Revisiting the Debates on the 2010 Constitutional Referendum in Turkey: Democratic Transition or Authoritarian Populism?

İrem Taşçıoğlu

Makale detayları

Revisiting the Debates on the 2010 Constitutional Referendum in Turkey: Democratic Transition or Authoritarian Populism?

Yazarlar:

İrem Taşçıoğlu

Yayıncı:

Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi:

Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.153-174

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

5/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001329084

pISSN:

2147-6926

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This article revisits the scholarly debates on the AKPs constitutional amendment package that was put to vote in the 2010 Constitutional Referendum. It takes the democratic theorist Andrew Arato and constitutional scholar Aslı Bali as major representatives of the two opposing views on the political implications of the reform proposal. It compares and contrasts their arguments particularly in light of their different assessments of the amendments which concern the restructuring of the judiciary, especially the Turkish Constitutional Court. It argues that their fundamental controversy with regard to the democratic or authoritarian nature of these amendments is rooted in the contrast between Balis predominantly contextual and Aratos predominantly global approach. While Bali affirms the reform proposal as a democratic step forward in transcending the persistent legacy of the Kemalist authoritarian tutelary regime represented by the Constitutional Court, Arato interprets it as a manifestation of the global populist-authoritarian retreat that is expresses itself most visibly through assaults against the independent judiciary. After a critical reading of these two approaches, this paper finalizes by way of introducing a new framework that would counterbalance the contextual with the global and vice versa that would arguably provide a new perspective through which one could unveil the particular characteristics of the AKPs populist constitutional politics at the time of the Referendum.

 This article revisits the scholarly debates on the AKPs constitutional amendment package that was put to vote in the 2010 Constitutional Referendum. It takes the democratic theorist Andrew Arato and constitutional scholar Aslı Bali as major representatives of the two opposing views on the political implications of the reform proposal. It compares and contrasts their arguments particularly in light of their different assessments of the amendments which concern the restructuring of the judiciary, especially the Turkish Constitutional Court. It argues that their fundamental controversy with regard to the democratic or authoritarian nature of these amendments is rooted in the contrast between Balis predominantly contextual and Aratos predominantly global approach. While Bali affirms the reform proposal as a democratic step forward in transcending the persistent legacy of the Kemalist authoritarian tutelary regime represented by the Constitutional Court, Arato interprets it as a manifestation of the global populist-authoritarian retreat that is expresses itself most visibly through assaults against the independent judiciary. After a critical reading of these two approaches, this paper finalizes by way of introducing a new framework that would counterbalance the contextual with the global and vice versa that would arguably provide a new perspective through which one could unveil the particular characteristics of the AKPs populist constitutional politics at the time of the Referendum.

 This article revisits the scholarly debates on the AKPs constitutional amendment package that was put to vote in the 2010 Constitutional Referendum. It takes the democratic theorist Andrew Arato and constitutional scholar Aslı Bali as major representatives of the two opposing views on the political implications of the reform proposal. It compares and contrasts their arguments particularly in light of their different assessments of the amendments which concern the restructuring of the judiciary, especially the Turkish Constitutional Court. It argues that their fundamental controversy with regard to the democratic or authoritarian nature of these amendments is rooted in the contrast between Balis predominantly contextual and Aratos predominantly global approach. While Bali affirms the reform proposal as a democratic step forward in transcending the persistent legacy of the Kemalist authoritarian tutelary regime represented by the Constitutional Court, Arato interprets it as a manifestation of the global populist-authoritarian retreat that is expresses itself most visibly through assaults against the independent judiciary. After a critical reading of these two approaches, this paper finalizes by way of introducing a new framework that would counterbalance the contextual with the global and vice versa that would arguably provide a new perspective through which one could unveil the particular characteristics of the AKPs populist constitutional politics at the time of the Referendum.

 Bu makale 2010 Anayasa Referandumunda oylamaya sunulan anayasa değişiklik paketi üzerine yapılan bilimsel tartışmalara geri döner. Demokratik teorisyen Andrew Arato ve anayasa profesörü Aslı Baliyi bu paketin siyasal içerimlerine dair iki zıt görüşün başlıca temsilcileri olarak ele alır. Onların fikirlerini yargının, özellikle Anayasa Mahkemesinin yeniden yapılandırılmasını ilgilendiren anayasa değişikliklerine yaklaşımları ışığında karşılaştırır. Bu makale, bu değişikliklerin demokratik veya otoriter doğasına ilişkin ihtilafın, Balinin ağırlıklı olarak bağlamsal ve Aratonun ağırlıklı olarak küresel yaklaşım biçimleri arasındaki farktan kaynaklandığını iddia eder. Buna göre, Bali, değişiklikleri Anayasa Mahkemesinin temsil ettiği Kemalist otoriter vesayetçi rejimin süreklilik teşkil eden mirasının aşılması yönünde önemli bir adım olarak olumlarken, Arato, aynı değişiklikleri en belirgin olarak bağımsız yargıya yönelik saldırılarda ifadesini bulan küresel bir otoriter-popülist geri çekilmenin tezahürü olarak değerlendirir. Bu makale, bu iki yaklaşım biçimine yönelik eleştirel bir değerlendirmeden sonra, Referandum döneminde AKPnin anayasa siyasetinin özgül niteliklerini kavramak için küresel ve bağlamsal yaklaşımları birbirine karşı dengeleyen yeni bir çerçeve sunarak sonlanır.

Makale detayları

Revisiting the Debates on the 2010 Constitutional Referendum in Turkey: Democratic Transition or Authoritarian Populism?

Yazarlar:

İrem Taşçıoğlu

Yayıncı:

Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi:

Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.153-174

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

5/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001329084

pISSN:

2147-6926

2010 Constitutional Referendum

Turkish Constitutional Court

Judiciary

Populism

Liberal Democracy

Kemalism2010 Anayasa Referandumu

Anayasa Mahkemesi

Yargı

Popülizm

Liberal Demokrasi

Kemalizm

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: İrem Taşçıoğlu

Yayıncı: Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar: Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi: Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.153-174

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 5/2024

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001329084

pISSN: 2147-6926

Sayı

Yazarlar:

İrem Taşçıoğlu

Yayıncı:

Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Siyasal Teori ve Siyaset Felsefesi

Dergi:

Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.153-174

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

5/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001329084

pISSN:

2147-6926