Search results

There is a great resistance from several Asian country leaders towards democracy. Basically, they view that the US has "forced" some Asian countries to implement its model of government which is thought to be a good form of government for all countries, particularly in terms of placing democracy as a "yardstick" when some of the countries need International Aids. While actually, they argue that what works for one country does not necessarily appropriate for others. Lee Kuan Yew argue that what people's real need is a "good government", whase its implementation might differ for each country and might also differ from "Western" values. Nevertheless, some observers have criticized the concept as well. They argue that it has been implemented on the expense of restricting political space available for he citizens. This essay will elaborate each of the claims and will try to provide a tentative alternative which might need further discussion. Keywords: Democracy; Good government; Western Values

With the Iast cut in world history occurring in 1989 and throughout the destruction of communist dictatorships and the Soviet World Empire, a new stage in the planetary process of globalization began, in which most countries in the world labelled themselves as democratic states, "ruled by the people". The increasing trend of 40 in 1972 up to the currently estimated 1 23 democratic countries of the 192 states registered in the United Nations may continue in the future. Speculation of various theories, such as Francis Fukuyama's The End of Hjstory and the Last Mon (1992)l , that liberal democratic nation-states were the universal standard form of human society has been disproved through the globalization process which abolished the boundaries and led liberal democracies over the state borders to a supranational world society. Transformation to global democracy threatens the fundamental principles of the former liberal nation-state democracy.

In this article the authors describe what forms of political participation, outside the electoral process, the populations of twenty-one European countries tend to employ & to what degree. They identify three types of non-electoral political participation: active-conventional, active-demonstrational, & passive participation. Overall non-electoral political participation is considerably lower in the post-communist & Mediterranean countries than in the Western European & Scandinavian countries. In the latter countries the passive type of political participation is clearly a much stronger form of participation than the other two types. Conversely, in the Mediterranean countries passive participation is weaker & is exceeded in places by the active-conventional type of participation. The Mediterranean area is also notable for the unusually strong presence of the active-demonstrational type of participation. The authors also examine the social micro- & macro-conditions related to these three types of political participation. In conclusion they attempt to address the question of whether there is a connection between political activity & satisfaction with the way democracy works.

Gerçek anlamda siyasi partilerin ortaya çıkması, demokrasi kavramına göre oldukça yeni olmasına rağmen siyasi partiler, demokrasinin vazgeçilmez unsuru olmuştur. Parti içi demokrasi, demokratik kuralların parti içinde uygulanmasıdır. Yani parti içinde herhangi bir kişi veya grubun üstünlüğü ya da baskısı olmaksızın düşüncelerin özgürce paylaşıldığı demokratik uygulamalar olmalıdır. İktidara gelen partiler, ülke genelinde uygulayacağı demokratik yapının benzerini kendi iç işleyişlerinde de uygulamak zorundadırlar. Bu çalışmada siyasi partilerin iç örgütlenmeleri, genel seçimlerde aday belirleme yöntemleri ve parti içi siyasal karar alma ve uygulamaları açısından siyasi parti içinde demokratik bir işleyişin olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Bu incelemeyi yaparken parti içi demokrasiyi etkileyen faktörlere ve Siyasi Parti Kanunu'ndan parti içi işleyişin demokratikliğini etkileyen maddeler ele alınmıştır. Aynı zamanda AKP, CHP ve MHP'nin tüzüklerinden parti içi demokrasiyi etkileyen maddeler karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak ülkemizde partilerin iç yapılanmasına baktığımızda, oligarşik eğilimler ve liderlik egemenliği görülmektedir. Bu durumu önlemek için ise Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin parti içi demokrasi ilkelerine aykırılık hususunda, partilere maddi bir yaptırım cezası öngörmeli ve Siyasi Partiler Kanunu'nda milletvekili aday belirleme yönteminde, partilere adaylarını ön seçimle belirleme zorunluluğu getirilmelidir. İktidar parti liderlerine, parti içinde mutlak hâkimiyet sağlayan anayasal haklara düzenleme getirilmelidir. Örneğin, Başbakan'ın bakanları belirleme yetkisi, milletvekillerini bakan olmak arzusuyla Başbakan'a daha bağlı kılmaktadır. Aynı zamanda partilerin genel başkanlarına başarısız olmaları halinde dönem sınırlaması getirilmelidir. ; Political parties have become irreplaceable components of democracy even though the appearance of political parties in real terms is quite new compared to the concept democracy. In-party democracy means the implementation of democratic rules within the party. In other words, there must be democratic executions within the party in which opinions are shared freely without any pressure and dominance of any person or groups. The parties which come into power have to execute the similar type of democratic structure which they will put into practice throughout the country in their internal affairs. This study was carried out to investigate whether there is a democratic process within the parties in terms of their internal organizations, nomination methods for general elections, decision-making and execution processes or not. During this investigation, the factors that affect the in-party democracy and the items that affect the democratic in-party functioning from the Political Parties Law were dealt with. At the same time, the items which affect the in-party democracy existing in the constitution of Justice and Development Party (AKP), Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) were compared. Consequently, oligarchic tendencies and leader's domination are observed when the internal organizations of the political parties in our country. So as to prevent this, the Constitutional Court must project a pecuniary enforcement for the parties in terms of opposition to the principles of in-party democracy and primary elections must be obligated during the nomination process for members of parliament in the Political Parties Law. The constitutional rights which provide the party leaders who are in power with autarchy within the party must be reregulated. For example, the Prime Minister's authority to define the ministers make the members of parliament to become blind obedient to the Prime Minister for becoming a minister. At the same time, period limitation must be put into practice for the political party leaders when they are considered unsuccessful.

