SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 26 Issue: 3

RULING PARTIES IN TURKISH PARTY SYSTEM: AN ANALYSIS BETWEEN 14 MAY 1950 AND 14 MAY 2023

Niran Cansever(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7067-8779
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-09-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the study, three rules were put forward to explain the rule of the peripheral turnover between the ruling right parties and the main opposition party in Turkish political system and the role of the formation of the government.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Turkish party system follows a line extending from the Democrat Party to the Justice and Development Party in terms of the ruling parties in the multiparty era.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These parties and the periods in which they were in government are the DP in the 1950s, the AP from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, the ANAP from 1983 until 1991, and the AK Party since the 2002 elections.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the study, three rules were put forward to explain the rule of the peripheral turnover between the ruling right parties and the main opposition party in Turkish political system and the role of the formation of the government.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Republican People’s Party · Democrat Party · Justice Party

Abstract

Turkish party system follows a line extending from the Democrat Party to the Justice and Development Party in terms of the ruling parties in the multiparty era. With the transition to multi-party life in Türkiye after the Second World War, four different political parties formed governments by winning many of the elections alone. These parties and the periods in which they were in government are the DP in the 1950s, the AP from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, the ANAP from 1983 until 1991, and the AK Party since the 2002 elections. This study aims to compare these four major parties, which are on the right of the political spectrum in the Turkish party system and are the sole ruling parties, and to reveal and evaluate their similarities and differences by focusing on the historical background especially those that differentiate them from the CHP. In this article, another purpose is trying to establish a predecessor–successor relationship among these parties in the framework of theory of the political parties. In this study, qualitative comparative analysis method was used. The defining, positioning, and comparing these parties based on qualitative research techniques draws us a distinctive and complementary picture of Turkish politics, with possible important contributions to the field of comparative party politics. Thus, extending from the 1950s to 2023, presenting one of the specific characteristics of Turkish political life. As a result of the study, three rules were put forward to explain the rule of the peripheral turnover between the ruling right parties and the main opposition party in Turkish political system and the role of the formation of the government.

🔖

Cite This Article

Cansever, N. (2025). RULING PARTIES IN TURKISH PARTY SYSTEM: AN ANALYSIS BETWEEN 14 MAY 1950 AND 14 MAY 2023. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 26 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1676170

