Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JECS356672   IUP :10.26650/JECS356672    Full Text (PDF)

Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics

Sema AkboğaOsman Şahin

Utilizing 60 interviews, we examine how people belonging to different gender, ethnic, and sectarian groups in Turkey define democracy and the democratic state. An analysis of the interviews reveals that women emphasize gender equality, while Kurds and Alevis focus on rights and freedoms in their definitions of democracy. Male Sunni Turks, on the other hand, focus on economic welfare. On the basis of these results, we argue that identity groups that have a problematic relationship with the state are more likely to define democracy in terms of rights and freedoms, whereas those who do not have a problematic relationship with the state are more likely to consider economic issues as central to democracy. This research also examined people’s expectations of a democratic state. When male Sunni Turks indicated that equality is among their expectations of a democratic state, they formulated it in terms of the state realizing economic equality. Female Sunni Turks, Kurds, and Alevis, on the other hand, emphasized the provision of equality among different ethnic and religious groups in their expectations of a democratic state. These important differences among identity groups in Turkey in terms of their attitudes toward democracy and the democratic state illustrate the problems involved in consolidating democracy as well as significant challenges in lessening social differentiation regarding this issue. 
DOI :10.26650/JECS356672   IUP :10.26650/JECS356672    Full Text (PDF)

Türkiye’de Demokrasi Algıları: Cinsiyet, Etnik ve Dini Dinamikler

Sema AkboğaOsman Şahin

Bu araştırmada, Türkiye’de farklı cinsiyet, etnik ve mezhep gruplarına mensup kişilerin, demokrasi ve demokratik devlet tanımları 60 adet yarı-yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşmeye dayanarak çalışılmıştır. Bu görüşmelerde, çeşitli etnik ve dini kimliklere ve sosyo-ekonomik gruplara ait bireylerle konuşulmuştur. Görüşmelerin analizi sonucunda, demokrasiyi tanımlarken, kadınların cinsiyet eşitliği üzerinde durduğu, Kürtlerin ve Alevilerin hak ve özgürlüklere, Sünni Türk erkeklerin ise ekonomik refaha odaklandıkları görülmüştür. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, devletle tartışmalı bir ilişki içerisinde olan kimlik gruplarının demokrasiyi hak ve özgürlükler açısından tanımlamaya, devletle bu şekilde bir ilişki içerisinde olmayan grupların ise demokrasiyi tanımlarken ekonomik konuları merkeze almaya daha eğilimli olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmada ayrıca katılımcıların demokratik devletten beklentileri de incelenmiştir. Görüşmelerin bu bölümünde de benzer sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. Sünni Türk erkeklerin demokratik devletten beklentileri arasında eşitlik bulunduğu durumlarda bile, bu görüşmecilerin daha çok ekonomik eşitliğin belirli bir ölçüde sağlanmasını kastettikleri anlaşılmıştır. Bunun aksine, Sünni Türk kadınlar, Kürtler ve Aleviler, demokratik devletten beklentilerinin arasında farklı etnik ve dini gruplar arasında eşitliğin sağlanması olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Türkiye toplumunu oluşturan bu kimlik gruplarının demokrasiye ve demokratik devlete ilişkin tutumlarındaki bu önemli farklılıklar, Türkiye’de hem demokrasinin konsolide edilmesi hem de bu konudaki toplumsal ayrışmanın azaltılması yönündeki sorunlara işaret etmektedir. 

