Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
205
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.57.09.22
How to Cite:
Bilgin, R., Ekici, S., & Sezgin, F. (2022). The effect of international relations on democratization of Turkey between 2002-2010
during justice and development party rule. Amazonia Investiga, 11(57), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.57.09.22
The effect of international relations on democratization of Turkey
between 2002-2010 during justice and development party rule
2002-2010 YILLARI ARASINDA ADALET VE KALKINMA PARTİSİ İKTİDARI
DÖNEMİNDE ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLERİN TÜRKİYE'NİN
DEMOKRATİKLEŞMESİNE ETKİSİ
Received: October 1, 2022 Accepted: November 2, 2022
Written by:
Recep Bilgin67
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3760-218X
Seydali Ekici68
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8843-6092
Fatih Sezgin69
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4022-5813
Abstract
Democratization takes place under different
conditions in every country. The social structure
and that of state play important roles, and there
are many other internal and external factors for
this process. Turkey also went through different
phases for democratization processes. This is a
qualitative study and formed by reviewing
related literature and evaluating. It focuses on
external factors between 2002 and 2010 because
there was a struggle and long-lasting conflicts
between secular elites and conservative
democrats during this time. With the help and
encouragement of European Union (EU), Justice
and Development Party governments were able
to eliminate the status quo inherited from 1980
military coup. Although democratization of
Turkey proceeded with the effect of many
different factors, the effect of international
relations in this era was priceless for the
governments of that time. Especially Turkey’s
candidate process to membership of EU enforced
conditionality by these countries. Even more the
ruling party consented to democratize. Under the
control of them, Turkey made a relatively smooth
transition to more democratic state.
67
PhD Candidate, International Relations and Diplomacy Department, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Tishk
International University, Erbil, Iraq.
68
PhD. Candidate, International Burch University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences Department of International Relations
and European Studies, Sarajevo, Bosnia Herzegovina.
69
PhD. Candidate, Campus Director, Glenbow College, Calgary, Canada.
206
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Key Words: Democratization in Turkey, Secular
Elites, Justice and Development Party,
International relations, Conditionality,
Contagion.
Introduction
The political history of the 20th century was full
of the agonies of democratization in many
countries. Especially during the second half,
various countries experienced coup d’états, and
the ruling military forces were not eager to give
way to democratization, and they demanded the
status quo they established continue as they
desired. However, there were some other factors
pushed forward for democratization. Turkey was
not any exception to these developments, and its
democracy improved under the tutelage of
military forces. Nevertheless, the developments
during Justice and Development Party (JDP) era
between 2002-2010 forced the whole country to
democratization. During this process, the helping
hand of the Western countries was granted to the
ruling party.
After defining democracy and democratization,
this study evaluates the different processes of
democracy's establishment in societies. In
addition, external factors have been studied in
more detail. In this context, how Turkey
democratized under the JDP government
between 2002-2010 was evaluated with the effect
of international relations. For this, first of all, the
historical background in Turkey and
authoritarianism and its reasons were discussed
in response to the liberalization movements that
the EU entered after the 1980s. As a matter of
fact, during the February 28 process,
authoritarianism had reached its peak. Later,
when the JDP came to power, it deeply felt the
military tutelage and sought a legitimate basis for
itself. However, in this period, the JDP, which
tightly clung to western values and democracy,
also received the support of western states.
Adoption of western values meant that JDP made
a legitimate policy against military tutelage,
because the soldiers, who had been the pioneer of
westernization in Turkey for 200 years, could not
develop any discourse against such rhetoric.
Thus, it was seen that Turkey took important
democratization steps especially with the support
of western states. This study aims to indicate how
Turkey went through these processes and how
they fit into democratization theories.
Literature Review
Democracy
Democracy is derived from the Greek word
"demos". This word literally means people. In the
original Greek, it means "the poor" or "the
many". Democracy is understood as rule by
demos. Although it means the rule of the people
in its current form, as with many political
concepts, this concept has very different
interpretations. In this context, it would be a
broad and explanatory definition to basically
describe it as "government of the people, by the
people and for the people" as defined by
Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address
(Heywood, 2015).
This statement emphasizes equality, which is
indispensable for democracy, primarily because
it focuses on people. Moreover, it emphasizes the
equal distribution of political power within the
society. The concept of government, in addition,
shows that democracy brings people's common
interests to the fore (Naidu, 2021).
Behind the development of the understanding of
democracy, the idea of freeing individuals from
the oppression of the state and providing them
with a free environment that will enable all kinds
of development can be sought. As a matter of
fact, the beginning of democracy movements in
Western societies in the 18th century caused the
state models to change. Nation-State is an
important milestone in the development of
democracies, which puts the individual and
citizens in the foreground against the kingdoms
and empires that prioritize the state and the
dynasty (Huntington, 1991).
Democracy has an important place in modern
societies as a result of the development of a
process. For example, in the 19th century, the
term democracy had some pejorative meanings.
This concept, which was just beginning to be
demanded by the societies of that time, was
humiliated as “mob rule” or “the regime of the
ignorant masses” (Azmanova, 2020). However,
over time, the concept of democracy has become
so entrenched that all ideologies of the 20th
century defined themselves as democrats first
and foremost (Heywood, 2015).
Bilgin, R., Ekici, S., Sezgin, F. / Volume 11 - Issue 57: 205-220 / September, 2022
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
207
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The importance of democracy arose from the
importance of the state. As a supreme human
organization, the state holds certain privileges
that no one else enjoys, such as legitimate
violence (Üngör, 2020). Accordingly, it also is
the sovereign jurisdiction. In this respect, states
are/were very effective in violating the rights of
individuals. In fact, many of the concepts that
individuals pursue, such as freedom and justice,
were obtained as a result of the struggles against
the state. The transformation of the state, which
is the legitimate authority, by the people and the
sharing of this authority by everyone has
emerged as democracy (Held, 1991). Thus, the
rights of individuals will be more effectively
protected against the state. As a matter of fact, a
democratic government prioritizes the people
over the state (Ighodalo, 2012).
The idea of people living in a way protected from
the domination of the state and removing the
obstacles that will enable the development of
modern people has been an important factor in
the transformation of state structures. The
concept of democracy has developed with the
idea of minimizing the potential of states to
produce problems in this regard. In fact, the fact
that the state administration, which is very open
to abuse, is in a system that can be changed has
been defined as democracy by some. In this
context, democracy is a system in which political
parties lose elections (Przeworski et al, 2000).
Democracy is also a balance between different
political forces in their relations with each other.
Since there is always the possibility of those who
hold the state authority to use force against
others, keeping them under control with different
control mechanisms is the most important
indicator of democracy in the modern context
(Przeworski, 2005).
