ÖRGÜTSEL PRAETORYANİZM: KAVRAMSAL TEMELLERİN ARKEOLOJİSİ

Year 2018, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 497 - 522, 31.07.2018

Ali Baltacı

Abstract

Praetoryanizm kavramı, tarihsel olarak muhafızların himayelerindeki kişileri, koşulsuz koruma ve kollama ilişkisinden türetilmiştir. Praetoryanizm bir devlet, örgüt veya kişinin eylem ve davranışlarının, onun yararı ve çıkarları için, kontrol edilmesidir. Praetoryanist davranış biçimleri genellikle bireysel özgürlük ve otoriter sosyal denetim arasında değişmektedir. Praetoryanizm bağlamında, bir eylem (1) bir kişinin özgürlüğünü sınırlandırmalı, (2) kişinin rızası olmadan gerçekleştirilmeli ve (3) kişinin mutlak yararına veya karşılıklı faydayı gözetecek bir niyetle gerçekleştirilmelidir. Praetoryanizm kavramı, batı kültüründe aşağılayıcı ve olumsuz bir anlamda kullanılırken, doğu kültürlerinde yarar, fayda ve olumsuz durumlara karşı korunma anlamında kullanılagelmiştir. Praetoryanizm ayrıca gönüllü bir bağımlılığı da beraberinde getirmektedir. Örgütsel bağlamda, Praetoryanizm, yöneticiler ve çalışanlar arasında katı ve sert ilişki yapılanmalarından ziyade, daha esnek yönetim sistemleri kurmanın ve çalışma ortamını yaşanabilir kılmanın bir aracıdır. Praetoryanist yönetim yaklaşımına sahip olan örgütlerde, yöneticiler, çalışanlarının haklarını kollamakta ve çalışanları adına yararlı olduğunu düşündükleri kararlar almaktadırlar. Tarihsel olarak, farklı kullanımları ve yönelimleri olan Praetoryanizm kavramı, çok çeşitli türlere ve alt boyutlara ayrılmaktadır. Bu araştırma, Praetoryanizm kavramını ele alan kavramsal bir inceleme olarak tasarlanmıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada yönetim ve Praetoryanizm ilişkisi de çözümlenmiştir. Çalışmanın yönetim bilimleri alanında yapılacak kuramsal ve uygulamalı çalışmalara yol göstereceği umulmaktadır.

Keywords

Praetoryanizm, Praetoryanist Davranış, Örgütsel Praetoryanizm

Organizational Praetorianism: Archaeology of Conceptual Foundations

Abstract

The concept of preatorianism has historically
been derived from the relations of the persons under guardianship,
unconditional protection. Preatorianism is the control of the actions and
behaviors of a state, organization or person for his or her own good and
interests. The forms of preatorianism behavior generally alternate between
individual liberty and authoritative social control. In the context of preatorianism,
an action should (1) limit a subject’s freedom, (2) be performed without the
subject’s consent, and (3) be performed with an absolute beneficial or mutual
intent. The concept of preatorianism has all been used as a pejorative and
negative meaning in western culture while in eastern culture, it has been used
as a profitability, beneficence, protection against harmful situations. Preatorianism also implies
a voluntary dependency. In the
organizational context, preatorianism is developed to humanize the workplace as
well as establish more flexible management systems instead of rigid and
contractual relationships between managers and workers. In organizations that
have a preatoryanist management approach, managers take decisions that they
consider to be beneficial to their employees and to protect their employees'
rights. Historically, the concept of preatorianism, which has different uses and
orientations, is divided into a wide variety of types and sub-dimensions. This research is
designed as a conceptual review which deals with the concept of preatorianism.
In this context, the origin, historical development and dimensions of the
concept are discussed in detail.
In
addition, the relationship between management and preatorianism has been
resolved in this study and the basis of the preatorianistic leadership approach
have been formulated. It is hoped that this study will lead to theoretical and
practical work to be done in the literature of management sciences.

