REVISITING STRUCTURAL AND AGENTIAL APPROACHES TO DEMOCRATISATION IN THE AGE OF INTERNETISATION AND CYBERISATION

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 411 - 433

Burak Başkan

Öz

Humanity’s long-standing challenge to exist freely under authoritarian regimes and its pursuit of democratisation are two enduring themes. The resurgence of populist authoritarianism in recent years has elevated the discourse on democratisation to the forefront of political discourse. The transformative advancements in internet technology and the subsequent cyberisation process have redefined the spectrum of possibilities for structures and agencies in the realm of political contention, profoundly altering the dynamics of the structure-agency relationship. In light of these developments, this study aims to reconsider the theories of democratisation. In order to achieve this, the principal theories that seek to elucidate the processes of democratisation in a range of geographical contexts have been presented and subjected to further analysis in the context of the internetisation and cyberisation processes that began to emerge in the 2000s. In this context, the evolving nature of democratisation demands have been initially interrogated, and subsequently, the counter-moves of authoritarian regimes within this equation have been examined. Furthermore, this study adopts a normative stance against populist authoritarianism and espouses the values of democracy. The cyber world, as an alternative to the physical world, provides actors with the capacity to act independently of spatial and temporal constraints, enabling the pursuit of social opposition beyond the confines of the physical public sphere and beyond the reach of authoritarian regime control. Thus, efforts to democratise authoritarian regimes gain ground on the Internet due to the ability to shape public opinion and organise effectively. Authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, seek to stifle democratic movements by employing censorship, algorithmic manipulation, and the exploitation of public discourse through the use of troll armies and bot accounts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Democratisation, Structure, Agency, Internetisation, Cyberisation

İNTERNETİZASYON VE SİBERİZASYON ÇAĞINDA DEMOKRATİKLEŞMEYE YÖNELİK YAPISAL VE FAİL TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIMLARIN YENİDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

İnsanlığın otoriter rejimlerde özgürce var olma mücadelesinin ve demokratikleşme taleplerinin tarihi çok eskilere uzanmaktadır. Popülist otoriterliğin son yıllardaki yükselişi ise demokratikleşme konusundaki tartışmaları yeniden gündemin üst sıralarına taşımıştır. İnternet teknolojisindeki çığır açıcı gelişmeler ve bunların bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan siberizasyon süreci ise yapıların ve aktörlerin siyasi mücadele anlamındaki imkanlar setini yeniden belirlemiş ve yapı-fail ilişkisinin dinamiklerini kökten değiştirmiştir. Söz konusu gelişmeler ışığında bu çalışma, demokratikleşme teorilerini yeniden ele alma amacı taşımaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çeşitli coğrafyalardaki demokratikleşme süreçlerini açıklamaya girişen başlıca teoriler ortaya konmuş ve söz konusu teoriler 2000’lerle birlikte ortaya çıkan internetizasyon ve siberizasyon süreci ışığında yeniden tartışmaya açılmıştır. Bu çerçevede önce demokratikleşme taleplerinin değişen doğası sorgulanmış, sonrasında ise otoriter rejimlerim bu denklemdeki karşı hamleleri inceleme konusu yapılmıştır. Ayrıca bu çalışma normatif anlamda popülist otoriterliğin karşısında ve demokratik değerlerin yanında pozisyon almaktadır. Fiziksel dünyaya alternatif bir biçimde ortaya çıkan siber dünya, faillere mekândan ve zamandan bağımsız eylemde bulunabilme yeteneği kazandırmış, toplumsal muhalefetin otoriter rejimlerin denetimindeki fiziksel kamusal alanın dışında da yürütülebilmesine olanak tanımıştır. Böylece otoriter rejimlerdeki demokratikleşme mücadeleleri gerek kamuoyu oluşturabilme gerekse örgütlenebilme avantajı sayesinde siber alanda yürütülebilir hale gelmiştir. Diğer taraftan otoriter rejimler ise siber alanda sansürler uygulayarak, algoritmik müdahalelerde bulunarak ve trol orduları ile bot hesaplar vasıtasıyla kamusal tartışmayı manipüle ederek demokratikleşme mücadelelerine karşı hamleler geliştirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Demokratikleşme, Yapı, Fail, İnternetizasyon, Siberizasyon

