Suchergebnisse

Halkevleri (Turkey); history; 20th century

ÖZETAvrupa Topluluğu'nun sosyal yönü, Avrupa entegrasyon sürecinin başlangıcından beri vardır. Ancak, Avrupa Topluluğu'nun temel amacı, Topluluk üyeleri arasında etkin bir ortak pazar oluşturarak ekonomik bütünleşmeyi sağlamak olduğundan sosyal politikanın genel Topluluk politikaları içindeki rolü küçüktü. Üye ülkeler arasında Topluluk'un sosyal alandaki rolü konusunda hiçbir zaman bir konsensüs oluşmadı. Ancak, zaman içinde, Topluluk üyeleri ekonomik bütünleşmesinin başarısı için etkin sosyal politikaların gerekliliğini kavradılar. Dolayısıyla, Toplululuk'un sosyal yönüne dikkat çekildi ve 1980'lerin sonlarında bu yönde adımlar atılmaya başlandı. Topluluk seviyesinde etkin bir sosyal politika 1980'lerin sonunda siyasi destek kazandı ve Avrupa entegrasyon süreci boyunca, birbiri ardına gelen Antlaşma revizyonlarıyla devam etti. AB sosyal politikasının bu tarihsel gelişme sürecine paralel olarak, Tek Avrupa Senedi (TAS) ile başlayarak, sosyal politikanın yasal ve yönetişim yönlerinde bir dönüşüm gerçekleşmiştir. AB'de sosyal politika alanı hala üye devletlerin yetkisinde olmasına rağmen, özellikle 1990'lardan itibaren, AB sosyal politikasının yönetişiminde hiyerarşik yapıdan hiyerarşik olmayan yapıya doğru bir gelişim olmuştur. Bu yönetişim yaklaşımında, AB'de değişik katmanlardan çok sayıda aktör, sosyal politika yapım sürecine dahil edilmiştir. AB sosyal politikasının geçirdiği bu gelişim süreci, Avrupa sosyal ortaklarının sosyal politika yapım sürecine katılmalarıyla sosyal diyaloğun yolunu açmıştır. Bu açıdan, Avrupa sosyal diyaloğu, 1985'te o günkü Komisyon Başkanı Delors'un başlattığı 'Val Duchesse' görüşmelerinden bu yana AB'nin gündeminde yer almaktadır. Avrupa sosyal diyaloğunun Maastricht ve Amsterdam Antlaşmaları'yla kurumsallaşmasıyla sosyal diyaloğun etkisi, bağlayıcı olmayan ortak görüşlerden, Komisyon tarafından denetlenen ve Konsey kararıyla uygulanan çerçeve anlaşmalara kadar ulaştı. Avrupa sosyal diyaloğunun bu aşamalı gelişiminde, sürecin temel aktörlerinden olan sosyal ortakların rolü ön plana çıkmıştır, çünkü bunların Avrupa seviyesinde temsili, sosyal diyaloğun Avrupa seviyesinde kurumsallaşması açısından önemlidir. Böylece, Maasricht Antlaşması'ndan beri, bir tarafta işçi sendikaları diğer tarafta işveren örgütlerini Avrupa seviyesinde temsil eden Avrupa sosyal ortakları, sosyal politika yapım sürecinde kurumsal bir role sahip olmuşlar, ve işgücü piyasası ile ilgili konularda yasal olarak bağlayıcı anlaşmaları görüşebilir duruma gelmişlerdir. Bu doğrultuda, sosyal ortakların gücü, sosyal ortaklara Laeken Avrupa Konseyi ile 'otonom çerçeve anlaşmalar' hazırlama ve uygulama yetkisinin verilmesi ile daha bağımsız bir rol verilerek arttırılmıştır.Bu bağlam içinde, çalışma Avrupa sosyal diyaloğunun ve sosyal ortakların rolünün AB sosyal politika yapım sürecindeki etkisini yönetişim yaklaşımı bağlamında araştırmaktadır. Avrupa sosyal diyaloğunun bağlayıcılığı olan çıktıları ve kapsamı kısıtlı olduğu görülmektedir. AB kurumsal yapısının sosyal diyalog üzerindeki etkisi de kısıtlıdır. Avrupa sosyal ortakların temsil yapılarında da eksiklikler mevcuttur. Ancak, bütün bunlara rağmen, Avrupa sosyal diyaloğu, AB sosyal politikasının meşruluğuna katkısı açısından AB sosyal politkasının önemli bir parçasıdır. Bu açıdan, Avrupa sosyal diyaloğu, sadece temelinde uzlaşma, konsensüs, işbirliği olan Avrupa sosyal modelinin önemli parçalarından biri olarak değil, aynı zamanda genel çerçevede Avrupa yönetişimin ve AB'deki demokratikleşmenin önemli bir mekanizması olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. ABSTRACTThe social dimension of the Community exists since the inception of the European integration process. However, as the primary rationale of the Community was economic integration among the member states in order to create an effective internal market within the Community in the initial phases, the role of social policy in overall Community policy was minor. There has never been consensus among the member states as to the role of the Community in the social field. However, in time, the member states