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Disputes over the meaning of democracy make it difficult to find a clearly definable use for the term, which could be identified as correct. People’s definitions of democracy vary because factors including historical baggage, and gender, ethnic, and religious identity shape what people understand from democracy. Dalton, et al. (2007) suggest that definitions of democracy focus on one of three things: institutions and procedures; rights and freedoms; and social benefits. While some scholars focus on elections in their definitions of democracy (Huntington, 1991; Schumpeter, 1943), others suggest that non-electoral features of a democracy, such as the rule of law, deserve equal consideration (Diamond, 1999). Both approaches are criticized by those who argue that definitions focusing only on procedures and institutions or freedoms and liberties tend to neglect the significance of social and economic outcomes of democracy. Huber, et al. (1997), for example, argue that a democracy solely based on institutions and guarantees of freedoms does not always produce social and economic equality. The vast diversity of definitions of democracy—among citizens of the same nation as well as among different nations—should be recognized. Indeed, the scarce literature on citizens’ views on democracy (Ferrin & Kriesi, 2016) demonstrates that people conceptualize democracy in various ways (Baviskar & Malone, 2004; Bratton & Mattes, 2001; Canache, 2012; Carlin & Singer, 2011; Dalton, et al., 2007; Miller, et al., 1997; Shin & Cho, 2010). Depending on their experiences, people prioritize some components of democracy over the others (Bratton & Mattes, 2001), which in turn shapes their attitudes toward it. For example, while more than 40 percent of people in established democracies of the West define democracy with reference to rights and freedoms (Dalton, et al., 2007), many people in other parts of the world equate democracy with more access to health and education, less poverty, and more equality (Baviskar & Malone, 2004). In some African countries, people include economic components such as jobs for everyone, quality education, and a smaller income gap in their definitions of democracy (Bratton & Mattes, 2001). Similarly, the majority of citizens of Algeria and Lebanon consider characteristics such as low economic inequality and basic necessities for all as more essential to democracy than political characteristics (Tessler, et al., 2012). 

Drawing on this literature, we investigate how different groups in Turkey, a country that is predominantly Muslim and highly polarized across sectarian and ethnic lines, define democracy. We study whether there are differences between men and women, Kurds and Turks, Alevis and Sunnis in terms of (1) their definitions of democracy and a democratic state and (2) their expectations of a democratic state. 

We conducted 60 in-depth interviews in five cities in Turkey between April 2014 and July 2014. Participants were selected through purposive sampling for the sample to represent different gender, ethnic, sectarian, and socioeconomic groups in Turkey, enabling us to compare various groups’ views on democracy. We asked participants the following questions: (1) What is democracy? (2) What are the most essential features of democracy? (3) What does a democratic state mean to you? (4) What is the role of the state in a democratic society? All interviews were recorded and transcribed. During the analysis of the interviews, we coded for patterns and emerging themes by using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).  

Our analysis reveals that gender, ethnic, and religious identities and their histories of relations with the state have a decisive impact on which of these features is chosen by individuals when defining democracy and formulating their expectations of a democratic state. Members of groups that have a problematic history with the state (i.e., women, Kurds, and Alevis) are more likely to emphasize rights and freedoms. For example, the majority of women in our sample define democracy as a regime in which women’s rights and freedoms are protected and gender equality is achieved. Similarly, both Kurds and Alevis formulate their expectations of a democratic state in terms of being equal to Turks and Sunnis, respectively. Members of groups that do not have a problematic history with the state (i.e., male Sunni Turks) are more likely to emphasize economic welfare in their definitions of democracy. Even when they include the provision of equality among their expectations of a democratic state, most argue that a democratic state should achieve economic equality to a certain extent. This finding suggests that rather than imposing a single definition of democracy on people, there is a need to study individuals’ understanding of democracy, as well as their expectations of a democratic state, by situating their views in a historical and political context.


