References

politscience

Политическая наука

Political science

1998-1775

ИНИОН РАН

10.31249/poln/2024.01.07

politscience-1035

Research Article

РАКУРСЫ

Центр-периферийный раскол современной Турции

Center-periphery cleavage in Modern Turkey

Харитонова

О. Г.

Kharitonova

O. G.

Харитонова Оксана Геннадьевна, кандидат политических наук, доцент кафедры сравнительной политологии, научный сотрудник исследовательской лаборатории «Политические процессы в системе отношений Центр-регионы»

Москва

Kharitonova Oxana

Moscow

o.haritonova@inno.mgimo.ru

МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation

2024

04032024

Пространственное развитие и региональная политика: современные вызовы и тренды

178209

2024

Харитонова О.Г.

Kharitonova O.G.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://www.politnauka.ru/jour/article/view/1035

Политическое развитие Турции демонстрирует чередование демократизации и автократизации, в основе которого лежат определенные устойчивые тенденции, поиску и интерпретации которых под разными углами зрения посвящено большое число работ. В статье используется теоретическая рамка центр-периферийных расколов Ш. Мардина, Э. Шилза, С.М. Липсета и С. Роккана, которая адаптируется для анализа турецкой партийной системы. Рассмотрена эволюция партийной системы Турции в контексте проявления соответствующих размежеваний на каждом из этапов (город – деревня, центр – периферия, секуляризм – религия), определены периоды доминирования центр-периферийного (территориального) или идеологического (функционального) конфликта. Выявлены факторы сохранения центр-периферийного раскола, в том числе высокий уровень религиозности, социально-экономические диспропорции между регионами, территориализация (в противоположность национализации) партийной системы, этнический раскол. Сделан вывод, что успехи Партии справедливости и развития и лично Р. Эрдогана являются результатом рационального выбора политической элиты центра в ответ на запросы периферии, в том числе через инструментализацию религии, популизм и харизму. Анализ выборов 2023 г. на основе выделения трех географических кластеров (центр, периферия, глубокая периферия по признаку социальной и географической дистанции) подтверждает сохранение в Турции центр-периферийного раскола (анализ вариации голосования за основные партии демонстрирует значимость географического фактора). В статье делается вывод, что несмотря на центростремительные ориентации правящей партии и президента, центр-периферийные размежевания продолжают определять конфигурацию партийной системы Турции, а концепция размежеваний сохраняет объяснительный потенциал.

Turkey’s political development witnessed the alternation of democratization and autocratization phases rooted in definite stable trends, the interpretation of which from different angles has been the subject of various research. The theoretical framework of center-periphery cleavages of E. Shills, S. Mardin, S.M. Lipset and S. Rokkan is applied to the analysis of the Turkish party system. The article examines the evolution of the Turkish party system in the context of the manifestation of the cleavages at each stage (urban-rural, center-periphery, secularismreligion), and identifies periods of dominance of the center-periphery (territorial) or ideological (functional) conflicts. Then the factors sustaining the center-periphercleavage are studied, including high levels of religiosity, socio-economic disproportions between regions, territorialization (as opposed to nationalization) of the party system, and ethnic conflict. The article reveals that the successes of the Justice and Development Party and R. Erdogan are the result of the rational choice answer of the political elite of the center to the needs of the periphery, including through the instrumentalization of religion, populism and charisma.

The analysis of the 2023 elections identifies three geographic clusters (center, periphery, deep periphery based on social and geographic distance from the center) and confirms the persistence of the center-periphery cleavage in Turkey while the analysis of variance of voting for the three main parties demonstrates the significance of the geographical factor. The article comes to the conclusion that despite the centripetal orientations of the ruling party and the president, center-periphery cleavage continues to determine the configuration of the Turkish party system, and the centre-periphery framework is still valid for explaining the electoral behavior.

центрперифериякультурный расколТурциявыборы 2023ПСР

Centreperipherycultural cleavageTurkeyelections 2023AKP

References1

Кудряшова И.В., Мелешкина Е.Ю. После империй: можно ли перековать мечи на орала? // Политическая наука. – 2022. – № 1. – С. 14–51. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2022.01.01

Aytaç S.E. Economic Voting during the AKP Era in Turkey. In: Tezcür G.M. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Turkish Politics. New York: Oxford university press, 2022, P. 319–340.

Липсет С. М., Роккан С. Структуры размежеваний, партийные системы и предпочтения избирателей // Партии и выборы: хрестоматия. Сер. «Политология» / Центр социальных научно-информационных исследований. Отдел политической науки. Московский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) МИД РФ; Отв. ред. и сост. Н.В. Анохина, Е.Ю. Мелешкина. – М.:Издательство: Институт научной информации по общественным наукам РАН, 2004. [Версия электронная]. – С. 47–76.