People's social and political lives constantly
generate new problems and new concepts, and
institutions are created to respond to these
problems. In this context, human life develops on
a constructivist plane. New conceptualizations
are also needed, as similar problems constantly
arise regarding the concept of democracy. We
even come across broader definitions of
relatively old concepts like democracy. In this
context, Dahl (2008) points out three important
dimensions of democracy. These dimensions are
defined as competition, participation, and civil
and political freedoms. He also reveals other
criteria of a liberal democracy in which these
concepts exist. However, since all of these
criteria cannot be found in a democracy which is
an ideal, Dahl used the term “polyarchy” instead
(Dahl, 2008).
According to Dahl, these criteria are the right to
vote, the right to be elected, the right of political
leaders to compete for support and votes, free,
fair, and frequent elections, associational
autonomy, freedom of expression, availability of
alternative sources of information, public policy
dependent on voters and other forms of
expression of preferences (Dahl, 2005).
Today, the election of the people who will rule
the state and the regularity of these elections are
important indicators of democracy, but they are
not enough on their own. In addition, people
should have the freedom to organize, disseminate
their ideas, broadcast, assemble, engage in
political debates, and run election campaigns
(Shirazi et al., 2010). Although elections are an
important indicator of democracy, fraudulent
elections and vote counts are important threats.
In addition, the threats and censorship of the
opponents by those who hold the legitimate
authority are an indication that democracy has
not been established at an ideal level despite the
elections (Levitsky & Way, 2002).
Even though democracy emerged as a regulating
principle in the relations between the state and
society at first, it has become quite rich in content
over time. At this point, we can define
democracy from the perspective of how the state
will be governed, as well as from the point of
view of how tolerant civil life is to different
opinions and lifestyles.
Democratization
Democratization, which can be defined as the
process of transforming an authoritarian regime
into liberal democracy in its most basic sense, is
the product of a number of processes. When an
old regime loses the legitimacy and declines as a
result, it constitutes a situation in the state
structures that have taken a step towards
democratization in the historical process. In the
next stage, the structures and processes necessary
for the transition to democracy should be
implemented gradually. After that, in order for
the democratic structure to be consolidated,
institutions and processes must turn into an
accepted norm in the eyes of both the elites and
the society. Therefore, only methods allowed in
democracy should be used to seize power in the
elites of a society that has completed its
democratization processes. Other uses of force
indicate that democracy is not established
(Przeworski, 1991).
208
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Although the democratization adventures of the
20th century started with the collapse of
authoritarian regimes and the establishment of a
more liberal system, the societal processes of
democratization that passed this stage continued
thereafter. In a state where democratization
continues, liberalization of institutions takes
place gradually. Likewise, the greater interest of
the society in political processes and their
participation are an important indicator of
democratization in the modern sense. The
liberalization of the political system means that
different forces compete to take over the
government. Likewise, the participation of
citizens in politics means that individual rights
and freedoms will increase more (Dahl, 2008).
The democratization process is not just about the
transformation of the state structure. Social
transformations also play an important role in
this process. Some analytical tools developed in
this context aim to help the issue be better
understood. For instance, the modernization
approach states that social and economic
conditions must be ready for a society to
democratize. Therefore, emphasis is placed on
the social structure here. Second, the transition
theory argues that societies experience some
struggles in their transition to democracy and as
a result influence the behaviour of political elites.
Generally, these processes started with the
emergence of nation states in the 20th century
and continued after the formation of a common
identity. After this stage, some political struggles
were experienced, and the states were forced to
some transformations. Afterwards, habituation to
the new situation was experienced in the society.
Structural theory, on the other hand, takes into
account the long-term processes of change and
argues that there are transformations towards
democratization as a result of the relations and
interactions of social, political and economic
forces with each other in society and state
relations (Potter, 1997).
Establishment and Sustainability of
Democracy
Although official procedures are an important
indicator of democracy, they alone cannot
constitute the sufficient infrastructure. In fact, the
establishment of democracy in a country is
mostly seen as a gain obtained after great
struggles. However, the sustainability of this in a
society depends on the existence of many
different factors. The fact that democracy is
embedded in both political and social culture and
that the actors do not seek any alternative are
important prerequisites for sustainability.
The continuity of democracy depends on the
restructuring of mentalities as well as institutions
and organizations in accordance with this
understanding. In this context, there is a risk of
returning to other regimes for a society that does
not see democracy as only game in town. The
establishment of democracy depends on its
emergence as social behaviour beyond state
institutions. In addition, it is important that this
behaviour is attitudinally embedded in people's
character, rather than being a political and
insincere behaviour. Finally, this regime needs to
be established constitutionally and protected by
laws (Linz & Stepan, 1996).
Although democracy in the modern context has
been won after the struggles of civil society
against the states, the conditions of the changing
world do not limit the sustainability of this
achievement only to the compatibility of state
institutions. Especially with the new identities
formed with nation states, preventing the
majority from oppressing the minority stands as
an indispensable condition for democracy. At
this point, the idea of building dams against
possible reverse waves has emerged for pluralist
and participatory democracy to be consolidated.
To achieve this, requirements such as the spread
of democratic values to the whole society, the
dissolution or neutralization of anti-democratic
actors within the system have come to the fore.
In addition, the construction and continuity of
civil authority in state structures where military
authority is very strong is an important
prerequisite for democracy. Furthermore, the
modern world emphasizes the importance of a
decentralized administration system for the
sustainability. Beyond all these, conditions such
as justice in the judiciary, the balanced
distribution of economic resources to the society
and providing economic stability are
indispensable (Schedler, 1998).
Discussed with a pejorative language until the
20th century, democracy became the
indispensable management style of the 20th
century. However, the establishment of
democracy in each country was formed by the
direction of its own internal dynamics, and these
processes differed from society to society. The
new understandings, in which the transition to
democracy was not only evaluated through
official processes, also discussed what stages the
state and society went through in the
democratization processes. When we look at the
experiences of different societies that have gone
through the democratization process, it is seen
that there are different approaches to
democratization.
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
209
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Sequence and Gradualism
The first of the approaches to democratization
processes claimed that it was a gradual process
and emerged through certain stages. According
to this approach, this process requires the
completion of some rational stages. With the
emergence of successive processes in the
structure of both the state and society, it is
predicted that democracy will gradually settle. In
this context, certain conditions that arise while
the process is continuing give way to the next
stage (Marangos, 2005). It was claimed that if
this order is not realized, democratization will be
interrupted (Mansfield & Snyder, 2007).
The gradualist approach does not claim that the
democratization process proceeds on a linear
plane. According to them, this process has its ups
and downs. It states that more democracy is
needed to strengthen democratic institutions. It
also emphasizes the importance of
democratization of institutions even when the
democratization tendency is very weak. On the
other hand, the sequentialist approach does not
accept the transition of institutions to democracy
so quickly and even states that fast transition may
foster problems (Carothers, 2007).