Keywords

Preatorianism, Preatorianistic Behavior, Organizational Preatorianism

References

• Adams, G., & Balfour, D. (2014). Administrative Evil and Public Ethics in Praetorian Times. In Unmasking Administrative Evil(pp. 170-190). Routledge.
• Afinotan, L. A. (2014). Praetorianism the Public Service: Analysis of the Impact and Consequences of Military Rule on Public Administration in Nigeria. Canadian Social Science, 10(2), 171.
• Agyeman, O. (1988). Setbacks to Political Institutionalisation by Praetorianism in Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 26(3), 403-435.
• Aksu, F. (2008). Türk dış politikasında zorlayıcı diplomasi. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
• Anderson, C. W. (2014). Authoritarianism in Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School).
• Archer, C. I. (1990). The Royalist Army of New Spain, 1810-1821: Militarism, Praetorianism, or Protection of Interests?. Armed Forces & Society, 17(1), 99-116.
• Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bowman, K. S. (2010). Militarization, democracy, and development: The perils of praetorianism in Latin America. Penn State Press.
• Cunliffe, P. (2014). The New Liberal Praetorianism. H-Diplo, 280.
• Decalo, S. (1975). Praetorianism, Corporate Grievances and Idiosyncratic Factors in Military Hierarchies. Journal of African Studies, 2(2), 247.
• De Kleijn, G. (2009). C. Licinius Mucianus, Leader in Time of Crisis. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, (H. 3), 311-324.
• Diamond, L. (1995). Nigeria: The uncivic society and the descent into praetorianism. Politics in developing countries: Comparing experiences with democracy, 417-91.
• Di Tella, T. (2017). History of political parties in twentieth-century Latin America. Routledge.
• Egreteau, R. (2016). Embedding praetorianism: soldiers, state, and constitutions in postcolonial Myanmar. In Politics and constitutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 131-153). Routledge.
• Estévez, E. E. (2014). Comparing Intelligence Democratization in Latin America: Argentina, Peru, and Ecuador Cases. Intelligence and National Security, 29(4), 552-580.
• Fair, C. C. (2015). Author's Response: The United States Needs a New Policy toward Pakistan. Asia Policy, 19(1), 178-182.
• Ferguson, Y. H. (2017). Competing Identities and Turkey’s Future. European Review, 25(1), 81-95.
• Forozan, H., & Shahi, A. (2017). The Military and the State in Iran: The Economic Rise of the Revolutionary Guards. The Middle East Journal, 71(1), 67-86.
• Foucault, M. (2012). İktidarın Gözü (Çev. Işık Ergüden). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınevi.
• Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison notebooks (Vol. 2). Columbia University Press.
• Hachemaoui, M. (2015). Institutional Change versus Authoritarian Durability. Cahiers d’études africaines, (4), 649-686.
• Hakim, M. (2016). Soeharto and the Politicization of Indonesian Islam (1968-1998). Journal of Indonesian Islam, 10(2), 159-180.
• Haleem, I. (2003). Ethnic and sectarian violence and the propensity towards praetorianism in Pakistan. Third World Quarterly, 24(3), 463-477.
• Hen-Tov, E., & Gonzalez, N. (2011). The militarization of post-Khomeini Iran: praetorianism 2.0. The Washington Quarterly, 34(1), 45-59.
• Herspring, D. R. (1992). Civil—military relations in post-communist Eastern Europe: The potential for praetorianism. Studies in Comparative Communism, 25(2), 99-122.
• Hinnebusch, R. (2014). Historical Sociology and the Arab Uprising. Mediterranean Politics, 19(1), 137-140.
• Hinnebusch, R. (2016). State De-Construction in Iraq and Syria. PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 57(4), 560-585.
• Hobbes, T. (2006). Leviathan. London: A&C Black.
• Hussain, A. (1976). Ethnicity, national identity and praetorianism: the case of Pakistan. Asian Survey, 16(10), 918-930.
• Locke, J. (2002). John Locke: essays on the law of nature: the Latin text with a translation, introduction, and notes; together with transcripts of Locke's shorthand in his journal for 1676. Oxford University Press.
• McLauchlin, T. (2010). Loyalty strategies and military defection in rebellion. Comparative Politics, 42(3), 333-350.
• Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx: selected writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Millett, R., & Gold-Biss, M. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond Praetorianism: the Latin American military in transition. North-South Center Press, University of Miami.
• Ostovar, A. (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press.
• Peri, Y. (2017). Civilian Control During a Protracted War.”. Politics and Society in Israel: Studies in Israeli Society Vol, 3.
• Perlmutter, A. (1994). Arafat's Police State. Foreign Aff., 73, 8.
• Perlmutter, A. (2014). Political roles and military rulers. Routledge.
• Pion-Berlin, D., & Trinkunas, H. (2010). Civilian praetorianism and military shirking during constitutional crises in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 42(4), 395-411.
• Peruzzotti, E. (2004). From praetorianism to democratic institutionalization: Argentina's difficult transition to civilian rule. Journal of Global South Studies, 21(1), 97.
• Richter, W. L. (1978). Persistent Praetorianism: Pakistan's Third Military Regime. Pacific Affairs, 51(3), 406-426.
• Rizvi, A. J. (2015). Civil-Military-Islamist Relations: An Opinion on Democracy, Islamist Militancy and Praetorianism in Pakistan.
• Rousseau, J. J. (2007). Toplum sözleşmesi (çev. V. Günyol). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.(Eserin orijinali 1762’de yayımlandı).
• Sennett, R. (2011). Otorite (Çev. Kamil Durand). İstanbul, Ayrıntı Yayınevi. (Eserin orijinali 1993’te yayımlandı).
• Shah, A. (2008). Praetorianism and terrorism. Journal of Democracy, 19(4), 16-25.
• Syamsuddin, M. D. (1993). Political stability and leadership succession in Indonesia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 12-23.
• Taylor, W. C. (2014). The Past and Future of Arab Civil-Military Relations. In Military Responses to the Arab Uprisings and the Future of Civil-Military Relations in the Middle East (pp. 23-43). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
• Uzgel, I. (2003). Between Praetorianism and Democracy: The Role of the Military in Turkish Foreign Policy. Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 34, 177-212.