Abstract
Dünyada bir düzen vardır. Dünya düzeni siyasal düzenin bir parçasıdır. Siyaset biliminde
düzene ilişkin teorilerin çatı kavramı olan siyasal düzen teorisi, dünya düzeninin ardındaki temel
teoridir. Aynı zamanda siyasal düzen teorisi dünya siyasetinin bütüncül bir şekilde anlaşılması için
önemli bakış açısı sunar. Siyasal düzen teorisinin bu kadar önemli olmasının nedeni, siyasal yapıların
hâkim bir anlayış doğrultusunda gelişen bir siyasal düzen içerisinde var olduğu gerçeğidir. Siyasal
düzen teorisi konusunda en kapsamlı bilimsel açıklamaları Samuel P. Huntington yapmıştır. Samuel
Huntington 20. yüzyılın en önemli siyasal düşünürleri ve siyaset bilimcileri arasındadır. Siyasal düzen
teorisinin ve Huntington’un bu önemine karşın, Huntington’da siyasal düzen teorisi literatürde
yeterince açıklanmamıştır. Bu makalenin amacı, Samuel Huntington’un siyasal teorilerinin ve
özellikle de siyasal düzen teorisinin bütüncül ve bilimsel bir şekilde açıklanmasına katkı sunmaktır.
Bu doğrultuda yapılacak bir inceleme siyasal düzen olgusu ile teorisi arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya
koymayı da hedeflemektedir. Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi Amerikan hegemonyası
savunusunun bir parçasıdır. Huntington yeni dünya düzeni döneminin teorisyenleri arasında yer alır.
Bu doğrultuda, bu makale Amerikan hegemonyası savunucularının önemli tezlerini de
açıklamaktadır. Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi dört başlıkta ele alınabilir: kurumsallaşma, ulusal
siyasal düzenin unsurları, değişim karşısında siyasal düzen ve yeni dünya düzeni teorisi. Siyasal
partiler, siyasal katılma ve siyasal kültür Huntington’a göre, ulusal siyasal düzenin temel unsurlarıdır.
Sonuçta, Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi, dünyada devam eden siyasal düzen olgusunun ardında
önemli bir teorik zemin olarak durmaktadır.
References
- Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative politics: a developmental approach. Boston: Little Brown.
- Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
- Brinton, C. (1965). The anatomy of revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
- Cox, R. W. (1987). Production power and world order: social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Deutsch, K. W. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55(3), 493-514.
- Eisenstadt, S. N. (1962). Initial institutional patterns of political modernization. Civilizations, 12(4), 461-474.
- Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964). Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review, 29(2), 235-247.
- Eisenstadt, S. N. (1981). Cultural traditions and political dynamics: the origins and modes of ideological politics. The British Journal of Sociology, 32(2), 155-181.
- Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political order and political decay. London: Profile Books. Goldberg, R. A. (2004). Who profited from the crime? Intelligence failure, conspiracy theories and the case of September 11. Intelligence and National Security, 19(2), 249-261. Gross, F. (1958). The seizure of political power. New York: Philosophical Library.
- Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386-430.
- Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Huntington, S. P ve Dominguez, J. I. (1975). Siyasal gelişme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Siyasal İlimler Derneği Yayımları.
- Huntington, S. P. (1991). How countries democratize. Political Science Quarterly, 106(4), 579-616.
- Huntington, S. P. (1993a). The clash of civilizations?. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
- Huntington, S. P. (1993b). if not civilizations, what? Paradigms of the post-cold war world, Foreign Affairs, 72(5), 186-194.
- Huntington, S. P. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35-49.
- Huntington, S. P. (2011). Üçüncü dalga: geç 20. yüzyılda demokratikleşme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Kilit Yayınları.
- Ikenberry, J. (2011). Liberal leviathan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Kornhauser, W. (1959). Politics of mass society. New York: The Free Press.
- Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (1996). Toward a neo-reaganite foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 75(4), 18-32.
- LaPalombara, J. and Weiner, M. (Ed.) (1966). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Lerner, D. (1964). The passing of traditional society. New York: Free Press.
- Moore, B. J. (2016). Diktatörlüğün ve demokrasinin toplumsal kökenleri (Çev. Ş. Tekeli ve A. Şenel). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
- Neumann, F. L. (1950). Approaches to the study of political power. Political Science Quarterly, 65(2), p.161-180.
- North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
- Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, (80), 153-171.
- O’Donnell, G. A. (1979). Modernization and bureaucratic authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California.
- Parsons, T. (1965). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: The Free Press.
- Parsons, T. (1967). The social system. London: Routledge.
- Rustow, D. A. (1990). Democracy: a global revolution?. Foreign Affairs, 69(4), 75-91.