Gradualism recognizes that the rapid
transformation of the regime into democracy is
inherently risky and therefore requires more
careful action. However, unlike the sequentialist
approach, it does not accept slowing down or
stopping the transition process. In fact, the
situation claimed by the sequentialist approach is
quite conducive to the preservation of the status
quo and provides a suitable ground for constantly
producing new excuses in the transition to
democracy. It is quite common for autocratic
leaders to oppose democratic rule and not to
embrace the rule of law. Democratic
transformations are usually carried out by the
pro-democratic civilian forces, so delaying or
stopping the democratization process may not
yield positive results (Carothers, 2007).
Gradualism advocates transformative democracy
and at the same time states that it is appropriate
for this transformation to appear as a bottom-up
process. While making institutions more
democratic by using current opportunities, the
inclusion of the society in these processes is
important for the operation of a healthy process
(Törnquist, 2011).
Socioeconomic Conditions
The establishment of liberal democracy in
Western European societies took place with the
processes of industrialization and modernization.
In the process of transition from agricultural
society to industrialized urban society, many
habits of people changed, as well as their
economic and political behaviors. The richer
urban society and its organized action
accelerated the democratization process.
Likewise, the most important tool of
democratization in the modern world is the
activity of the society and the appropriateness of
their economic level. As the welfare level of the
societies increases, the literacy rate and the desire
to act in an organized manner also increase.
Accordingly, the democratization movements
that emerged in the society also affect the state
structure (Przeworski et al., 2000).
Industrialization and urbanization cause great
changes in social structures. The complex class
structure that emerged because of these processes
emphasizes the more liberal value of
individualization. People's need for more rules
and order brings along the rule of law principle.
Different situations that develop as a chain effect
with each other trigger the democratization
process. In addition, the increase in the literacy
rate of people brings about opening to the outside
world. The growth of the middle class because of
the increase in economic activities is one of the
most important indicators of modernization. All
these effects naturally impose democratization
on society and the state (Madland, 2011).
However, the level of economic development
does not necessarily lead to democratization. It
should be evaluated only as a factor promoting
democracy (Heo & Tan, 2001).
Political Culture
There are approaches that try to explain the rapid
transition of some societies to democracy and the
resistance of others to the transition with their
political culture. The political culture of societies
is formed under many factors (Turan, 1984). For
example, while a country like the United States
of America established by people who came to
this land by escaping the pressure of the states
they lived in previously attaches great
importance to freedoms (Hollifield, 2004), it is
seen that traditional and religious structures play
important roles on political culture in some other
countries. In fact, many factors such as historical
experiences, geographical location, relations
with other states, literacy rate of the society play
210
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
a role in the formation of this culture (Pye &
Verba, 2015).
It is possible to say that the whole of the 20th
century passed with the agonies towards
democratization of different societies. In this
context, many ideas about democratization have
been put forward and different observations have
been shared. For instance, Max Weber stated that
the Protestant ethic promotes capitalism and
economic wealth (Weber, 2005). In addition,
there have been those who have linked the rapid
development of democracy in Northwest Europe
to the enriching society of the capitalist order
(Stokes, 1986).
The concept of political culture is widely used to
describe the current situation in countries that
have a slow transition to democracy, as well as in
countries that cannot transition to democracy.
Political culture is used as a keyword that
explains not only the transition processes to
democracy, but also the slow processes in the
transition and the inability at all (Abdulbaki,
2008).
Elite Attitudes
Behaviors of political elites played an important
role in the transition of some societies to
democracy or becoming more authoritarian. The
elites, who develop certain tendencies according
to the political culture they live in, play an
important role in the democratization of
institutions. Especially in authoritarian regimes,
elites who do not want to change the status quo
they keep can be an obstacle to the transition to
democracy with the state opportunities they have
(Acemoglu & Robinson, 2006). On the other
hand, elite behaviors played an important role in
the creation of the EU, which entered the
establishment phase after World War II (Grilli,
1994).
External Factors
The geographical location has important effects
on the democratization and authoritarianism of
some societies. The relations they enter with the
countries around them can be an important factor
determining the direction of democratization.
The effects of different phenomena on the
democratization of some societies by
international relations have been revealed. It is
possible to categorize them as follows.
Contagion
The proximity of states that have taken important
steps towards democratization to neighboring
countries and their interactions with them can
trigger the democratization process by
integrating political institutions of democratic
countries. This situation is expressed with the
concept of “contagion”. Especially after the Cold
War, the democratic institutions of the EU
influencing the countries that broke away from
the Eastern bloc and triggering the
democratization process in these countries can be
given as an example of contagion (Whitehead,
1996). In addition, there are cases where
contagion effect that causes societies to become
more authoritarian (Moraski & Reisinger, 2010).
Control
Control over a country, in the sense of inspection
by other countries or the international
community, is the observation and
encouragement of that country's democratic
initiatives by other countries. It can be
understood as a foreign country's being decisive
in domestic politics and directing it to
democracy. For example, some oppressive
policies can be developed for some authoritarian
regimes in order to transform them into
democracy. The purpose of the pressure made
here is to influence policies in a way that
encourages democratization within the country
(Youngs, 2009). In particular, the international
community, which was highly influenced by the
modern West, adopted democratization as a norm
and forced the countries around. Although it is
included in another classification in the literature,
financial aids to a country are solutions that will
operate control mechanisms effectively. Along
with the financial aids, these countries are put
under pressure to institutionally lead to
democracy (Crawford, 2000).
Consent
In the modern world, where democratization is
accepted as a norm, there are groups that want to
transition to democracy within many
authoritarian regimes. There is a movement in
this direction in some societies, both with the
pressure of the international society and with the
consent of the forces that are pro-democracy. In
this context, the international environment,
systems, and actors that influence a country
create a complex linkage politics by supporting
the pro-democracy forces in that country. The
democratization that emerges in this way occurs
both with the encouragement of the international
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
211
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
system and with the consent of the internal
powers (Whitehead, 1996).
Conditionality
The effectiveness of international organizations
in the modern international society is quite high.
Conditionality is that these organizations or the
states that are active in these organizations put
some goals and some conditions in front of other
states. This concept, which emerged in the
developed democratic West, emerges as the EU
and the USA demand that other countries
democratize their institutions in return for their
aid to these new democracies, countries trying to
democratize, and even non-democratic countries.
In this context, it is seen that the concept of
control and conditionality are closely related to
each other (Schmitter, 2001).
