Seçim Sonuçlarını Sentetik Bir Modelle Okumak

Öz

Seçimler siyasal partilerin söylemlerinin ve seçmenlerle kurdukları ilişki biçimlerinin yansıması olarak kabul edilmektedir. Literatürde siyasal partilerinin kuramsal temelleri ve yönetilme biçimlerinin irdelendiği çok sayıda araştırma bulunmaktadır. Partilerin başarı düzeyleri çoğunlukla seçim sonuçlarına göre değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışmada seçim sonuçları üzerinden partilerin siyasi yelpazedeki konumları ve birbirleri ile olan ilişkileri irdelenmektedir. Bunun için yerçekimi kuramı, toplumsal ağ analizi ve ilişkisel toplumbilim kuramından yararlanılarak sentetik bir model geliştirilmiş Türkiye genelinde 2002 ve 2007 yıllarında yapılan seçim sonuçları bu model çerçevesinde yorumlanmıştır. Bulgulardan yararlanılarak siyasal biliminde tartışılan “merkezilik” kavramına açılımlar getirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siyasal partiler, ilişkisel konum analizi, yerçekimi kuramı, siyasal seçimler

Reading the Results of the Elections through a Synthetic Model

Abstract

Elections are regarded as principally natural reflection of discourses and communication strategies of political parties. In the literature, there are numbers of studies dealing with theoretical foundations and survival strategies of political parties. Conventionally, performances of political parties are assessed through election results. This study investigates relational locations of political parties in Turkish political spectrum. Specified model is a synthesis of the principles of gravity theory, social network analysis and the theory of relational sociology. Specified model is performed in order to evaluate results of November 2002 and July 2007 general elections of Turkey. Hence, various dimensions of the concept of “centrality” are examined through research findings.

Keywords

• Political parties, relational location analysis, gravity theory, political elections

Kaynakça

1. Alvarez, R. M. & Nagler, J., 2000, “A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections”, British Journal of Political Science , 30 (1), pp. 57–75.
2. Bartle, J. 1998, “LeftRight Position Matters, but Does Social Class? Causal Models of the 1992 British General Election”, British Journal of Political Science , 28 (3), pp. 501–529.
3. Burns, L. D., 1979, Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility, Lexington Books, Lexington.
4. Brown, S., 1989, “Harold Hotelling and the Principle of Minimum Differentiation”, Progress in Human Geography , 13 (4), pp. 471–493.
5. Cox, G. W., 1994, “Strategic Voting Equilibria Under the Single NonTransferable Vote, American Political Science Review , 88, pp. 608–621.
6. Coşar, S. & Özman A., 2004, “Centerright politics in Turkey after the November 2002
7. General Election: Neoliberalism With a Muslim Face”, Contemporary Politics, 10 (1), March, pp. 57–74.
8. Economides, N., 1989, “Quality Variations and Maximal Variety Differentiation”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 19, pp. 21–29.

9. Emirbayer, M., 1997, “Manifest for a Relational Sociology”, The American Journal of Sociology , 103 (2), September, pp. 281–317.
10. Evans, G., Heath, A. & Lalljee, M., 1996, “Measuring LeftRight and LibertarianAuthoritarian Values in the British Electorate”, British Journal of Sociology , 47, pp. 93– 112.
11. Güvenç, M. & Kırmanlıoğlu, H., 2007, “Dondurmacı Problemi”, Radikal 2, 15 Temmuz.
12. Jackman, R. W., 1993, “Rationality and Political Participation”, American Journal of Political Science , 37, pp. 279–290.
13. KONDA Araştırma ve Danışmanlık, 2007 Siyasal Eğilimler Araştırmaları Özet Raporu, [http://www.konda.com.tr], erişim 12.8.2007.
14. Krugman, P. R., 1993, “On the Relationship Between Trade Theory and Location”, Theory Review of International Economics, 1 (2), June, pp. 110–22.
15. Lees, C., 2001, “Coalitions: Beyond the Politics of Centrality?”, German Politics , 10 (2), pp.117–134.
16. Mardin, Ş., 1994, “Türk Siyasasını Açıklayabilecek Bir Anahtar: Merkez Çevre ilişkileri”, içinde Türkiye’de Toplum ve Siyaset, der. Türköne, M. & Önder, T., 4. baskı, İletişim, İstanbul.
17. Mülkiyeliler Birliği, 2007, Seçmen Eğilimleri Araştırması 2007 Genel Seçim Analizi, (Rapor II, Haziran).
18. Oppenheim, N., 1995, Urban Travel Demand Modeling: From Individual Choices to General Equilibrium, Wiley Interscience Publication, New York.
19. Parslow, J., 2007, “Turkish Political Parties and the European Union: How Turkish MPs Frame the Issue of Adapting to EU Conditionality”, ARENA Report No 7/07 [http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/reports/2007/707.pdf], erişim 16.7.2007.
20. Pattie, C. J. & Johnston, R. J., 2001, “Routes to Party Choice: Ideology, Economic Evaluations and Voting at British General Election”, European Journal of British Political Research, 39, pp. 373–389.
21. Reilly, W. J., 1931, The Law of Retail Gravitation , The Knickerbocker Pres, New York.
22. Schmenner, R. W., 1982, Making Business Location Decisions. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New York.
23. Shea, D., 1999, “The Passing of Realighment and the Advent of the “BaseLess” Party System”, American Politics Quarterly , 27 (1), pp. 33–57.
24. Von Thünen, J. H., 1966, The Isolated Space , Oxford.
25. Von Beyme, K., 1985, Political Parties in Western Democracies, Aldershot, Gower.
26. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. Weibull, J. W., 1980, “On the Numerical Measurement of Accessibility”, Environment and Planning A, 12, pp. 53–67.
28. Wilson, A. G., 1974, Urban and Regional Models in Geography and Planning. Chichester, John Wiley.
29. _____, 1980, “Comments on Alonso's ‘Theory of Movement’”, Environment and Planning A, 12 (6), pp. 727–732
30. Williams, H.C.W.L., 1977, “On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit”, Environment and Planning A , 9, pp. 285–234.