- Shils, E. (1965). Political development in the new states. The Hague: Mouton.
- Skocpol, T. (2004). Devletler ve toplumsal devrimler (Çev. S. E. Türközü). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
- The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002). https://www.state.gov/documents/organization, (26 Mart 2017).
- Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
- Wallerstein, I. (1992). Geopolitics and geoculture: essays on the changing world system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abstract
An order exists in the world. World order is a part of political order. The theory of political
order, which is a supreme concept of the theories related to order, is a basic theory behind the world
order. Also the theory of political order provides important perspective for understanding world
politics in a totalitarian and scientific way. The reason of such importance of the theory of political
order is the fact that the political structures exists inside the political order developed through the
dominant understanding. The person who makes the most comprehensive scientific explanations
about the theory of political order is Samuel P. Huntington. Samuel Huntington is one of the most
important political philosophers and political scientists of the 21’th century. Despite the importance of
the theory of political order and Huntington, theory of political order is not sufficiently explained in
the literature. The purpose of this article is to contribute to make totalitarian scientific explanation of
the political theories and especially the theory of political order of Samuel Huntington. An assessment
made in this direction also aims explaining the relation between the fact and theory of political order.
The theory of political order of Huntington is a part of American hegemony advocacy. Huntington is
one of the important theoreticians in the era of new world order. Accordingly, this article explains
important thesis of American hegemony advocacy. The theory of political order of Samuel
Huntington can be assessed under four titles: institutionalization, elements of national political order,
political order against change and the theory of new world order. Political parties, political
participation and political culture are the basic elements of national order. In conclusion, the political
theory of political order in Huntington states a theoretical base for existing phenomenon of political
order in the world.
References
- Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative politics: a developmental approach. Boston: Little Brown.
- Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
- Brinton, C. (1965). The anatomy of revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
- Cox, R. W. (1987). Production power and world order: social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Deutsch, K. W. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55(3), 493-514.
- Eisenstadt, S. N. (1962). Initial institutional patterns of political modernization. Civilizations, 12(4), 461-474.
- Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964). Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review, 29(2), 235-247.
- Eisenstadt, S. N. (1981). Cultural traditions and political dynamics: the origins and modes of ideological politics. The British Journal of Sociology, 32(2), 155-181.
- Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political order and political decay. London: Profile Books. Goldberg, R. A. (2004). Who profited from the crime? Intelligence failure, conspiracy theories and the case of September 11. Intelligence and National Security, 19(2), 249-261. Gross, F. (1958). The seizure of political power. New York: Philosophical Library.
- Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386-430.
- Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Huntington, S. P ve Dominguez, J. I. (1975). Siyasal gelişme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Siyasal İlimler Derneği Yayımları.
- Huntington, S. P. (1991). How countries democratize. Political Science Quarterly, 106(4), 579-616.
- Huntington, S. P. (1993a). The clash of civilizations?. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
- Huntington, S. P. (1993b). if not civilizations, what? Paradigms of the post-cold war world, Foreign Affairs, 72(5), 186-194.
- Huntington, S. P. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35-49.
- Huntington, S. P. (2011). Üçüncü dalga: geç 20. yüzyılda demokratikleşme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Kilit Yayınları.
- Ikenberry, J. (2011). Liberal leviathan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Kornhauser, W. (1959). Politics of mass society. New York: The Free Press.
- Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (1996). Toward a neo-reaganite foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 75(4), 18-32.
- LaPalombara, J. and Weiner, M. (Ed.) (1966). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Lerner, D. (1964). The passing of traditional society. New York: Free Press.
- Moore, B. J. (2016). Diktatörlüğün ve demokrasinin toplumsal kökenleri (Çev. Ş. Tekeli ve A. Şenel). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
- Neumann, F. L. (1950). Approaches to the study of political power. Political Science Quarterly, 65(2), p.161-180.
- North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
- Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, (80), 153-171.
- O’Donnell, G. A. (1979). Modernization and bureaucratic authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California.
- Parsons, T. (1965). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: The Free Press.
- Parsons, T. (1967). The social system. London: Routledge.
- Rustow, D. A. (1990). Democracy: a global revolution?. Foreign Affairs, 69(4), 75-91.
- Shils, E. (1965). Political development in the new states. The Hague: Mouton.
- Skocpol, T. (2004). Devletler ve toplumsal devrimler (Çev. S. E. Türközü). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
- The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002). https://www.state.gov/documents/organization, (26 Mart 2017).
- Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
- Wallerstein, I. (1992). Geopolitics and geoculture: essays on the changing world system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Makaleler |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | August 31, 2021 |
| Acceptance Date | March 24, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2021 Issue: 59 |
Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.
No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.
Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.
Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.
Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.