Kaynakça

• Addawood, A., Badawy, A., Lerman, K. & Ferrara, E. (2019). Linguistic cues to deception: Identifying political trolls on social media. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 13(01), 15-25. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3205
• Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069211
• Ajagbe, S. (2016). Aligning the two main approaches to the study of democratization. Transcience, 7(1), 83-99. Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. London: Sage.
• Amalinda, F. R. & Nugrahani, H. S. D. (2024). The influence of artificial intelligence in development of far right in Europe. International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences, 5(3), 470–475. doi:10.51601/ijersc.v5i3.842
• Arat, Z. F. (1988). Democracy and economic development: Modernization theory revisited. Comparative Politics, 21(1), 21-36.
• Archer, M. & Elder-Vass, D. (2012). Cultural system or norm circles?. European Journal of Social Theory, 15(1), 93-115. doi:10.1177/136843101142359
• Baker, G. (1999). The taming of the idea of civil society. Democratization, 6(3), 1-29.
• Başkan, B. (2024). Do social media undermine structures? Rethinking the structure-agency debate. Eurasian Research Journal, 6(4), 7-27. doi:10.53277/2519-2442-2024.4-01
• Bratton, M. & van de Walle, N. (1997). Democratic experiments in Africa: Regime transitions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bryant, L. V. (2020). The YouTube algorithm and the alt-right filter bubble. Open Information Science, 4(1), 85-90. doi:10.1515/opis-2020-0007
• Bunce, V. (2003). Rethinking recent democratization: Lessons from the post-communist experience. World Politics, 55(2), 167-192.
• Burton, M., Gunther, R. & Higley, J. (1992). Introduction: Elite transformations and democratic regimes. In J. Higley & R. Gunther (Eds.), Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe (pp. 1-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cabañes, J. V. A. & Cornelio, J. S. (2017). The rise of trolls in the Philippines (and what we can do about it). In N. Curato (Ed), A Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on the Early Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte (pp. 233-252). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
• Carlsnaes, W. (1992). The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis. International Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 245–270. doi:10.2307/2600772
• Chattu, V. K., Bani-Fatemi, A., Howe, A. & Nowrouzi-Kia, B. (2023). Exploring the impact of labour mobility on the mental health and wellbeing of skilled trades workers in Ontario, Canada. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(8), 1441-1451. doi:10.3390/ejihpe13080105
• Chaudoin, S. (2023). How international organizations change national media coverage of human rights. International Organization, 77(1), 238-261. doi:10.1017/S0020818322000273
• Chen, L., Zhang, C. & Wilson, C. (2013). Tweeting under pressure: Analyzing trending topics and evolving word choice on Sina Weibo. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Online Social Networks (pp. 89–100).
• Chen, X., Xie, J., Wang, Z., Shen, B. & Zhou, Z. (2023). How we express ourselves freely: Censorship, self-censorship, and anti-censorship on a Chinese social media. In: I. Sserwanga et al. (Eds.), Information for a Better World: Normality, Virtuality, Physicality, Inclusivity. iConference 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13972. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28032-0_8
• Cortell, A. P. & Davis Jr., J. W. (2000). Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: A research agenda. International Studies Review, 2, 65-87. doi:10.1111/1521-9488.00184
• de Bruijn, M. (2014). Connecting in mobile communities: An African case study. Media, Culture & Society, 36(3), 319-335. doi:10.1177/0163443714521088
• de Vera, J. A. & Vergara, J. P. (2024). The impact of Russian troll tweets: Analyzing political motivation in tweets from the internet research agency. Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(4), 672-678. doi:10.52783/jes.2085 Dunn, T. M. (2013). The failings of liberal modernisation theory. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/39716
• Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures emergence, structure and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• European Commission. (1993). Accession criteria (Copenhagen Criteria). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/accession-criteria-copenhagen-criteria.html
• Garrard, J. (2002). Democratisation in Britain elites, civil society and reform since 1800. London: Red Globe Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4039-1938-0
• Geddes, B. (2007). What causes democratization?. In C. Boix & S. C. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (pp. 317-339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gerschewski, J. & Dukalskis, A. (2018). How the internet can reinforce authoritarian regimes: The case of North Korea. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 19(1), 12–19. doi:10.1353/gia.2018.0002
• Grugel, J. (2002). Democratization: A critical introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Grugel, J. & Bishop, M. L. (2014). Democratization: A critical introduction (2nd Ed.). London: Red Globe Press.
• Hadenius, A. (1992). Democracy and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hajrullahu, A. (2011). The missing ‘functional elite’ and the challenge of democratization. In by N. Hayoz, L. Jesien & D. Koleva (Eds.) 20 Years after the Collapse of Communism: Expectations, achievements and disillusions of 1989 (pp. 167-176). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Hay, C. (2002). Political analyses: A critical introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Higley, J. & Burton, M. ([1989] 2012). The elite variable in democratic transitions and breakdowns. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 37(1), 245-268. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41756460