Methodology
This is a qualitative study, and it is a process
analysis of the period of 2002-2010 in Turkey
under the rule of JDP. As democratization
process may emerge in different forms in
different societies and even in one society in
different periods, the focus of this study is the
international relations factor that pushed the
country into democratization. Moreover, this
process was analyzed under the effect of
contagion, control, conditionality, and consent
which are the terms that push countries into
democratization as tools in the hands of foreign
powers. This study investigated the process of
democratization in Turkey under the effect of
these terms during 2002-2010 period. The reason
that we chose this period is that JDP as a
conservative democratic party ruled under the
tutelage of Kemalist army in Turkey, and the
western countries, which had been indispensable
supporters of secular Kemalists, started to
support a conservative party, against which the
secular elites could not develop effective
opposition. All these processes were analyzed in
this study.
The Effect of International Relations on
Democratization of Turkey between 2002-
2010
An Overlook to Westernization in Turkey
In any international relations literature where
Turkey's foreign policy principles are evaluated,
it is stated that one of the foremost principles is
westernization. The Adventure of
Westernization is a dream that both the state
structure and a significant part of the society have
followed for the last few centuries in Turkey
(Oran, 1996). In this respect, westernization and
policies towards it are taken for granted as a
legitimation tool. Therefore, the political moves
that encourage westernization have not been
discussed very much in Turkey (Yilmaz &
Shipoli, 2021). Even the opponents of
westernization have been criticized with
pejorative language (Azak, 2012).
Westernization movements in Turkey
accelerated in the last century of the Ottoman
Empire. The acceleration of these movements
emerged with the Republic of Turkey, which was
founded on October 29, 1923 (Kushner, 1997).
Kemalist intellectuals, who emerged as a new
ruler elite after the collapse of the sultanate,
started a solid westernization move in Turkey
(Mateescu, 2006). However, these
westernization movements emerged in the form
of eliminating the traditional and religious
elements in the social structure and bringing the
social life to a western and contemporary
appearance rather than the transformation of the
state and society within the framework of
democratic principles (Dai, 2005).
On the other hand, the Turkish army, which is the
undertaker of Kemalist ideology, continued its
tutelage over politics in a way that prevented the
emergence of other forces that would rival it in
the political arena. In some cases, the whole
system was redesigned using instruments such as
a military coup (Akkoyunlu & Öktem, 2016). In
this context, it can be argued that Turkey's
Kemalist army is an important obstacle to
overcome in the transition to western-style
liberal democracy (Yavuz & Özcan, 2007).
Turkish political life, in which the influence of
bureaucratic tutelage was felt for many years,
focused more on cultural reforms at the point of
westernization. The democratization of state
institutions has progressed very slowly in Turkey
over long periods.
EU after 1980s
The oil crisis that emerged in the 1970s and other
problems triggered by it forced the countries that
were then called the European Economic
Community to adopt conservative policies.
However, the revival of liberalism in the world
of the 1980s and the efforts of European
countries to keep up with it brought great
changes (Clifton et al., 2003). One of these
changes was the Single European Act signed in
1986. The aim here is to transform into a single
market by the end of 1992 (Moravcsik, 1991).
212
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Moreover, a set of criteria set by the EU countries
in June 1993 was one of the milestones of liberal
transformations. Along with these criteria, some
demands have been put forward from the
countries that will become a member of the EU.
These were popularly known as Copenhagen
Criteria. Considering the content of these
demands, first of all, the state applying for
membership is required to establish institutions
that will continue the democratic administration.
At the same time, these institutions will prioritize
human rights and allow a functional market
economy. In addition, these states will accept the
obligations and the intent of the EU (Nello &
Smith, 1997).
Situation in Turkey after 1980s
Turkey has always felt as a part of Europe.
However, it is not an accepted situation in
Western societies that Turkey is a part of them
with the same enthusiasm (Ahiska, 2003).
Despite this, starting from the 19th century,
Turkey has tried to resemble western societies in
the context of institutionalization in every period.
The adventure of westernization was so intense
especially after the establishment of the Turkish
Republic that the conservative, liberal and pro-
democratization governments of Turgut Ozal,
which were not adopted by Kemalist soldiers in
Turkey in the 1980s, constantly resorted to the
reference of westernization in order to impose
their liberal policies (Duman, 2018). In fact, in
this process, the governments of Turgut Ozal,
which aimed to ensure the bureaucratic
transformation of the state in a democratic
direction (Öniş, 2004), were confronting the
military tutelage with the liberal values of the
West (Nasr, 2005). In the face of this situation,
the soldiers had to develop different rhetoric
against the idea of westernization which had been
accepted for a long time and turned into a tool of
legitimation.
With the military coup on September 12, 1980,
Turkey entered a period of relative softening in
political and social life. However, as of the
beginning of the 1990s, important social
developments emerged in Turkey that would
worry the secularist elite. The rise of Islam in
general and political Islam in particular were
alarming developments for the secular elite. The
murders of journalists and academics, which
started again in 1989, were used as a propaganda
tool to warn the secular society. Especially the
murder of journalist Ugur Mumcu in 1993
increased the fears and reactions in the secular
circles (Kibaroglu & Caglar, 2008).
The ongoing process witnessed developments
that would justify the propaganda of the secular
elites in the eyes of their own society. The
emergence of the Islamist Welfare Party as the
first party in the general elections held on 4
December 1995 became an important instrument
in which the military elite would show the
secular society how their concerns came true.
The reactions to the rise of the Welfare Party
were so intense that the psychological conditions
were not suitable for this party, which came first
with 21% of the votes in the general elections, to
form a government. That's why the True Path
Party and the Motherland Party, two center-right
parties, formed a government. However, these
parties did not have a majority to form a
government, as their voting rates were 20% and
19%, respectively. In the face of the rise of an
Islamist party, other parties, which were in search
of different alternatives, came up with a solution.
In this case, a development that could not occur
under normal conditions took place in the Turkey
of that day, and the Democratic Left Party
supported the government from outside, and thus
the ANAYOL government was established.
However, since the vote of confidence given to
the government was below the number specified
by the constitution, the constitutional court,
which evaluated the application of the leader of
the Welfare Party, Necmettin Erbakan, canceled
the vote of confidence on 14 May 1996
(Dilaveroğlu, 2012).
With the collapse of this government, the way for
the Welfare Party's efforts to form a government
was paved. The REFAHYOL government was
established on 28 June 1996, especially after the
True Path Party agreed to form a coalition
government. The February 28 process, which
would bring very important changes in Turkey's
future, started with this government
(Dilaveroğlu, 2012).
Under the leadership of the military elite,
propaganda against the Islamic movements that
had been going on for a while in Turkey reached
its peak with the establishment of the government
by the Welfare Party. In this period, Necmettin
Erbakan's attempt to try different alternatives in
foreign policy and his desire to enter close
relations with the Arab world was met with great
reaction. In addition, various organizations of the
Party organs were constantly followed, and some
excessive and radical acts were shown to the
public through the media. The rising tension in
the country focused all attention on the National
Security Council meeting to be held on February
28, 1997. The President presided over the
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
213
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
National Security Council meetings held at the
end of each month at that time. However, it is
known that the military wing of the board was
taking all the decisions (Yavuz, 1998).