Türkiye, demokrasinin siyasal olmayan bir takım güçler tarafından kesintiye uğraması sorununu dönem dönem yaşamış bir ülkedir. Bu bakımdan demokrasinin kurumsallaşması konusu, üzerinde incelikle durulması gereken bir konudur. Demokrasinin kurumsallaşmasının sosyolojik temellerinin ortaya konulması ve siyaset bilimi çerçevesinde incelenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada da bu amaçlanmıştır. Bu anlamda, çalışmanın birinci bölümünde; araştırmanın amacı, konusu ve kapsamı ile ilgili genel bilgiler verilmiş; ikinci bölümünde, kurum ve kurumsallaşma kavramları üzerinde durulmuş, bu kavramların demokrasi ile bağlantısı incelenmiştir. Üçüncü bölümünde, demokrasi kavramı açıklanmıştır. Çalışmanın dördüncü bölümünde, demokrasinin kurumları belirtilerek, kurumsallaşmasının teknik boyutlarına değinilmiş ve demokrasinin kurumsallaşmasının kriterleri ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmanın beşinci bölümünde, söz konusu kriterler ekseninde, 1982'den sonra Türkiye'de demokrasi konusu incelenmiştir. Çalışma, tarihsel anlamda ?1982'den günümüze? olarak, coğrafî anlamda ?Türkiye? ile sınırlandırılmıştır. Türkiye'de 1980 müdahalesinden sonra getirilen 1982 Anayasası'ndan sonra yeni bir anayasa yapılmadığı için ve demokrasinin yakın tarihteki kurumsal durumunu tartışabilmek için bu çalışmada 1982'den sonraki Türkiye incelenmektedir. İyi bir yönetim biçimi olarak benimsenen demokrasinin nasıl daha kurumsal, daha istikrarlı hale gelebileceği, işlevselliğinin nasıl daha da artırılabileceği, toplumsal kurumlar içerisindeki yerinin araştırıldığı bu çalışma, kesintisiz bir demokrasi modeli uygulama konusunda katkı sağlayabilir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kurum, Kurumsallaşma, Demokrasi, Kurumsal Demokrasi, İstikrar ; Turkey is a country which cyclically experienced the issue that her democracy process was interrupted by several unpolitical powers. In this context, the institutionalization of democracy is a topic which should be meticulously handled. The sociologic basis of the institutionalization of democracy should be put forth and analyzed in accordance with political science and this is the principal aim of this study. In the first part, general information related to the aim, subject and the scope of the study are given. The second part focuses on the concepts of institution and institutionalizing and their tie with democracy is analyzed. The concept of democracy is explained in the third part. The forth part points out the institutions of democracy, mentions the technical dimensions of the institutionalizing and introduces the criteria of the institutionalization. The fifth part deals with the developments in Turkish democracy of post-1982 in the axis of the mentioned criteria. This study is limited with ?from 1982 to present time? in historical sense and ?Turkey? in regional sense. In order to discuss the institutional status of democracy in the near history, Turkey of post-1982 is analyzed in this study as no new constitution was prepared after the constitution of 1982 which was presented following the military intervention of 1980. This study dealing how to increase the stability of democracy which is accepted as one of the best polity more, increase its functionality and define its place in the social institutions may have contributions to an uninterrupted democracy model. Key Words: Institution, Institutionalization, Democracy, Institutional Democracy, Stability