SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

Tendency of Centralization and New Constitution Efforts in Turkish Political System

Türk Politik Sisteminde Merkezileşme Eğilimi ve Yeni Anayasa Çalışmaları

Devrim ÖZKAN
Pages
337–351
Publication Date
2015-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In this regard, how individuals and communities will be provided with freedom, welfare and stabilization in political mechanisms is one of the most crucial issues of Turkish political system

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the tendency of centralization in Turkish political system has played a significant role in all the problems related to politics, economics and culture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study addresses the causes of the tendency of centralization in Turkish political system because centralized political mechanisms are the main obstacles to solve many problems such as actual and structural ones.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this regard, how individuals and communities will be provided with freedom, welfare and stabilization in political mechanisms is one of the most crucial issues of Turkish political system
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karşı ağırlık · Türkiye · merkezileşme

Abstract

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the tendency of centralization in Turkish political system has played a significant role in all the problems related to politics, economics and culture. This study addresses the causes of the tendency of centralization in Turkish political system because centralized political mechanisms are the main obstacles to solve many problems such as actual and structural ones. Certainly, individuals should be treated as necessary agents in modern politics. Therefore, the place of individuals in a political system has a vital importance. As individuals construct their identities coordinately with other individuals, they behave coordinately with others in politics, as well. in a society where individuals connect with each other via state makes totalitarian regimes inevitable. In this regard, how individuals and communities will be provided with freedom, welfare and stabilization in political mechanisms is one of the most crucial issues of Turkish political system

Özet

Türk politik sistemindeki merkezileşme eğilimi, yirminci yüzyılın başından günümüze kadar, ortaya çıkan tüm politik, iktisadi ve kültürel problemlerde, başat bir önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, öncelikle, Türk politik sistemindeki merkezileşme eğiliminin sebepleri ele alınmaktadır. Zira gerek güncel, gerekse yapısal pek çok sosyal problemin çözüme kavuşturulmasının önündeki başlıca engel merkezileşmiş politik yapılardır. Kuşkusuz birey, modern politikada, vazgeçilmez bir biçimde, dikkate alınması gereken bir öznedir. Bu nedenle, bireyin politik sistemde nasıl konumlanacağı, hayati bir önem arz eder. Birey, şüphesiz, kimliğini diğer bireyler ile eşgüdümlü bir biçimde inşa ettiğinden dolayı, politikada konumlanırken de diğerleri ile koordineli davranır. Birbiri ile bağlantısını devletin vasıtası ile sağlayan bireylerden oluşan bir toplumunda, totaliter yönetimlerin egemen olması kaçınılmazdır. Dolayısıyla gerek bireylerin, gerekse komünitelerin, politik sistemde, özgürlük, refah ve istikrarı temin edecek bir tarzda nasıl konumlanacakları Türk politik sisteminin en önemli meselelerindendir

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAN, D. (2015). Tendency of Centralization and New Constitution Efforts in Turkish Political System. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 337–351. https://ajindex.com/articles/70256

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Burke, E. (2009) [1790]. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Oxford: Oxford De Montesquieu, B. (1989) [1748] The Spirit of the Laws. Anne M. Cohler, Basia Carolyn Miller and Harold Samuel Stone (trans. and edit.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. De Tocqueville, A. (1856). The Old Regime and the Revolution. John Bonner (trans.). New York: Harper & Brothers. De Tocqueville, A. (2010). [1835-1840] Democracy in America. Eduardo Nolla, (edit.) & James T. Schleifer (trans.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc. Gillespie, M. A. (2008). The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  3. Goffman, E. (1958). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NJ: Anchor. Goldstein, J. & RAYNER, J. (1994). The Politics of Identity in Late Modern Society. Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 367-384.
  4. Habermas, J. (1984) [1981]. Theory of Communicative Action Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Thomas A. McCarthy (trans.). Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
  5. Habermas, J. (1987) [1981]. Theory of Communicative Action Volume Two: Liveworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Thomas A. McCarthy (trans.). Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
  6. Hayek, F.A. (1962) [1944]. The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4., pp. 519-530.
  7. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977) [1807]. Phenomenology of Spırit. A. V. Miller (trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Hobbes, T. (1991) [1651]. Leviathan. Richard Tuck (edit.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Hume, D. (1985) [1739]. Treatise of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Lewis, P. (2007). The Cambridge Introduction to Modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Locke, J. (1988) [1689]. Two Treatises of Civil Government. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Machiavelli, N. (2003) [1532]. The Prince. George Bull (trans.). London: Penguin Books. Mardin, Ş. (1969).
  13. Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Ottoman Empire. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 258-281.
  14. Mardin, Ş. (1971). Ideology and Religion in the Turkish Revolution. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 197-211.
  15. Nisbet, R. (1953). The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press. Nisbet,