PDF View

References

  • Açikel, F., & Ateş. K. (2011). Ambivalent citizens: The Alevi as the ‘authentic self” and the ‘stigmatized other’ of Turkish Nationalism. European Societies, 13(5), 713–733. google scholar
  • Arat, Z. (1998). Introduction: Politics of representation and identity. In Z. Arat (Ed.), Deconstructing images of the Turkish women (pp. 1–34). St. New York: Martin’s Press. google scholar
  • Aslan, S. (2011). Everyday forms of state power and the Kurds in the early Turkish Republic. International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 43(1), 75–93. google scholar
  • Baviskar, S., & Malone, M. F. T. (2004). What democracy means to citizens– and why it matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, 76, 3–23. google scholar
  • Blanc-Noel, N. (2013). Resolving the dilemma between equality and liberty: The Swedish political system. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 4(1), 25–40. google scholar
  • Borovalı, M., & Boyraz, C. (2014). Turkish secularism and Islam: A difficult dialogue with Alevis. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 40(4–5), 479–488. google scholar
  • Bratton, M., & Mattes, R. (2011). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental? British Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 447–474. google scholar
  • Bratton, M. (2003). Briefing Islam, democracy and public opinion in Africa. African Affairs, 102(408), 493–501. google scholar
  • Bratton, M. (2010). Anchoring the d-word in Africa. Journal of Democracy, 21(4), 106–113. google scholar
  • Brym, R., & Andersen. R. (2016). Democracy, women’s rights, and public opinion in Tunisia. International Sociology, 31(3), 253–267. google scholar
  • Canache, D. (2012). Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1132–1158. google scholar
  • Carlin, R. E., & Singer, M. M. (2011). Support for polyarchy in Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 44(11), 1500–1526. google scholar
  • Cho, Y. (2012). How well ordinary citizens understand democracy: The case of South Korean electorate. Democratization, 21(2), 195–219. google scholar
  • Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451. google scholar
  • Dahl, R.A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. google scholar
  • Dalton, R. J., Shin, D. C., & Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156. google scholar
  • Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. google scholar
  • Erdemir, A. (2005). Tradition and modernity: Alevis’ ambiguous terms and Turkey’s ambivalent subjects. Middle Eastern Studies, 41(6), 937–951. google scholar
  • Ferrin, M., & Kriesi, H. (2016). Introduction. In M. Ferrin & H. Kriesi (Eds.), How Europeans view and evaluate democracy (pp. 1–20). New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. google scholar
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine de Gruyter. google scholar
  • Heller, P. (2000). Degrees of democracy: Some lessons from India. World Politics, 52(4), 484–519. google scholar
  • Huber, E., Rueschemeyer, D., & Stephens, J. D. (1997). The paradoxes of contemporary democracy: Formal, participatory and social democracy. Comparative Politics, 29(3), 323–42. google scholar
  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late 20th century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. google scholar
  • Kadın Cinayetlerini Durduracağız Platformu. (3 Nisan 2018). Erişim adresi: http://kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/veriler/2845/kadin-cinayetlerini-durduracagiz-platformu-2017-veri-raporu google scholar
  • Karakaya-Stump, A. (2018). The AKP, sectarianism, and the Alevis’ struggle for equal rights in Turkey. google scholar
  • National Identities, 20(1), 53–67. google scholar
  • Karl, T.L. (1995). The hybrid regimes of Central America. Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 72–86. google scholar
  • Kemahlıoğlu, Ö., & Keyman, F. (2011). Türkiye’de demokrasi algısı. Istanbul: Istanbul Policy Center. google scholar
  • Knutsen, C. H., & Wegmann, S. (2016). Is democracy about redistribution? Democratization, 23(1), 164–192. google scholar
  • KONDA. (2006). Biz kimiz? Toplumsal yapı araştırması. Erişim adresi: http://konda.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2006_09_KONDA_Toplumsal_Yapi.pdf google scholar
  • Kose, T. (2013). Between nationalism, modernism, and secularism: The ambivalent place of ‘Alevi identities’. Middle Eastern Studies, 49(4), 590–607. google scholar
  • Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Latin America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Univesity Press. google scholar
  • Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. London and New York: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L., & Reisinger, W. M. (1997). Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in Post-Soviet societies. British Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 157–190. google scholar
  • O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. C., & Whitehead, L. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Comparative perspectives. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. google scholar
  • Ottemoeller, D. (1998). Popular perceptions of democracy: Elections and attitudes in Uganda. Comparative Political Studies, 31(1), 98–124. google scholar
  • Özhan, T., & Ete, H. (2009). A new agenda for the Kurdish Question. Insight Turkey, 11(1), 97–114. google scholar
  • Pupcenoks, J. (2012). Democratic Islamization in Pakistan and Turkey: Lessons for the Post-Arab Spring Muslim World. The Middle East Journal, 66(2), 273–289. google scholar
  • Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
  • Sartori, G. (1995). How far can free government travel? Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 101–111. google scholar
  • Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin. google scholar
  • Shin, D. C., & Cho, Y. (2010). How East Asians understand democracy: From a comparative perspective. ASIEN 116, 21–40. google scholar
  • Tessler, M., & Altinoglu, E. (2004). Political culture in Turkey: Connections among attitudes toward democracy, the military and Islam. Democratization, 11(1), 21–50. google scholar
  • Tessler, M., Jamal, A., & Robinson, M. (2012). New findings on Arabs and Democracy. Journal of Democracy 23(4), 89–103. google scholar
  • Tezcür, G. M. (2010). When democratization radicalizes? The Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey. Journal of Peace Research, 47(6), 775–789. google scholar
  • Toprak, B., Bozan, İ., Morgül, T., & Şener, N. (2009). Being different in Turkey: Religion, conservatism, and otherization. Istanbul: Open Society Foundation. google scholar
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2012). Istatistiklerle kadın 2012. Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, 2012. google scholar
  • Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. (6 Eylül 2015). Türkiye’de kadına yönelik aile içi şiddet araştırması. Erişim adresi: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/TKAA2014_Ozet_Rapor.pdf. google scholar
  • World Economic Forum. (9 Ağustos 2016). The global gender gap index 2015. Erişim adresi: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/economies/#economy=TUR. google scholar
  • Yegen, M. (1999). The Kurdish Question in Turkish state discourse. Journal of Contemporary History, 34(4), 555–568. google scholar
  • Zeydanlıoğlu, W. (2009). Torture and Turkification in the Diyarbakır military prison. In W. Zeydanlıoğlu and J. T. Parry (Eds.), Rights, citizenship & torture: Perspectives on evil, law and the state (pp.73–92). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Akboğa, S., & Şahin, O. (2018). Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 0(57), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672


