Suchergebnisse

Kurtbaş, İhsan; İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü ; Türkiye'de politik değişimi ve yöneten-yönetilen güç-iktidar ilişkilerini açıklamak üzere tek bir parametreden hareket edilecek olsa, kuşkusuz bu, elitlerin döngüsü olurdu. Bu konunun izini süren ilk ve en önemli çalışmalardan biri, Şerif Mardin'in merkez-çevre kuramıdır. Mardin Türk siyasal hayatının bir döneminin; toplumdan soyutlanmış bir merkezin, tepeden inme yönetim tarzı ile halka rağmen halk için kararlar aldığı ve uyguladığı, patronaj ilişkisine dayanan bir anlayış üzerine kurulu olduğunu söylemektedir. Merkez-çevre ilişkisinde halk, seçimler vasıtasıyla siyasi elitleri iktidar yapma gücüne sahipse de, onları muktedir göremiyordu. Halkın belirlediği iktidarla muktedir olanlar arasındaki bu örtüşmezlik, halk nezdinde bir yabancılaşmaya ve temsil edilememe hissine yol açıyordu. Türk siyasal hayatında Doğulu-Batıcı mücadelesine de ışık tutan merkez-çevre kuramı, döneminin sosyal ve siyasal gerçeklerini açıklamada oldukça kullanışlı olsa da; artık güncel siyaset açısından son derece yalınkat ve anakronik kalmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın temel iddiası, Mardin'in kuramındaki, merkez elitlerinin çevreden gelen yoğun ve şiddetli difüzyon etkisine (daha fazla) karşı koyamadığı ve zamanla merkez-çevre arasında bir yer değiştirme şeklinde keskin bir elit dönüşümünün yaşandığı yönündedir. Böylece Türkiye'nin güncel elit yapısı, yeknesak, insicamlı bir yapıya sahip keskin ikili kutuptan; ana omurgasını çevreden gelen muhafazakâr, orta sınıf kökenli, iyi eğitimli, farklı iktisadi-sosyal ve ideolojik kesimlerden elitlerin oluşturduğu bir 'elit koalisyonu'na doğru evrilmiştir. Bir elit koalisyonu olarak 'Yeni Elitler'; önceden iktidarı belirleyen, ancak onu muktedir kılamayan geniş halk kitlesinin, hem iktidar yaptığı hem de muktedir gördüğü tarihsel, sosyolojik ve siyasi bir gerçekliktir. ; If one wants to explain the political change and the relations between the rulers and the ruled in Turkey by a single parameter, that would certainly be the cycle of the elites. One of the primary and most important studies tracing this issue is Şerif Mardin's theory of the center and periphery. Mardin argues that a particular period of Turkish politics is based on a mentality of patronage in which a center isolated from the society takes decisions and acts upon them from above for the people despite the will of the people. Although the people had the power to bring the political elite to the power through the elections within the confines of the center-periphery relationship, in fact they could not render these elite capable of enjoying this power in practice. The discrepancy between the people who are in power and those who are competent to rule in practice caused alienation and a feeling of not being represented among the people. Although the theory of center-periphery which also hightlights the struggle between the Eastern(ist)-Werstern(ist) in Turkish politics was practical in explaining the period during which it was articulated, it is today quite simplistic and anachronic vis-a-vis the contemporary political realities. In this context, the main argument of this study is that the elites of the center could not resist the intense and strong effect of diffusion coming from the periphery and that an elite cycle took place in the form of a 'change of place' among the center and the perihery. Thus the contemporary elite structure evolved from a sharp, uniform and coherent dichotomy of elites to an 'elite coalition' which is mainly comprised of the conservative, middle class origined, well-educated people of different economic, social and ideological backgrounds. The "New Elites" as an elite coalition is such a historical, sociological and political reality that it can be argued that before, the large number of people who used to bring the elites to power but could not render them able for ruling, brought the elites both to power as well as rendered them able for ruling.

