TOPLUMUN SİYASETSİZLEŞTİRİLMESİ AÇISINDAN BÜROKRATİK-OTORİTERYENİZM VE POPÜLİZM

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 5, 125 - 138, 31.12.2020

Zeynel Abidin Kılınç , İrfan Haşlak

Abstract

Bu çalışmada uzmanlık ilkesini esas alan Bürokratik Otoriteryen rejimle milli irade ilkesini esas alan popülist rejim karşılaştırılmaktadır. Bürokratik Otoriteryen model toplumsal işlerin uzmanlara havale edilerek bilimsel bir yöntemle çözülebileceği kanaatinden hareket ederken, popülizm milli iradenin uzmanlık gerekçesiyle sınırlandırılmasına itiraz eder. BO rejimler siyaseti ve özellikle de tüm toplumsal kesimleri hareketlendiren demokratik siyaseti olabildiğince yok ederek uzmanlar eliyle toplumsal sorunlara çözüm bulmaya çalışır. Popülizm ise tek söz sahibinin milli iradenin temsilcisi seçilmiş hükümet olduğunu ileri sürerek siyasetçilerin alanını uzmanlık aleyhine olacak şekilde genişletir. Fakat, popülizmin siyaset ve liderlik anlayışı paradoksal biçimde toplumun siyasetten dışlanması ile sonuçlanır. Dolayısıyla BO açıkça demokratik siyaseti dışlarken popülizm toplumun siyasetsizleşmesine dolaylı yoldan sürüklenir.

Keywords

Bürokratik Otoriteryenizm, Uzmanlık, Popülizm

References

• ACEMOĞLU, D. ve ROBINSON, A. R. (2007). On the Economic Origins of Democracy, Daedalus, 136 (1), 160-162.
• BRANCO, M. C. (2011). Economics Against Democracy, Review of Radical Political Economics, 44 (1), 23–39.
• BERLIN, I. (1991). The Counter-Enlightenment, Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, Edt. H. Hardy, Clarendon Press.
• CANOVAN, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy, Political studies, 47(1), 2–16.
• COLLIER, D, (2001). Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, Edt. Joel Krieger, Oxford University Press.
• CRICK, S. B. (2005). Populism, politics and democracy, Democratisation, 12(5), 625-632.
• DARGENT, E. (2011). Agents or Actors? Assessing the Autonomy of Economic Technocrats in Colombia and Peru, Comparative Politics, 43(3), 313-332.
• FISCHER, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, Sage.
• FREEMAN, J. R. (2002). Competing Commitments: Technocracy and Democracy in the Design of Monetary Institutions, International Organization, 56(4), 889-910.
• GELLER, D. S. (1982). Economic Modernization and Political Instability in Latin America: A Causal Analysis of Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism, The Western Political Quarterly, 35(1), 33-49.
• HABERMAS, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Beacon Press.
• HAGOPIAN, F. (2000). Political Development Revisited, Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7), 880-911.
• HEISS, C. (2017). Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Ed. Bryan S. Turner. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 1-3.
• HUNTINGTON, S. P. (1965). Political Development and Political Decay, World Politics, 17(3), 386-430.
• LANE, R. (1997). The Art of Comparative Politics, Allyn & Beacon.
• LIPSET, S. M. (1959). Some Social Requisities of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy, APSR, 53(1), 69-105.
• MUDDE, C. (2004). The Popülist Zeitgeist, Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541-563.
• MUDDE, C. ve KALTWASSER, C. R. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press.
• MUNRO, A. (2020). Populism, https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism, Erişim tarihi: 15.09.2020.
• MÜLLER, J. W. (2016). What Is Populism?, University of Pennnsylvania Press.
• O’DONNELL, G. (1979). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism, University of California Press.
• O'DONNELL, G. (1977). Corporatism and the Question of the State, Edt. James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America, University of Pittsburgh Press.
• PUTNAM, R. D. (1977). Elite Transformation in Advanced Industrial Societies: An Empirical Assessment of the Theory of Technocracy, Comparative Political Studies, 10(3): 383-412.
• RAHMAN, K. S. (2011). Conceptualizing the Economic Role of the State: Laissez-Faire, Technocracy, and the Democratic Alternative, Polity, 43(2), 264-286.
• REMMER, K. L. (1997). Theoretical Decay and Theoretical Development: The Resurgence of Institutional Analysis, World Politics, 50(1): 34-61.
• REMMER, K. L. Ve Merkx, G. W. (1982). Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism Revisited, Latin American Research Review, 17(2), 3-40.
• RUNCIMAN, D. (2020). Why replacing politicians with experts is a reckless idea, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea, Erişim tarihi: 15.10.2020.
• SCHAMIS, H. E. (1991). Reconceptualizing Latin American Authoritarianism in the 1970s: From Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism to Neoconservatism, Comparative Politics, (23)2, 201-220.
• WIARDA, H. J. (2006). Comparative Politics: Approaches and Issues, Rowman & Littlefield.
• WILLIAMS, M. E. (2006). Escaping the Zero-Sum Scenario: Democracy versus Technocracy in Latin America, Political Science Quarterly, 121(1), 119-139.