Türkiye From The Perspective of the Theory of Pillarization

Yıl 2023, , 776 - 784, 04.12.2023

Ertugrul Gokcekuyu

https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1246274

Öz

The Netherlands has had a rich theoretical array of instruments to view and understand societal matters. One of the first theoretical instruments is ‘pillarization’ also called verzuiling (Van Doorn 1956) in the Dutch language. A second theoretical instruments is ‘consociationalism’ that was developed by Arend Lijphart (Lijphart 2008) applying the idea of pillarization to all societies in a generic sense. Then a third related concept in this array of theories is ‘corporatism’ (De Grauwe 1977) that has had a strong influence in the Dutch political culture. All three concepts are characteristic for the Dutch political historical development. Although they may sometimes be used interchangeably, all three concepts are interrelated but not the same (Wintle 2000). All three instruments have played important roles in the social-historical processes in the emancipation of minority groups and in the building of a national identity (Miert 1992). The three concepts consociation, pillarization and corporatism have been important in public life. This article views all three concepts by viewing the Dutch history and looks into the Turkish socio-political processes today. The argumentation of this paper is that at least two of three concepts will apply to the Turkish public, political life and culture. I argue that the Turkish situation can also be characterised by the concept of vertical pluralism that was followed by a reversed process called depillarization (ontzuiling) in the Dutch language. This depillarization efforts can be seen in the way political parties seek coalition and consensus in multiple forms as is the case with the Cumhur ittifakı and the six partner formations (altılı masa formasyonu).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pillarization, Consociationalism, Corporatism, Emancipation

Destekleyen Kurum

Anadolu Üniversitesi

Teşekkür

I hope this article may serve the academic world. Many thanks.

Sütunlaşma Teorisi Perspektifinden Türkiye

Öz

Hollanda’nın tarihsel gelişimi sonucu oluşan toplumsal yapısı anlamak üzere geliştirilen teorik araçlar akademik bir zenginliğe sahiptir. Bu teorik araçlardan biriside Hollandaca da verzuiling (pillarization) adı altında anlam bulan 'sütunlaşma' kavramıdır. Hollanda sosyal yapısına adapte olan bu sütunlaşma teorisi daha sonra Arend Lijphart (Lijphart 2008) tarafından daha jenerik bir uygulama için geliştirilmiş ve adına consociationalism veya müşterek çıkarlar üzerine kurulan ortaklıklar şeklinde de ifade edilen kavram ile siyaset bilimi alanına kazanıdırlmıştır. Hollanda sosyal, toplumsal yapısında varlık bulan pillarization kavramının yanı sıra güçlü bir anlama sahip olan ‘korporatizm’ kavramı da yer almıştır. Her üç kavram da Hollanda siyasi tarihsel gelişimi için karakteristiktir. Bazen eşanlamlı kullanılma eğilimi olsa da aslında ayrı kavramdırlar ve birbirleriyle ilişkilidirler. Her üç kavram da azınlık grupları olarak nitelendirilen gurupların izolasyona kendi tercihleri ile girerek siyasi özgürleşme ve ulus inşası süreçlerinde büyük öneme sahiptirler. Bu makale, Hollanda’nın yakın tarihini inceleyerek üç kavramın günümüz Türkiye sosyo-politik sürecini bu kavramlar üzerinden anlamlandırılımasını hedef edinmektedir. Sonuç olarak üç kavramdan en az ikisinin günümüz Türkiyesinde sosyal-siyasal anlamda görünür olduğudur. Türkiye'de sosyal toplumsal yapısında dikey çoğulculuğun mevcut olduğu ve bu süreci daha sonra sütünlaşmanın dağılmasıyla (depillarization) bir özgürleşme (emancipation) sürecinin takip edeceği öngörülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sütunlaşma teorisi, Konsosyonalizm, Korporatizm, Özrgürlük

Kaynakça

• Bax, Erik Hans. 1995. Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination. Graduate School/Research Institute Systems, Organisation and Management, University of Groningen.
• Becker, Uwe. 1993. Nederlandse Politiek in Historisch En Vergelijkend Perspectief. Het Spinhuis.
• Blom, Johannes Cornelis Hans. 2000. ‘Pillarisation in Perspective’. West European Politics 23(3):153-64.
• Dekker, Paul, and Peter Ester. 1996. ‘Depillarization, Deconfessionalization, and de-Ideologization: Empirical Trends in Dutch Society 1958-1992’. Review of Religious Research 325-41.
• Hoogenboom, Marcel, Peter Scholten, and Vakgroep Maatschappelijke Risico’s en Veiligheid. 2008. ‘Migranten En de Erfenis van de Verzuiling in Nederland’. Beleid En Maatschappij 35(2):107-24.
• Irwin, Galin, Cees van der Eijk, Joop Van Holsteyn, and Kees Niemöller. 1987. ‘Verzuiling, Issues, Kandidaten En Ideologie in de Verkiezingen van 1986’. Acta Politica 22(2):129-79.
• Kapani, Münci. 1992. Politika Bilimine Giriş. Vol. 6. Bilgi Yayınevi.
• Kickert, Walter. 2003. ‘Beneath Consensual Corporatism: Traditions of Governance in the Netherlands’. Public Administration 81(1):119-40.
• Kolçak, Hakan. 2020. ‘Consociationalism under Examination: Is Consociationalism the Optimal Multiculturalist Approach for Turkey?’ Digest of Middle East Studies 29(1):26-52.
• Laicists, Militant, Muslim Democrats, and Liberal Secularists. 2013. ‘Since the Election of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) to National Government in 2002 (and Again in 2007 and 2011), Turkish Society Has Existed on a Political Knife-Edge. Rumors of a Military Intervention Have Been Fueled by the Detailed Pub-Lication of a Number of Aborted Coups Plotted by the Turkish Armed’. Muslim Secular Democracy: Voices from Within 253.
• Lijphart, Arend. 1969. ‘Consociational Democracy’. World Politics 21(2):207-25.
• Lijphart, Arend. 2008. Verzuiling, Pacificatie En Kentering in de Nederlandse Politiek. Amsterdam University Press. Miert, Jan van. 1992. ‘Verdeeldheid En Binding. Over Lokale, Verzuilde En Nationale Loyaliteiten’. BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review 107(4):670-89.
• Parla, Taha, and Andrew Davison. 2008. ‘CHAPTER TWO. Secularism and Laicism in Turkey’. Pp. 58–75 in Secularisms. Duke University Press.
• Rooy, Piet de. 1995. ‘Zes Studies over Verzuiling’. BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review 110(3):380-92.
• Rooy, Piet de. 2001. ‘Voorbij de Verzuiling?’ BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review 116(1):45-57.
• Şahin, Enis, and Bilal Tunç. 2015. ‘Demokrat Parti’nin Kuruluş Süreci ve DP–CHP Siyasî Mücadelesi (1945-1947)’. Sosyal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi (SKAD) 1(2):31-69.
• Stuurman, Siep. 1991. ‘1848: Revolutionary Reform in the Netherlands’. European History Quarterly 21(4):445-80. Van Doorn, Jan Abraham Anne. 1956. ‘Verzuiling: Een Eigentijds Systeem van Sociale Controle’. Sociologische Gids 3(3-4):41-49.
• Wintle, Michael. 2000. ‘Pillarisation, Consociation and Vertical Pluralism in the Netherlands Revisited: A European View’. West European Politics 23(3):139-52.