The decisions of the National Security Council,
consisting of 18 articles in total, started with the
need to meticulously protect the secularism
guaranteed in the constitution. Afterwards, the
council demanded the transfer of schools,
dormitories, and foundations, which emerged as
private enterprises beyond the control of the
state, to the Ministry of National Education. It
was underlined that some groups in Turkey
wanted to take the country away from the level
of contemporary civilization, and at this point,
they recommended to implement 8 years of
uninterrupted education throughout the country
in order to raise awareness of the youth and to
save them from the influence of various
outbreaks (Menek, 2016).
The most controversial one of the February 28
decisions is 8 years of uninterrupted education.
With this decision, the secondary school section
of Imam Hatip schools was closed and children
in Turkey who took a 3-year break from
education after 5th grade and went to Qur'an
courses and memorized the Qur'an during this
period were prevented. Considering the problems
that this would cause, the board resolutions stated
that the necessary administrative and legal
arrangements should be made for the Qur'an
courses to operate under the responsibility and
control of the Ministry of National Education. In
addition, it was implied that Imam Hatip schools
were more in number than necessary, and it was
requested that the number of schools be held at
the level of need and in accordance with the
current laws. Among these articles, there is an
article demanding the prevention of Iran's anti-
regime activities in the country, as if trying to
consider the close relations that Welfare Party
organs had with the Islamic Republic of Iran
before 28 February. The headscarf worn by
university students and civil servant women was
presented as a practice that harms the
contemporary face of Turkey, and the necessary
laws were requested to be implemented to
prevent wearing it (Menek, 2016).
It was stated that in the solution of the country's
problems, the understandings that emphasize the
concept of the ummah instead of the concept of
nation should be banned (Sel, 2019).
In addition to the emphasis on modernization in
the Council's resolution, it was clearly stated that
there is a longing by reactionary movements for
ancient regime. In fact, this debate was inherited
from the Ottoman period to the new republic and
was kept on the agenda throughout this period.
Therefore, modernization and westernization
have been adopted as a norm in Turkish politics.
In this context, the social and political
movement, which was started by Welfare Party
leader Necmettin Erbakan in the 1970s and called
Milli Gorus, constantly made negative
statements against Western values. In fact, anti-
Westernism was used as a psychological weapon
against all religious-oriented movements,
including Erbakan, in that day's Turkey (Arpacı,
2020).
At that time, when the elements of psychological
warfare were used effectively, scandalous social
events emerged that would put the Erbakan
government and people with religious tendencies
in a difficult situation. Especially the capture of
Muslum Gunduz, who is the sheikh of the sect,
naked with Fadime Sahin and their presentation
to the media made the psychological atmosphere
even more tense (Çağlar, 2012). In addition to
these, the support of many state organs and non-
governmental organizations, especially the
judicial bureaucracy, in this process led by the
soldiers meant that all these psychological
conditions were created against Erbakan. At the
same time, on 21 May 1997, the Supreme Court
of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor's Office filed
a lawsuit to the Constitutional Court for the
dissolution of the Welfare Party (Mecham,
2004). Under these circumstances, Necmettin
Erbakan had to submit his resignation to
President Suleyman Demirel on 18 June 1997.
On 30 June 1997, a new government was formed
under the leadership of Mesut Yilmaz, head of
the Motherland Party (Ali, 1998).
The period when the witch hunt started in Turkey
was during this government. With the Mesut
Yilmaz government, an 8-year education started,
and the headscarf ban began in universities.
These events, which caused great social upheaval
at that time, were carried to even greater heights.
Especially the expulsion of headscarved mothers
from military ceremonies had a profound effect
on the psychology of conservative society
(Madi-sisman, 2017). In the same period, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, who would mark the next
period of Turkey, was the mayor of Istanbul
Metropolitan Municipality. The process of his
imprisonment would mean the shining of a new
figure in Turkish politics (Mecham, 2004).
A new election was held in Turkey on April 8,
1999, and Bulent Ecevit's Democratic Left Party
emerged as the first party. While the Nationalist
214
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Movement Party emerged as the second party,
the Virtue Party, which was founded to replace
the Welfare Party, which was closed on 16
January 1998, entered the parliament as the third
party. While the coalition government formed by
the Democratic Left Party, the Nationalist
Movement Party and the Motherland Party under
the leadership of Bulent Ecevit took office,
another scandal broke out in the same period.
Merve Kavakcı, a member of the Virtue Party,
who entered the parliament with a headscarf at
the swearing-in ceremony of the deputies, was
met with protests from all other parties and
Kavakcı was not allowed to take the oath (Peres,
2012).
In fact, all these events have left deep traces in
the memory of the conservative society, which
makes up 65-70% of Turkey's average.
Therefore, the psychological environment that
would bring Erdogan to power alone in the next
period was created.
On May 14, 2000, a congress was held in the
Virtue Party. Abdullah Gül, the representative of
the innovative wing, and Recai Kutan, the
representative of the conservative wing, also
supported by Necmettin Erbakan, attended this
congress as candidates. Even though Recai Kutan
came out of this congress as the leader of the
party, the votes given to Abdullah Gül showed
the power of the innovative movement within the
party organs. While Recai Kutan received 633
votes in this congress, Abdullah Gül received
521 votes (Özdemir, 2015). In fact, this congress
heralded the innovative wing that it was time to
form a new party.
The economic crisis that came with the Ecevit
government in February 2001 completely
changed the balance in Turkey. The JDP was
founded on 14 August 2001 under the leadership
of Erdogan, during the period of severe economic
crisis conditions. The preparation process for the
November 3, 2002 elections, which would be
held 1 year later, also started (Heper & Toktaş,
2003).
JDP Era and Helping Hand of Westerners
In these elections, the JDP, which received
34.3% of the total votes in Turkey, won 66% of
the parliament, 363 out of a total of 550 deputies,
due to the d'Hondt system. The second party, the
Republican People's Party, entered the
parliament with 178 deputies. In this case, 46%
of the Turkish electorate could not be represented
in the parliament (Sabuncu, 2006).
Although the number of deputies was quite high,
the deep effects of the military tutelage that
existed in Turkey for a long time was also felt on
the JDP. Even though Erdogan had established
the government as the ruling power, he was in a
powerless position against the tutelage in the
system. This situation made itself so clear that he
could not become prime minister immediately
after the elections. The new cabinet established
under the presidency of Abdullah Gül took office
and Erdogan could not even become a member of
parliament during this period (Taş, 2015).