AMA

Akboğa S, Şahin O. Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics. Journal of Economy Culture and Society. 2018;0(57):1-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672


ABNT

Akboğa, S.; Şahin, O. Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 57, p. 1-28, 2018.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Akboğa, Sema, and Osman Şahin. 2018. “Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics.” Journal of Economy Culture and Society 0, no. 57: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672


Chicago: Humanities Style

Akboğa, Sema, and Osman Şahin. Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics.” Journal of Economy Culture and Society 0, no. 57 (May. 2022): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672


Harvard: Australian Style

Akboğa, S & Şahin, O 2018, 'Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics', Journal of Economy Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 57, pp. 1-28, viewed 26 May. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Akboğa, S. and Şahin, O. (2018) ‘Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics’, Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 0(57), pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672 (26 May. 2022).


MLA

Akboğa, Sema, and Osman Şahin. Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics.” Journal of Economy Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 57, 2018, pp. 1-28. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672


Vancouver

Akboğa S, Şahin O. Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics. Journal of Economy Culture and Society [Internet]. 26 May. 2022 [cited 26 May. 2022];0(57):1-28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672 doi: 10.26650/JECS356672


ISNAD

Akboğa, Sema - Şahin, Osman. Perceptions of Democracy in Turkey: Gender, Ethnic, and Religious Dynamics”. Journal of Economy Culture and Society 0/57 (May. 2022): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS356672



TIMELINE


Submitted21.11.2017
Accepted02.03.2018

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.