• Karns, M. P. & Mingst, K. A. (2010). International organisations: The politics and processes of global governance (2nd Ed.). London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Klepper, D. (2023). Deep dive into Meta’s algorithms shows that America’s political polarization has no easy fix. The Associated Press. 28 July.
• Kou, Y., Kow, Y. M. & Gui, X. (2017). Resisting the censorship infrastructure in China. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 446–453).
• Ledwich, M., Zaitsev, A. & Laukemper, A. (2022). Radical bubbles on YouTube? Revisiting algorithmic extremism with personalised recommendations. First Monday, 27(12). doi:10.5210/fm.v27i12.12552
• Leftwich, A. (1996). Two cheers for democracy. The Political Quarterly, 67(4), 334-339.
• Li, Q. & Reuveny, R. (2003). Economic globalization and democracy: An empirical analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 29-54.
• Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 63-105.
• Luger, J. (2024). Where #freedom and #patriotism live: Linking digital media to far-right geographies. Political Geography, 114(103195), 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103195
• Mahdavi, M. (2008). Rethinking structure and agency in democratization: Iranian lessons. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 1(2), 142-160.
• McAuliffe, M. & L.A. Oucho (Eds.). (2024). World Migration Report 2024. International Organization for Migration (IOM). Geneva.
• McAnulla, S. (2002). Structure and agency. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science (2nd ed.) (pp. 271-291). Palgrave Macmillan.
• McCaughey, M. & Ayers, M. D. (2003). Introduction. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practise (pp. 25-46). London: Routledge.
• Mill, J. S. ([1859] 1984). A few words on non-intervention, libertarian alliance. In J. M. Robson (ed.), The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Toronto: The University of Toronto Press.
• Mirzayevich, K. B. (2023). The negative impact of social networks on the spirituality of young people in the context of globalization. Open Access Repository, 4(3), 780–789. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/6KD2Y
• Molotkina, Y. (2022). Verbal manipulation of the “troll factory” in the context of the Kremlin’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda in the English language discourse of social media sites TikTok and Twitter. Society, Document, Communication, 7(4), 155-181. doi:10.31470/2518-7600-2022-17-155-181
• Moore, B. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in making of the modern world. Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
• Mustaffa, M. & Lokmanoglu, A. D. (2025). Networks approaches to conflict and peace communication. In S. L. Connaughton & S. Pukallus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conflict and Peace Communication (pp. 32-42). New York: Routledge.
• Ntini, E. (2016). Today’s world: Can modernisation theory still explain it convincingly?. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 7(1), 56-67. doi:10.1080/09766634.2016.11885702
• O’Donnel, G. & Schmitter, P. (1986). Transition from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University.
• Pevehouse, J. (2002). Democracy from the outside-in? International organizations and democratization. International Organization, 56(3), 515-549.
• Potter, D. (1997). Explaining democratization. In D. Potter, D. Goldblatt, M. Kiloh & P. Lewis (Eds.), Democratization (pp. 1-40). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Przeworski, A. & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics, 49(2), 155-183.
• Rodriguez, N. S. (2016). Communicating global inequalities: How LGBTI asylum-specific NGOs use social media as public relations. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 322–332. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.12.002
• Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H. & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Rustow, D. A. (1970). Transitions to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 337-363. doi:10.2307/421307
• Stephens, H. (1988). Capitalist development and democracy in South America. The Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association (pp. 1-91).
• Teorell, J. (2010). Determinants of democratization: Explaining regime change in the world, 1972–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tudoroiu, T. (2014). Social media and revolutionary waves: The case of the Arab Spring. New Political Science, 36(3), 346–365. doi:10.1080/07393148.2014.913841
• Udoinwang, D. & Akpan, I. J. (2023). Digital transformation, social media revolution, and e-society advances in Africa: Are indigenous cultural identities in danger of extinction?. SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4349795
• Urman, A. & Makhortykh, M. (2024). Trolls, bots and everyone else: The analysis of multilingual social media manipulation campaigns on Twitter during 2019 elections in Ukraine. East European Politics, 1-20. doi:10.1080/21599165.2024.2415640
• Xu, X., Mao, Z. M. & Halderman, J. A. (2011). Internet censorship in China: Where does the filtering occur?. In N. Spring, G. F. Riley (Eds), Passive and Active Measurement. PAM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol 6579). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19260-9_14