Kurtbaş, İhsan; İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü ; Political researches assert that there are hundreds of factors that influence voter's preferences and decisions. This study is based on hypotheses which suggest that: (a) all factors influencing the voting behaviour build a joint and collective psychology in voters, in the last instance, on the elections day; (b) the collective feeling is an important political motivation that politicise the voters; (c) voters who have a collective feeling have joint political approaches and make similar decisions; (d) factors such as voters' sociodemographic characteristics; their prediction about the future of the country; their political knowledge and experience; the importance they attach to elections and their votes have a deep impact on the 'collective feeling', and; (e) elections are critical milestones that often relieve the voter who has been going through various emotions and fill him/her up with new emotions. To test these hypotheses, 478 voters in the Elazığ province of Turkey were surveyed during the Local Elections of 29 March 2009. The first stage of the survey, which consisted of a two-part form, was completed by voters before voting. The second stage, a follow up to the first form, was completed by the same voters straight after they had cast their votes. This way, the researcher was able to make a psycho-political analysis of the relationship between the factors that influenced voting behaviour and the 'collective psyche' voters develop immediately before and after voting. Based on some of the findings, 44.6% of the voters experienced negative feelings such as hesitation, anger, unhappiness, weariness, hate, guilt and fear immediately before they went to the ballot boxes. 29.8% said their mood changed straight after they had used their votes. The majority of the voters who harboured negative feelings before voting felt relieved afterwards. Although this means that using a vote has a somewhat relaxing side that relieves stress, it also indicates that voters cannot fully get out of the election psychology after voting. These and other findings confirmed all of the above hypotheses.

Kurtbaş, İhsan; İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü ; Although the literature generally makes generalisations suggesting that the local elections are a rehearsal of general elections, local elections are indeed sui generis in terms of their resources, pressure groups, political dynamics, voter preferences and the factors influencing those preferences. This study was conducted by surveying during the Local Elections of 29 March 2009. Results of the experimental data obtained in this study suggested that approximately one out of every ten voters did not care about the vote they were using. 48.4% of voters conducted no or very little research before elections. Approximately one out of every four voters said they would not support the candidate or the party that has no chance of winning in the elections. Meanwhile, with 28.7%, a large portion of the voters said the most important factor that influenced their preferences in local elections was the ideology of the candidate. As the level of income increased, the number of people who were interested in party cadres and the candidate's knowledge of local problems while the number of those who were inclined to always vote for the same party. As the level of education increased, the number of people who cared for the former activities of the candidate increased whereas the number of people who valued that the candidate's party was in power or who were inclined to always vote for the same party.

Kurtbaş, İhsan; İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü Soysüren, Ali Haydar; İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü ; Yeni anayasa tartışmaları, son dönemin en önemli gündem konularından biridir. Türk siyasal hayatına bakıldığında, bütün anayasaların, olağanüstü koşullarda hazırlandığı söylenebilir. 1982 Anayasası da, darbe yönetiminin çıkardığı yasalarının anayasallaştırılmasına dayanır. 1982 Anayasası, bugüne kadar, birçok değişiklik geçirmesine rağmen; hala, ülkede yeni anayasa ihtiyacını inkâr eden herhangi bir kişi/taraf yoktur. Tartışmalar, anayasaya ihtiyaç olup olmamasından ziyade; 'nasıl bir anayasa' olacağı üzerinedir. Çünkü anayasalar, modern siyasal sistemlerin işleyişi başta olmak üzere, bir toplumun sosyolojik, kültürel ve hatta ekonomik yapısı üzerinde yaşamsal rol oynama kabiliyetine sahip temel metinler ve yol haritalarıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı; anayasanın önemi ve güncel tartışmalardan hareketle, 12 Eylül Anayasası yapım sürecinde, başta Kenan Evren ve MGK olmak üzere sürecin baş aktörlerinin anayasa yapım politikalarını demokratik meşruiyet açısından incelemektir. Bunun için 1982 Anayasasının hazırlandığı siyasal ortamı, anayasayı yapan tarafların siyasal kültürünü ve anayasa yapım politikalarını incelemek yoluna gidilmiştir. Sonuçta, 1982 anayasası hazırlama sürecinin oligarşik, otoriter ve anti-demokratik yapısının siyasi ve tarihi kodlarına ilişkin tespitlerde bulunulmuştur. ; The debates on new constitution are one of the most important subject on the agenda in the recent period. When we look at Turkish political history, it can be said that all the constitutions were prepared under extraordinary conditions, with the exception of Constitution of 1924. Hence the 1982 Constitution is also based on the transformation of the legislation issued by the coup management into a constitution. Although the 1982 Constitution has undergone many changes so far, there no one in the country denying the need for a new constitution. Therefore the discussions are not on the necessity for a new constitution but are rather on "what type of a constitution" there should be. This is mainly because constitutions are basic texts and road maps with the ability to play a vital role on the sociological, cultural, and even economic structure of a society, especially the functioning of modern political systems. The purpose of this study is, based on importance of the constitution and the current debate, to examine the constitution making policies of the main actors, especially of Kenan Evren and the NSC, in the process of making of the 12 September Constitution in terms of democratic legitimacy. For this, the political environment in which the Constitution of 1982 was prepared, the political culture of the constituent actors and their constitution making policies were examined. As a result, the political and historical codes of the oligarchic, authoritarian and anti-democratic structure of the 1982 constitution making process were determined.