Suchergebnisse

Nationalism and conservatism in political culture; Turkey; 20th century

Bir ülkenin siyaset analizinin doğru yapılmasında orada var olan siyasal kim- liklerin niteliğinin bilinmesi önemli rol oynamaktadır. Çünkü siyasal kimlik- ler günümüz siyasi oluşumlarını açıklamada hatta yönlendirmede önemli bir işlev görmektedirler. Siyasal kimliklerin oluşması toplumların siyasi, kültü- rel ve ekonomik gelenekleri doğrultusunda birbirinden farklı süreçler sonun- da gerçekleşebilir. Nitekim Türkiye ve Avrupa siyasal kimliklerin oluşumu açısından oldukça farklı özellikler göstermektedir. Türk siyasetinin yapısal analizi için herkesçe kabul edilmiş bir kavramlaştırma olan merkez-çevre dikotomisi, Türkiye'de siyasal kimliklerin oluşmasında ve daha sonra diya- lektik bir süreçle bu dikotominin pekiştirilmesinde ciddi pay sahibidir. İşte bu makalede Türkiye'de siyasal kimliklerin oluşumu merkez-çevre karşıtlığı çerçevesinde açıklanmaya çalışılmış, merkezin ve çevrenin sahip olduğu de- ğerlerin siyasal kimliklere yansıması toplum ve siyaset ilişkisi içerisinde in- celenmiştir. Ancak özellikle 1950'lerden itibaren, merkez-çevre kavramlaş- tırmasının Türk siyasal yaşamını açıklamada tek başına yeterli olmayacağı varsayıldığından bu klasik ayrıma sağ ve sol temel eksenleri üzerinde gelişen ideolojik çatışmaların da eklenmesi bir zorunluluk olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Makalede sınırlılık, günümüzde parlamentoda temsil kabiliyeti daha yüksek görünen muhafazakâr demokrat, siyasal İslamcı ve milliyetçi-muhafazakâr vb. siyasal kimliklerden beslenen merkez sağ ile Kemalist, modernleşmeci ve laik vb. kimliklerden beslenen merkez-sol çerçevesinde belirlenmiştir. Bu bağlamda kimlik ve siyasal kimlik kavramlarının Batı'da ve Türkiye'de olu- şum süreçleri ortaya konulduktan sonra Türkiye'de etkin olan merkez sağ ve merkez sol siyasetleri besleyen siyasal kimlikler incelenmiştir. ; In making true the political analysis of a country, knowing the quality of political identities existing there plays important role, because political identities function importantly in describing the political formations of to- day. The formation of political identities can become fact in the direction of the political, economic, and political traditions of societies as a result of the processes, different from each other. As a matter of fact, Turkey and Europe exhibit different characteristics in terms of the formation of their political identities. Central-periphery dichotomy, generally acceptable con- ceptualism for structural analysis of Turkish politics, has a serious share in forming of political identity in Turkey and later, in reinforcing this dicho- tomy with a dialectic process. Thus, in this article, the formation of poli- tical identities in Turkey was attempted to be described in the frame of the contrast central- periphery and the reflection of the values the central and periphery have on the political identities was examined in the relationship between society –politics. In this context, after the formation processes of the concepts of identity and political identity in West and Turkey, the political identities feeding central right and central left politics that is effective in Turkey were examined. However, particularly beginning from 1950s, it is assumed that the conceptualism central-environment will not be enough alone in describing Turkish political life. Hence, also adding the ideological conflictions developing on the right and left axes to this classical distinction revealed as an obligation. In the article, limitation was identified in the frame of central right, fed from political identities such as conserva- tive, democrat, political Islamist, nationalist-conservative etc. whose ability to be represented in parliament today seemed to be higher, and central left, fed from the identities Kemalist, modernist, and secularist .