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Ahmad, F. (2008). Politics and political parties in republican Turkey. In R. Kasaba (Ed.), Turkey in the modern world (VoL. 4). Cambridge University Press.
  2. Bakiner, O. (2018). A key to Turkish politics? The center–periphery framework revisited. Turkish Studies, 19(4), 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2018.1438846
  3. Bogaards, M. & Boucek F. (2005). Dominant parties and democracy. Workshop Proposal, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Granada. https://ecpr.eu/filestore/workshopoutline/8bed1ad8-a1e2-4fdc-8bdd-5213675091c2.pdf
  4. BritPolitics. (n.d.). What is the British Party System? https://www.britpolitics.co.uk/a-level-uk-political-party-system/
  5. Cansever, N. (2019). Türk siyasal hayatında yöneten sağın bölünmesi: 1990’li yıllarda Anavatan Partisi ve Doğru Yol Partisi karşılaştırmalı analizi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi.
  6. Cansever, N. (2025). Hâkim parti sistemleri: Türkiye’de yöneten sağ partiler ile Japonya’da liberal demokrat karşılaştırmalı analizi. Turkish Studies-Economics, Finance, Politics, 20(2), 557–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.81481
  7. Cansever, N., & H. M. Kiriş (2021). Yöneten sağda rekabet ve dönüşüm–1990’li yıllarda Anavatan ve Doğru Yol Partileri. Detay Yayıncılık.
  8. Çarkoğlu, A. (2011). Turkey’s 2011 general elections: Towards a dominant party system? Insight Turkey, 13(3), 43-62. https://www.insightturkey.com/articles/turkeys-2011-general-elections-towards-a-dominant-party-system
  9. Ciddi, S., & B. Esen, B. (2014). Turkey’s Republican People’s Party: Politics of opposition under a dominant party system. Turkish Studies, 15 (3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2014.954745
  10. Crotty, W. J. (1970). A perspective for the comparative analysis of political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 3(3), 267– 296. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407000300301
  11. Çınar, K., Uğur-Çınar, M., & A. Açıkgöz (2022). Turkey’s Republican People’s Party (CHP): A longue durée analysis. Turkish Studies, 24 (2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2022.2119849
  12. Demirci-Güler, F. (2003). Adalet Partisi. TODAİE.
  13. Demirel, S. (1974, 12 February). AP ayağına batan dikeni çıkaracak! [AP will remove thorn in its foot]. Milliyet Gazetesi. http://gazetearsivi.milliyet.com.tr/GununYayinlari/AGlGylA56TxdXYflCW6ktw_x3D__x3D
  14. Demirel, S. (1978). 1923’ten 1978’e seçim kazanan yegâne iki parti Adalet Partisi ve Demokrat Parti. Adalet Partisi Yayını.
  15. Demirel, T. (2003). Adalet Partisi, ideoloji ve politika. İletişim Yayınları.
  16. Duverger, M. (1959). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. (Trans. B. North & R. North). Methuen & Co.
  17. Ecevit, B. (1966). Ortanın solu (2nd ed). Kim Yayınları.
  18. Eroğul, C. (1990). Demokrat Parti, tarihi ve ideolojisi (2nd ed.). İmge Yayınevi.
  19. Gümüşçü, Ş. (2013). The emerging predominant party system in Turkey. Government and Opposition, 48 (2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2012.13
  20. Güneş-Ayata, A. (2002). The Republican People’s Party. Turkish Studies, 3(1), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/714005705
  21. Heper, M., & J. M. Landau (Ed.) (1991). Political parties and democracy in Turkey. I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd Publishers.
  22. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave–democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
  23. Kahraman, H. B. (2008). Türk siyasetinin yapısal analizi – I. Agora Kitaplığı.
  24. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2002). “The Motherland Party: The Challenge of Institutionalization in a Charismatic Leader Party”. Turkish Studies, 3(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/714005703
  25. Keyder, Ç. (1987). State and class in Turkey–A study in capitalist development. Verso Publishers.
  26. Keyman, F. (2014). The AK Party: Dominant party, new Turkey and polarization. Insight Turkey. 16(2), 19-31. https://www.insightturkey.com/commentaries/the-ak-party-dominant-party-new-turkey-and-polarization-1-1
  27. Kiriş, H. M. & Gül. H. (2015). 4 seçim 1 Türkiye – sunuş. Toplum ve Demokrasi Dergisi. 9(19-20), 5-11.
  28. Kiriş, H. M. (2012). The CHP: From the single party to the permanent main opposition party. Turkish Studies, 13(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2012.717445
  29. Kiriş, H. M., & Gül, H. (2008). Transformation of political tendencies in Turkey: An analysis within the context of local elections. TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration, 2(2), 121 – 154.
  30. Krauss, E. S., & Pierre, J. (1990). The decline of dominant parties: Parliamentary politics in Sweden and Japan in the 1970s. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon democracies: The one-party dominant regimes. Cornell University Press.
  31. Levin, P. (2018). “Reflections on Şerif Mardin’s center-periphery thesis”. Turkish Studies, 24(3-4), 617-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2023.2189592
  32. Mahoney, J. (2007). “Qualitative methodology and comparative politics”. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 122-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006296345
  33. Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.). (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center – periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?. Daedalus. 102(1), 169–190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024114
  35. McDonald, R. H. (1971). Party systems and elections in Latin America. Markham.
  36. Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine de Sociologie, 10(1), 221–230. http://www.jstor.org/stable/afrisocirevi.10.1.221
  37. Neziroğlu, İ., & Yılmaz, T. (2014). Başbakanlarımız Cilt 4, Adnan Menderes. TBMM Yayınları. https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/basbakanlarimiz_genelkurul_konusmalari/basbakanlarimiz_cilt4.pdf
  38. Official biography of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. (n.d.). https://www.tccb.gov.tr/receptayyiperdogan/biyografi/
  39. Official biography of Süleyman Demirel. (n.d.). https://www.tccb.gov.tr/cumhurbaskanlarimiz/suleyman_demirel/
  40. Official biography of Turgut Özal. (n.d.). https://www.tccb.gov.tr/cumhurbaskanlarimiz/turgut_ozal/
  41. Özbudun, E. (1993). State elites and democratic political culture in Turkey. In L. Diamond (Ed.), Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries. Lynne Rienner.
  42. Pempel, J. T. (Eds.). (1990). Uncommon democracies: The one-party dominant regimes. Cornell University Press.
  43. Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
  44. Rustow, D. A. (1963). Turkey’s second try at democracy. Yale Review. 52, 518. https://yalereview.org/volume-lii-52-1962-1963
  45. Sartori, G. (2005). Parties and party systems. ECPR Press.
  46. Sayarı, S. (2002). Introduction. S. Sayarı, & M. Heper (Ed.), Political leaders and democracy in Turkey. Lexington Books.
  47. Scarrow, S. E. (2004). Embracing dealignment, combating realignment: German parties respond. In P. Mair, W. C. Muller & F. Plasser (Ed.), Political parties and electoral change: Party responses to electoral markets. Sage Publications.
  48. Schmidt, M. G. (2008). Germany: The grand coalition state. In J. M. Colomer (Ed.), Comparative European politics (3rd ed). Routledge Publishers.
  49. Siaroff, A. (2019). Comparative European party systems - an analysis of parliamentary elections since 1945 (2nd ed). Routledge Publishers.
  50. Stockwin, J. A. A. (2012). Has changing the party in power in Japan made a real difference?. Japan Forum, 24(4), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2012.729850
  51. Supreme Election Council. (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu, YSK) (n.d.). Seçim istatistikleri. https://www.ysk.gov.tr/tr/secim-i%CC%87statistikleri/78318
  52. Tunaya, T. Z. (1998). Türkiye’de siyasal partiler–Cilt 1 (2nd ed). Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları.
  53. Turan, İ. (2006). Old soldiers never die: The Republican People’s Party of Turkey. South European Society & Politics, 11(3–4), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740600856587
  54. Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT, TUİK). (n.d.). https://data.tuik.gov.tr/
  55. UK Parliament. (n.d.). The Party System. https://www.parliament.uk/about/ANAPs-and-lords/members/partysystem/
  56. Uzun, C. D. (2020), Hakim parti sistemi ve Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi iktidarı. Çankaya Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 3429–3451.
  57. Webb, P. (2004). Party responses to the changing electoral market in Britain. In P. Mair, W. C. Muller & F. Plasser (Ed.), Political parties and electoral change: Party responses to electoral markets. Sage Publications.
  58. World Values Survey. (2023, 1 April). www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp
  59. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed). Sage Publications.
  60. Zakowski, K. (2011). Evolution of the Japanese political scene: Toward a non-issue-oriented two-party system?. Asian Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2011.600166