Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe police are different from the military and other security institutions as they hold stronger ties with society. This relationship has kept its significance throughout the history of police all around the world. Particularly starting with the 1970s, a new philosophy of policing termed 'community policing' or 'community-oriented policing' was born in consolidated Western democracies. Since the 1990s, this model has become a central model for police transformation, predominantly in developing countries. Later, this philosophy was imported to unconsolidated democracies of the Third World. This paper contends that Turkey is a compelling case for police studies as, a Turkish police association called Pol-Der was established in the 1970s and the members of Pol-Der, by declaring their ambition to become community's police, brought forward the idea of community policing in a relatively early period of time. Despite the fact that previous research on Pol-Der discussed the political–ideological character of the organization, Pol-Der's emphasis on community policing as a philosophy demonstrated an ambitious—but a failed—initiative to create a paradigmatic shift for policing models in Turkey.

The civil-military relations literature on Turkey focuses predominantly on the guardianship role of the Turkish military, its interventions, and the role of the National Security Council as the main institutional mechanism of military tutelage. Yet, the existing studies lack a much-needed focus on the law enforcement or policing missions of the Turkish military. To fill this gap, this study discusses the EMASYA Protocol ( Emniyet Asayiş Yardımlaşma or Security and Public Order Assistance), a secret protocol signed in 1997. Emerging in the context of political instability and military tutelage of the 1990s, the Protocol enabled the military to conduct internal security operations without permission from the civilian authorities. This paper argues that the EMASYA Protocol provided a sphere of "reformulated new professionalism" for the Turkish military, enabled it to specialize in the war against rising internal threats such as reactionary Islam and Kurdish separatism, and created anomalies in civil-military relations in Turkey.

Latin Amerika, popu?lizm çalışan araştırmacılar açısından önemli bir araştırma alanı olarak ortaya çıkıyor. Du?nyanın bu bölgesinde, popu?lizmin farklı tu?rlerine rasgelmek mu?mku?n. Üstelik Latin Amerika'da, tarih boyunca, popu?list liderlerin siyasal gu?cu? ele geçirmeyi başardıkları söylenebilir. Elinizdeki çalışma, popu?lizm ve demokrasi arasındaki çatışmalı ilişkiyi incelemek niyetindedir. Bunu yaparken popu?lizm bir siyasal tarz olarak ve liderin merkezi rolu?ne referansla tanımlanacaktır. Bu doğrultuda, Arjantin'de Peron dönemi klasik popu?lizmi, Peru'da Fujimori'nin sağ popu?lizmi ve nihayetinde Venezu?ella'da Chavez'in sol popu?lizminin analizinin göstereceği u?zere demokrasi ve popu?lizm ilişkisi farklı popu?lizmlerin varlığına rağmen bu?yu?k ölçu?de aynı kalmıştır. Bu doğrultuda denilebilir ki popu?lizm, demokrasinin içerici kapasitesini artırmış, buna karşın, anayasal denetim mekanizmalarına, demokratik kurumlara ve genel anlamda liberal demokrasiye zarar vermiştir. ; Latin America, as a region, reflects a relevant field of analysis for scholars who aim at working populism. Here, in this region of the world, it is possible to encounter various types of populism(s). Additionally, throughout the history of Latin America, populist leaders have managed to accumulate political power for decades. This study, in its turn, aims at analyzing the relationship between populism and democracy. It suggests analyzing populism as a political style prioritizing the central role of populist leaders. In this perspective, it overviews a historical analysis of different Latin American countries where various types of populism were in power. In this respect, the study of the classical populism of Peron in Argentina, the right-wing populism of Fujimori in Peru and the left-wing populism of Chavez in Venezuela demonstrate that the relationship between democracy and "various" populisms remains almost the same. Populism, in general, enlarges inclusionary capacities of democratic regimes while giving permanent harm to democratic institutions, constitutional mechanisms of control and liberal democracy in general.