Aytaç S. E., Çarkoğlu A., Yıldırım K. Taking sides: determinants of support for a presidential system in Turkey. In: Verney S., Bosco A., Aydın-Düzgit S. The AKP Since Gezi Park. Abingdon: Routledge, 2020, P. 175–194.

Матюхин В.В. «Постсекулярная» Турция // Политическая наука. – 2013. – № 2. – С. 126–141.

Çarkoğlu A. The Turkish party system in transition: party performance and agenda change. Political studies. 1998, Vol. 46, P. 544–571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00154

Растоу Д. Переходы к демократии: попытка динамической модели // Полис. Политические исследования. – 1996. – № 5. – С. 5–15.

Çarkoğlu A. The nature of left–right ideological self‐placement in the Turkish context. Turkish studies. 2007, Vol. 8, N 2, P. 253–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840701312245

Туровский Р.Ф. Национализация и регионализация партийных систем: подходы к исследованию // Полития. – 2016. – №1 (80) – С. 162–180.

Çarkoğlu A. The Geography of Turkey’s 1999 Elections. Turkish studies. 2000, Vol. 1, N 1, P. 96–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840008721225

Харитонова О.Г. Кризисная эволюция турецкой политической системы // Полития. – 2018. – №3 (90). – С. 181–205. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2018-90-3-181-205.

Çarkoğlu A. The rise of the new generation pro-Islamists in Turkey: the Justice and Development Party phenomenon in the November 2002 elections in Turkey. South European society and politics. 2002, Vol. 7, N 3, P. 123–156.

Харитонова О.Г. Эффекты института президентства в этнокультурноразнородных обществах: случай Турции // Политическая наука. – 2019. – № 4. – С. 38–67. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.04.08

Çarkoğlu A. The March 2009 local elections in Turkey: a signal for takers or the inevitable beginning of the end for AKP? South European society and politics. 2009, Vol. 14, N 3, P. 295–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740903425734

Çarkoğlu A. Economic evaluations vs. ideology: diagnosing the sources of electoral change in Turkey, 2002–2011. Electoral studies. 2012, Vol. 31, N 3, P. 513–521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.02.005

Çarkoğlu A., Avcı G. An analysis of the electorate from a geographical perspective. In: Sayari S., Esmer Y. (eds). Politics, parties, and elections in Turkey. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002, P. 115-136.

Çarkoğlu A., Hinich M.J. A spatial analysis of Turkish party preferences. Electoral studies. 2006, Vol. 25, N 2, P. 369–392.

Çarkoğlu A., Yıldırım K. Change and continuity in Turkey’s June 2018 elections. Insight Turkey. 2018, Vol. 20, N 4, P. 153-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2018204.07

Demirkol Ö., Bekaroğlu E.A. Measuring party nationalization in Turkey: 1950–2018. In: Bekaroğlu E.A., Osmanbaşoğlu G.K. (eds). Turkey's electoral geography: trends, behaviors, and identities. Routledge, 2021, P. 24–45.

Donmez R.O. Nationalism in Turkey: political violence and identity. Ethnopolitics. 2007, Vol. 6, N 1, P. 43–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449050601161340

Eryurt M.A., Koç İ. Demography of ethnicity in Turkey. In: Sáenz R., Embrick D., Rodríguez N. (eds). The International Handbook of the Demography of Race and Ethnicity. International Handbooks of Population. Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015, P. 483–502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8891-8_23

Esmer Y. Identity politics: extreme polarization and the loss of capacity to compromise in Turkey. In: van Beek U. (ed.). Democracy under threat: a crisis of legitimacy? Cham: Palgrave, 2019, P. 121–146.

Esmer Y. At the ballot box: determinants of voting behavior. In: Sayari S., Esmer Y. (eds). Politics, parties, and elections in Turkey. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002, P. 91–114.

Esmer Y. Islam, gender, democracy and values: The case of Turkey, 1990–2001. In: Pettersson T., Esmer Y. (eds). Changing values, persisting cultures. European Values Studies, Vol. 12. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2008, P. 275–301.

Huntington S.P. Social and institutional dynamics of one-party systems. In: Huntington S.P., Moore C.H. (eds). Authoritarian politics in modern society: the dynamics of established one-party systems. New York, London: Basic Books, 1970, P. 3–47.

Kalaycioglu E. Elections and party preferences in Turkey: changes and continuities in the 1990s. Comparative political studies. 1994, Vol. 27, N 3, P. 402–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414094027003004

Kharitonova О.G. Crisis Evolution of Turkish Political System. Politeia-Journal of Political Theory, Political Philosophy and Sociology of Politics (RU). 2018. N 3 (90), P. 181–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2018-90-3-181-205. (In Russ.)

