23. Linz, J. J. and Stepan A. C. (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, M. D.: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
24. Lipset, S. M. (1963). Political Man. New York: Anchor Books.
25. Macey, J. (1993). Representative Democracy. Harvard Journal of Law, 16(1), 49-54.
26. Ober, J. (2008). The Original Meaning of “Democracy”: Capacity to Do Things, Not Majority Rule. Constellations, 15(1), 3-9.
27. Paul, E. F., Miller, F. D. and Paul, J. (Eds.) (2000). Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Phillips, A. (1995). The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
29. Phillips, A. (2012). Representation and Inclusion. Politics & Gender, 8(4), 512–518.
30. Pickles, D. (1970). Democracy. London: BT Batsford Ltd.
31. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University Of California Press.
32. Pitkin, H. F. (2004). Representation and Democracy: Uneasy Alliance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(3), 335-342.
33. Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., and Jones, W. S. (2003). Political Science: An Introduction. Essex: Prentice Hall.
34. Ringen, S. (2007). What Democracy is for. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
35. Saward, M. (2003). Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press 2003.
36. Schmitter, P. C. and Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy is…and is not. Journal Of Democracy, 2(3), 75-88.
37. Schumpeter, J. A. (1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allen and Unwin.
38. Stepan, A. C. (2000). Religion, Democracy, and the “Twin Tolerations”. Journal of Democracy, 11(4), 37-57.
39. Weale, A. (2007). Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.