Already at the time of his imprisonment, it was
written in the newspaper Hurriyet, which was an
important representative of the military tutelage
of that day, that Erdogan could not even be a
neighborhood representative (Özkır, 2013).
However, it was during this period that the first
helping hand to Erdogan was extended by the
United States of America. Erdogan, who went to
Washington as the guest of the then US President
George Bush, was welcomed there as the Prime
Minister. On his return, the elections held in Siirt
province were canceled and Erdogan was elected
as a deputy from there, and he became the Prime
Minister as of March 2003 in the next process
(Lazaris, 2016).
When Erdogan became the prime minister, he
had some opportunities against the military
tutelage that stood very strong against him. For
example, Turkey's application for full
membership was accepted at the EU Helsinki
Summit in 1999, and many laws left over from
the 1980 military coup began to be changed.
Establishing associations and holding peaceful
meetings, which were forbidden especially at that
time, were reviewed together with the EU
membership process, and softer laws were started
to be enacted. In addition, after the economic
crisis that broke out in 2001, Turkey's obtaining
a loan from the IMF and the implementation of
economic measures accordingly had brought the
economy to a healthier state in the past 2 years.
The acceptance of the EU reforms as
democratization moves and the positive response
from large sections of the society were important
opportunities for Erdogan. To clinch this
opportunity even more, he added people from
different political views to his party and defined
himself as a liberal conservative democrat
(Doğanay, 2007).
In fact, Erdogan needed a new definition so much
that even though he defined himself as a liberal
democrat, it was constantly stated by the secular
elite that he was an Islamist coming from the
tradition of National View of Erbakan. Erdogan,
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
215
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
on the other hand, repeated the phrase "I took off
my national view shirt" to overcome this problem
(Yılmaz, 2016).
The JDP’S liberal stance and the inclusion of
people from all walks of life as a whole
strengthened its pluralistic and democratic
structure. In fact, the three-term rule, which is
one of the founding principles, polished the
democratic appearance of the party. As this rule
necessitated, no one could hold a position in
party organs for more than three terms.
In addition, the JDP gave importance to the EU
reforms from the first day of its government and
received a great support from the EU. EU
countries' adoption of liberal policies as of the
1980s and liberal democracy demands from
participating countries along with the
Copenhagen criteria were postponed by the
Turkish State during the 1990s. The JDP’S
adoption of these criteria led to the highest level
of support for it.
In this case, the ineffectiveness of the old rhetoric
used by the secular elite caused some discourse
changes in them. Realizing that the old rhetoric
did not leave the necessary impact in the face of
the strong democratic outbursts of the ruling
party, the secular elites, especially under the
leadership of the military bureaucracy, launched
the campaign "Are you aware of the danger?”.
However, the ruling party, which received the
support of conservative and liberal sections in
Turkey, carried this support even higher until the
next elections (Sağır, 2015).
Throughout the period, the EU showed what
steps Turkey should take and what steps it had
taken until then, along with the reports and
accession partnership documents it published.
On 19 May 2003, the EU published a new
accession partnership document and stated that
the decisions of the European Court of Human
Rights should be respected. They also requested
that measures be taken regarding ill-treatment
and torture. Bringing prison conditions to EU
standards, judicial independence and
democratization were also emphasized. In
addition, the legal reforms made were mentioned
positively and they were asked to be put into
practice. In addition, the importance of freedom
of the press was emphasized and it was requested
to implement the reforms in this regard (Müftüler
Baç, 2005).
The functioning of the National Security
Council, which they saw as contrary to the
democratic structure until then, was mentioned
and it was requested to ensure the control of the
civilian wing within the council. The way to
overcome the opposition from the soldiers in
domestic politics emerged as taking refuge in the
EU and the West. We can say that westernization
and modernization had been used by the
Kemalist Elite as a weapon against the
conservative people for a long time in Turkey. In
fact, the anti-Westernism in the conservative
world was constantly humiliated by the Kemalist
elites. Under the new conditions, the existence of
a government that defended western liberal
democracy was a very difficult situation for the
Kemalists (Dai, 2005).
Although the JDP was the ruling party, the
segments that actually held the power in the state
structure were the secular elites, who had the
support of the Kemalist army. Although the JDP
had significant public support, it was in a
politically weak position. In order to overcome
this weakness, the implementation of
westernization and modernization, which had
been made a norm and a tool of legitimacy by the
Kemalist Elite, was effectively implemented and
the support of western states was received.
In this context, effective struggles were carried
out with the hope that Turkey's full membership
would be accepted in the progress report to be
published by the EU in October 2004. So much
so that in July of that year, the Grand National
Assembly did not take a recess, and the
integration package was issued with a busy shift
(Gülmez, 2008).
In the new regime established after the 1980
military coup, the soldiers made necessary
arrangements to have a say in almost all organs
of the state. For instance, the General Staff (the
chief of the army) had a representative in the
Higher Education Board. With the constitutional
amendment made on May 7, 2004, this practice
was abolished. The EU had already criticized this
situation very often. Likewise, the abolition of
the state security courts, which continued to exist
as an important pressure apparatus in the hands
of the state, coincided with this period (Göztepe,
2011).
While it was stated in the EU progress report
published in 1998 that Turkey did not fulfill the
Copenhagen criteria, in the progress report
published in November 2003, the government's
acceleration of the reform process and its
determination in this regard were appreciated.
The support of the EU in this way is an invaluable
treasure for the JDP, because at the same time the
216
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
years of fierce opposition from the secular elite
had begun (Bulut, 2011).
During this period, the EU constantly talked
about the effectiveness of the army in the state
and highlighted in its reports that necessary
arrangements should be made to reduce it. In
addition, many liberal democratic initiatives such
as minority rights, freedom of expression and
rule of law were demanded. The government,
which meticulously followed all these, took
important steps towards democratization and
strengthened the increasing support of the EU.
As a result, in the progress report published on
October 6, 2004, it was stated that Turkey
fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria to a great extent
and negotiations could begin (Bulut, 2011).
Receiving the continuous support of the EU on
reforms, the government was also taking all
kinds of democratization steps that would reduce
the effectiveness of the military in the state. In
this context, for the first time, a civilian was
appointed as the general secretary of the National
Security Council in August 2004 (Gürpinar,
2013).
Another issue that has always been a problem
between the EU countries and Turkey was the
Cyprus issue. Within the framework of the EU
harmonization reforms, the Cyprus issue was
dealt with in a liberal understanding by the
government in 2004, going beyond traditional
state policies. During this period, an important
solution package regarding Cyprus was prepared
by the United Nations and published as the
Annan Plan in March 2004. Within the
framework of this plan, a federal structure was
foreseen in Cyprus. In this context, with Turkey's
leadership, a public vote was held in Cyprus on
this issue and the Turkish section supported the
plan by 64%. However, Greek Cypriots rejected
this plan by 76%. As a result, Cyprus became a
member of the EU in May 2004 as a divided
island. However, Turkey's approach to a
democratic solution on this issue was welcomed
by the EU (Kasım, 2007).