The migrant crisis that Europe has been facing for many years has triggered an avalanche of xenophobia and the dispersion of anti-migrant sentiments that have become the reference matrix for populist discourse. Anti-migrant discourse emerges in parallel as a form of language use and a form of social and political interaction. The antagonistic stereotypical narrative of migrants begins with the thesis that they constitute a retrograde social group that poses an economic and security threat to the natives and which is not capable of culturally assimilating in the countries of transit and destination (dichotomy Us vs. Them). Spreading anti-migrant discourse becomes a strategy for winning the electorate and an important tool for mobilizing political support. The political engineering of European political parties shows that anti-migrant discourse is not the exclusivity of right-wing parties of the political spectrum (although they are the most closely related), but is becoming an increasingly important topic on the political agenda of left-wing populism. Anti-migrant discourse is reflected through a nationalist and hostile approach to immigration, the glorification of national and sovereign narratives, and hostility to neoliberalism. Anti-migrant narratives have found their footing in the political activities of many European parties that are largely sovereignly profiled. Such a political vault of reasoning transforms migrant into a foreigner and attest on the triumph of communitarianism in regards to cosmopolitanism, which makes the EU's slogan "in varietate concordia" (united in diversity) questionable and subject to deconstruction.

Dоktоrskа disеrtаciја prаti rаzvој kоncеpаtа pоlitičkе lеvicе, pоlitičkе dеsnicе i pоlitičkоg cеntrа, оd njihоvоg nаstаnkа svе dо dаnаšnjih dаnа. Krоz gеnеrаlnо rаzmаtrаnjе оvih kоncеpаtа dоktоrskа disеrtаciја nudi i niz mini-biоgrаfskih pоrtrеtа znаčајnih tеоrеtičаrа i držаvnikа, kојi su оbеlеžili pоmеnutе pојmоvе u еvrоpskој pоlitičkој i intеlеktuаlnој istоriјi. Аutоr disеrtаciје, pоrеd disciplinоvаnоg iznоšеnjа nаučnih činjеnicа, nа litеrаlаn nаčin prеzеntuје intеrеsаntnu gеnеrаlnu fаbulu u kојој sе kао glаvni аktеri pојаvlјuјu vоdеćе ličnоsti mоdеrnе еvrоpskе istоriје. Disеrtаciја prikаzuје kаkо ćе, nеkаdа јеdinstvеni pоlitički prоstоri lеvicе i dеsnicе, u pоstmоdеrnоm vrеmеnu biti pоdеlјеni grаđаnskim i аntigrаđаnskim shvаtаnjеm pоlitikе, dоk ćе pоdеlа nа lеvicu i dеsnicu u njihоvim klаsičnim оblicimа biti јоš sаmо sеkundаrnа. Dоktоrskа disеrtаciја pоkаzuје dа nаs tо dоvоdi u јеdnu nоvu tеоriјsku i prаktičnu situаciјu, tе аutоr disеrtаciје u zаklјučnim nаpоmеnаmа rаdа zаklјučuје dа ćе zа stаbilnоst, dеlоtvоrnоst i lеgitimnоst pоlitičkih instituciја nа pоčеtku 21. vеkа biti pоtrеbnа јеdnа nоvа pоstidеоlоškа pоlitikа i pоstidеоlоškа pоlitičkа sоciоlоgiја. ; Doctoral dissertation follows the development of the concepts of the Political Left, the Political Right and the Political Center from the time of their creation to the present day. Through a general discussion of these concepts dissertation offers a series of mini - biographical portraits of important scholars and statesmen, who epitomized these concepts in European political and intellectual history. Author of dissertation, together with disciplined presentation of scientific facts, offers the interesting general story in which as the main actors appear leading figures of modern European history. The dissertation shows how, in the past a unique political space of the Left and the Right, in the postmodern period will be divided by civil and anti-civic understanding of politics, while the division between the Left and the Right in their classical forms remains only secondary. Doctoral dissertation finally demonstrates that previous happenings brings us into a new theoretical and practical situation, and the author of the thesis in the concluding remarks of work concludes that for stability, effectiveness and legitimacy of political institutions at the beginning of the 21st century we need a new post-ideological politics and post-ideological political sociology.