of the Community perceived the necessity of effective social polices for the accomplishment of economic integration. Thus, increased attention was paid to the social dimension of the Community, with a clear commitment to its development from the late 1980s. This idea for an active social policy, which began to gain political support in the late 1980s, continued its progress with the successive Treaty revisions throughout the European integration process. In parallel to this progressive historical development of European Union (EU) social policy, there has been a transformation in the legal and governance aspects of social policy, starting with the Single European Act (SEA). Although the social policy field is still within the domain of the member states, especially in the 1990s, there has been a transformation in the governance of EU social policy from a hierarchical mode of governance to a non-hierarchical mode of governance, producing soft law rather than the regulatory mode of hard law. According to the governance approach, multiple actors at multiple levels of the EU are involved in the social policy-making process with deliberation and problem-solving efforts. This development of EU social policy paves the way towards the European social dialogue through the active involvement of the European social partners in the social policy-making procedure. In that regard, the European social dialogue has been on the EU's agenda since 1985, when it was initiated with the 'Val Duchesse' talks under the presidency of Delors. With the institutionalization of the European social dialogue process through the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, the influence of the European social dialogue has increased from merely issuing non-binding joint opinions to the point where it now makes framework agreements implemented by Council decision and monitored by the Commission. In this incremental development of the European social dialogue, the role of the social partners as the core actors of the process has come to the fore, since their representation at European level is important for the institutionalization of the social dialogue at European level. Thus, since the Maastricht Treaty, the European social partners, which represent trade union and employer organizations, has enjoyed an institutional role in the policy-making process and can negotiate legally binding agreements on labour market issues. Moreover, the power of the social partners has been enhanced with the Laeken European Council, when they were granted greater independence in the preparation and implementation of 'autonomous agreements'. In this context, the study explores the extent of the influence of the European social dialogue and the role of the social partners in EU social policy-making procedure with reference to governance in the EU. It is notable that, despite the limited outcomes of the European social dialogue process regarding binding legislation, the limited scope of the European social dialogue, the limited influence of the EU institutional framework on the social dialogue, and the deficiencies in the representative structures of the social partners, the European social dialogue is a significant part of EU social policy in terms of its contribution to its legitimacy. In that regard, the European social dialogue has emerged not only as one of the vital parts of the European social model, which comprises the concepts of compromise, consensus, and cooperation, but also as an important mechanism in the general framework of European governance and democratization of the EU. Key Words:EU social policy, EU/ European social policy governance, European social dialogue, European social partners

Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof. ; Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof.

Social change; Turkey; Western influences; sociological aspects

Coffeehouses and government; Turkey; social and political aspect; 1930-1945

Youth; social, economic and political aspects; Turkey

Public spaces; social structure; political aspect; Turkey

Social condition; religions aspects; Islam; Turkey; sources