One of the most important factors in the JDP
government's gaining the support of the EU was
the implementation of reform movements, which
had not emerged so decisively in previous
governments. Especially after the process in
which the Turkish state consistently followed
conservative policies on Cyprus issue, this
government's search for democratic solutions
had an increasing effect on this support.
While the JDP carried out many reforms within
the country with the foreign support it received,
major political problems arose. In the new
situation, where the old political rhetoric had lost
its effect, the pro-Western powers shifted in
Turkey. In 2007, secular elites in Turkey started
the campaign with the slogan "Are you aware of
the danger?” and unfurled "Army to duty"
banners in their protests (Canveren, 2021).
In fact, it was later made public that the army was
preparing another coup in 2004. However, the
balance of different forces in domestic politics
and the lack of a psychological environment
made any intervention against the government
impossible. However, in the presidential
elections in 2007, the direct intervention of the
army in politics emerged and the 27 April
memorandum, known as the e-memorandum,
took place. 361 deputies participated in the
Presidential election in the parliament, which
was held on the same day just before the
memorandum. Abdullah Gül, the Presidential
candidate of the JDP, received a total of 357
votes there. Abdullah Gül, who could not be
elected president in the 1st round as required by
the constitution of that day, had enough vote
potential to be elected in the 3rd round. However,
this issue was taken to the Constitutional Court,
as fewer than 367 deputies, the quorum for the
meeting, which had been put forward by the
secular elite months ago, participated in the
voting. As a matter of fact, the Constitutional
Court also annulled this vote (Acar & Çelebi,
2012).
Later, the description of the chief of staff as "not
a so-called secular, but essentially a secular
president" was perceived as a message to the
government. The blockage of the system in all
this psychological environment led the ruling
party to go to the new general elections. In the
general elections held on July 22, 2007, the JDP
increased its votes compared to the previous
election and received 46.6% of the votes (Acar &
Çelebi, 2012).
For the ruling party, which received the support
of almost half of the society, there was no
obstacle in choosing the President. Abdullah Gül
was elected President on 28 August 2007, with
the participation of the newly formed parliament
and the Nationalist Movement Party in the
parliamentary vote (Acar & Çelebi, 2012).
In the following period, when the political crisis
in Turkey was emphasized in the 2008 progress
report of the EU, the ruling party was supported
against the secular elite. Later, the start of
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
217
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Ergenekon trials against soldiers in Turkey was
also reflected in the 2009 progress report, and the
government's democratization steps were
appreciated (Aydın-Düzgit & Keyman, 2013).
The peak point of this process was the
referendum held on 12 September 2010 in which
some articles of the constitution were changed. In
this referendum, the number of members of the
Constitutional Court was changed. The number
of members of the high council of judges and
prosecutors was changed, too. In this
referendum, 3 of the changes in 11 articles in
total received a great reaction from the
opposition. In addition to the above-mentioned
two, narrowing the mandate of the military
judiciary and introducing judicial review for
dismissals in the Supreme Military Council were
another change (Yuksel et al., 2011).
Discussion
It is against social existence to attribute the
democratization breakthroughs that emerged at
that time in Turkey only to external forces.
Demand for democracy in Turkey's internal
balances and very broad segments was an
important obstacle in front of the secular elite.
However, during the February 28 process, the
soldiers were able to get the support of a very
large segment. However, the abuses that emerged
in next period caused this support for the military
to disappear.
The rapid liberalization of both the economy and
the state structure of European countries after the
1980s paved the way for them to demand the
same things from other countries in their
periphery. At this point, the secular sections of
Turkey, which until that time were considered
natural allies of the Westerners, then entered a
great impasse (Dai, 2005). In fact, secular people
also had some concerns. Especially the fear of
changing the regime of the state made them
pause on the transition to a democratic order. On
the other hand, it is a fact of the history of politics
that no power holder wants to change the status
quo they have established.
At this point, westernization and modernization,
which the secular people had used as a means of
legitimacy until that day, emerged as a backfiring
gun for them. The Westerners' constant demand
for democratization and Turkey's goal of
becoming a member of the EU put the secular
elites in a very difficult situation. It is a big
change that conservative democrats, or as the
secular elite called them, the reactionary, Islamist
and conservative segments came to a pro-
Western line and supported democratization
during JDP rule. The secular elite, which had
previously been the natural ally of the westerners
in the past, lost this position and the legitimation
tool they created passed into the hands of their
rivals. The secular elites, who were constantly
being exposed to the criticism of the West, went
through great changes and abandoned the
rhetoric of westernization and came to a Eurasian
and pro-Russian position (Aktürk, 2015).
Conclusion
Democratization processes vary according to the
structure of each society. Turkey's geopolitical
position and its proximity to European countries
left it open to all kinds of influences from that
side. This is an example of contagion. In this
context, the demands of the Westerners on
Turkey, especially in the membership processes,
and Turkey's need to respond to these are
examples of conditionality. In addition, the JDP,
which was the ruling party of the conservative
sectors, which saw the oppression of the secular
elites for a long time, was always very eager to
realize the reforms demanded by the EU against
the secular soldiers who were keeping the
tutelage over the regime. This shows the consent
of ruling party to the reforms. In addition, the fact
that Western countries constantly monitor the
situation with their progress reports and repeat
their demands seems to be an example of control.
It is not correct to attribute the democratization
of Turkey to external factors only, but it should
be underlined that external factors are a very
important legitimation tool. Under the effect of
external factors, together with internal factors,
the power of secular elites was weakened and
their control over the state organs was
eliminated.
Bibliographic references
Abdulbaki, L. (2008). Democracy and the re-
consolidation of authoritarian rule in
Egypt. Contemporary Arab Affairs, 1(3),
445-463.
Acar, A., & Çelebi, M. B. (2012). The
Importance of the Presidency in the
Constitutions of the Republic of Turkey and
Discussions on the Term of Office of
Abdullah Gül in the Framework of the 2007
Constitutional Amendments. Journal of
Social Economic Research, 12(23), 1-34. [In
turkish]
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A.
(2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and
democracy. Cambridge University Press.
218
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Ahiska, M. (2003). Occidentalism: The historical
fantasy of the modern. The South Atlantic
Quarterly, 102(2), 351-379.
Akkoyunlu, K., & Öktem, K. (2016). Existential
insecurity and the making of a weak
authoritarian regime in Turkey. Southeast
European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4),
505-527.