Kharitonova O.G. The Effects of Presidency in ethno-culturally diverse states: The case of Turkey. Political science (RU). 2019, N 4, P. 38–67. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.04.08 (In Russ.)

Kumbaracıbaşı A.C., Fink S. Spatial diffusion and geographical patterns in the Turkish vote for pro-Islamist parties. Southeast European and black sea studies. 2021, Vol. 21, N 1, P. 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1868816

Kudryashova I.V., Meleshkina E.Yu., After empires: beating swords into ploughshares. Political science (RU). 2022, N 1, P. 14–51. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2022.01.0 (In Russ.)

Lerner D. The passing of traditional society: modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1958, 466 p.

Levin P.T. Reflections on Şerif Mardin’s center-periphery thesis. Turkish studies. 2023, Vol. 24, N 3–4, P. 617–639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2023.2189592

Lipset S.М., Rokkan S. Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments. In: Anokhina N.V., Meleshkina E.Yu. (eds) Parties and Elections. Reader. Political Science series. Center for Social Scientific research. Political Science department. MGIMO (University) MFA of Russia. Moscow: INION RAS, 2004. P. 47–76. (In Russ.)

Mardin S. Center-periphery relations: a key to Turkish politics? Daedalus. 1973, Vol. 102, N 1, P. 169–190.

Matukhin V.V. «Post-secular» Turkey. Political science (RU). 2013, N 2, P. 126–141. (In Russ.)

Moral М. Politics as (un)usual? An overview of the June 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey. In: Çarkoğlu A., Kalaycıoğlu E. (eds). Elections and public opinion in Turkey: through the prism of the 2018 elections. Abingdon: Routledge, 2022, Chapter 3.

Özbudun E. Party politics & social cleavages in Turkey. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner publishers, 2013, 155 p.

Özbudun E. Established revolution versus unfinished Revolution: contrasting patterns of democratization in Mexico and Turkey. In: Huntington S.P., Moore C.H. (eds). Authoritarian politics in modern society: the dynamics of established one-party systems. New York, London: Basic books, 1970, P. 380–405.

Payaslioğlu A.T. Political leadership and political parties in Turkey. In: Ward R.E., Rustow D.A. (eds). Political modernization in Japan and Turkey. Princeton: Princeton university press, 1964, P. 411–433.

Rokkan S. Electoral mobilization, party competition, and national integration. In: LaPalombara J., Weiner M. (eds). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton university Press, 1966, P. 241–265.

Rubin B., Heper M. Political parties in Turkey. London: Frank Cass, 2002, 160 p.

Rustow D. The Development of Parties in Turkey. In: LaPalombara J., Weiner M. (eds). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton university press, 1966, P. 107–133.

Rustow D. Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model. POLIS. Political Studies. 1996, N 5, P. 5–15. (In Russ.)

Secor A. Ideologies in crisis: political cleavages and electoral politics in Turkey in the 1990s. Political geography. 2001, Vol. 20, N 5, P. 539–560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00011-7

Shils E.A. The constitution of society. Essays reprinted from the author's previous works. London: University of Chicago press, 1982, 383 p.

Tachau F. An Overview of electoral behavior: toward protest or consolidation of democracy? In: Sayari S., Esmer Y. (eds). Politics, parties, and elections in Turkey. Boulder: Lynne Rienner publishers, 2002, P. 33–54.

Tosun T., Ünal B.A., Tosun G.E. The dynamics of change and differentiation in voter preferences in the western coastal provinces of Turkey since the 1980s. In: Bekaroğlu E.A., Osmanbaşoğlu G.K. (eds). Turkey’s electoral geography: trends, behaviors, and identities. Routledge, 2021, P. 66–84.

Turovsky R.F. Nationalization and Regionalization of Party Systems: Approaches to Research. Politeia. Journal of Political Theory, Political Philosophy and Sociology of Politics. 2016. N 1 (80), P. 162–180. (In Russ)

West II J.W. Regional cleavages in Turkish politics: an electoral geography of the 1999 and 2002 national elections. Political geography. 2005, Vol. 24, N 4, P. 499–523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.01.003

Wuthrich F.M. An essential center–periphery electoral cleavage and the Turkish party system. International journal of Middle East studies. 2013, Vol. 45, N 4, P. 751–773.

Yabanci B. Fuzzy Borders between Populism and sacralized politics: mission, leader, community and performance in ‘New’ Turkey. Politics, religion & ideology. 2020, Vol. 21, N 1, P. 92–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2020.1736046

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.