Aktürk, Ş. (2015). The Fourth Style of Politics:
Eurasianism as a Pro-Russian Rethinking of
Turkey's Geopolitical Identity. Turkish
Studies, 16(1), 54-79.
Ali, I. (1998). Reflections on the Army and the
Islamists in Turkey. Pakistan Horizon, 51(1),
63-72.
Arpacı, I. (2020). From Discourse to ideology
Erbakan and Milli Gorush. Maarif Schools
International Journal of Social and Human
Sciences, 3(1), 16-37. [In turkish]
Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Keyman, E. F. (2013). EU-
Turkey relations and the stagnation of
Turkish democracy. Global Turkey in
Europe: Political, Economic, and Foreign
Policy Dimensions of Turkey's Evolving
Relationship with the EU, 2, 103.
Azak, U. (2012). Secularists as the Saviors of
Islam: Rearticulation of Secularism and the
Freedom of Conscience in Turkey (1950).
In Secular State and Religious Society (pp.
59-78). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Azmanova, A. (2020). The costs of the
democratic turn in political theory (pp. 99-
117). Abingdon: Routledge.
Bulut, M. (2011). An effective tool in the
transformation of Turkish public
administration: European Union progress
reports. TCA Journal, 82, 97-124. [In turkish]
Çağlar, İ. (2012). The Welfare Party and the
February 28 Process: A Historical Analysis of
Turkish Conservatives’ Move to the
Center. Turkish Journal of Politics, 3(1),
21-36.
Canveren, Ö. (2021). A General Panorama of
Military-Politics-Society Relations in
Turkey: A Historical-Sociological
Evaluation. Property Magazine, 45(1),
125-153. [In turkish]
Carothers, T. (2007). How democracies emerge:
The" sequencing" fallacy. Journal of
democracy, 18(1), 12-27.
Clifton, J., Comin, F., & Fuentes, D. D.
(2003). Privatisation in the European Union:
Public enterprises and integration. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Crawford, G. (2000). Foreign aid and political
reform: A comparative analysis of democracy
assistance and political conditionality.
Springer.
Dahl, R. A. (2005). What political institutions
does large-scale democracy
require?. Political Science Quarterly, 120(2),
187-197.
Dahl, R. A. (2008). Polyarchy: Participation and
opposition. Yale university press.
Dai, H. D. (2005). Transformation of Islamic
political identity in Turkey: Rethinking the
West and Westernization. Turkish
studies, 6(1), 21-37.
Dilaveroğlu, E. (2012). February 28 Process and
TÜSİAD's Perspective as a Non-
Governmental Organization. Sakarya Journal
of Economics, 1(3), 59-74. [In turkish]
Doğanay, Ü. (2007). Akp's Discourse on
Democracy and Conservatism: Conservative
Democracy and a Critical View. Ankara
University Journal of SBF, 62(01), 65-88. [In
turkish]
Duman, M. Z. (2018). Turgut Özal's
Understanding of Modernization. Journal of
Conservative Thought, 15(55), 99-120. [In
turkish]
Göztepe, E. (2011). Evaluation of the right of
individual application to the Constitutional
Court in Turkey (Constitutional Complaint)
within the scope of Law No. 6216. Journal of
the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, (95),
13-40. [In turkish]
Grilli, E. R. (1994). The European Community
and the developing countries. Cambridge
University Press.
Gülmez, S. B. (2008). The EU policy of the
Republican People’s Party: An inquiry on the
opposition party and euro‐skepticism in
Turkey. Turkish Studies, 9(3), 423-436.
Gürpinar, B. (2013). National security council
and foreign policy. Journal of International
Relations, 10(39), 73-104. [In turkish]
Held, D. (1991). Democracy, the nation-state and
the global system. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20(2),
138-172.
Heo, U., & Tan, A. C. (2001). Democracy and
economic growth: a causal
analysis. Comparative politics, 463-473.
Heper, M., & Toktaş, Ş. (2003). Islam,
modernity, and democracy in contemporary
Turkey: The case of Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan. The Muslim World, 93(2),
157-185.
Heywood, A. (2015). Key Concepts in Politics
and International Relations. Macmillan
Education
Hollifield, J. F. (2004). The emerging migration
state 1. International migration review, 38(3),
885-912.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave
Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Volume 11 - Issue 57
/ September 2022
219
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Century, Norman and London: University of
Oklahoma Press
Ighodalo, A. (2012). Election crisis, liberal
democracy and national security in Nigeria’s
fourth republic. British Journal of Arts and
Social Sciences, 10(2), 163-174.
Kasım, K. (2007). Cyprus problem after the cold
war period. Gazi Academic Perspective, 01,
57-73.
Kibaroglu, M., & Caglar, B. (2008). Implications
of a nuclear Iran for Turkey. Middle East
Policy, 15(4), 59-80.
Kushner, D. (1997). Self-perception and identity
in contemporary Turkey. Journal of
Contemporary History, 32(2), 219-233.
Lazaris, N. U. (2016). Tourism And Trade
Dimensions of Turkish-Greek Relations
Under Erdogan Governments. Journal of
Economics and Business, 19(2).
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). Elections
without democracy: The rise of competitive
authoritarianism. Journal of
democracy, 13(2), 51-65.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. C. (1996). Toward
consolidated democracies. Journal of
democracy, 7(2), 14-33.
Madi-Sisman, Ö. (2017). Muslims, money, and
democracy in Turkey: reluctant capitalists.
Springer.
Madland, D. (2011). Growth and the middle
class. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 20,
16-22.
Mansfield, E. D., & Snyder, J. (2007). Electing
to fight: Why emerging democracies go to
war. MIT Press.
Marangos, J. (2005). A political economy
approach to the neoclassical gradualist model
of transition. Journal of Economic
Surveys, 19(2), 263-293.
Mateescu, D. C. (2006). Kemalism in the era of
totalitarianism: A conceptual
analysis. Turkish Studies, 7(2), 225-241.
Mecham, R. Q. (2004). From the ashes of virtue,
a promise of light: the transformation of
political Islam in Turkey. Third World
Quarterly, 25(2), 339-358.
Menek, A. (2016). February 28: Postmodern
Coup. Journal of City and Knowledge
Studies, 2, 138-149. [In turkish]
Moraski, B., & Reisinger, W. M. (2010). Spatial
Contagion in Regional Machine Strength:
Evidence from Voting in Russia's Federal
Elections. APSA 2010 Annual Meeting
Paper, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1643282
Moravcsik, A. (1991). Negotiating the Single
European Act: national interests and
conventional statecraft in the European
Community. International organization,
45(1), 19-56.
Müftüler Baç, M. (2005). Turkey's political
reforms and the impact of the European
Union. South European Society and
Politics, 10(1), 17-31.
Naidu, S. N. M. (2021). Democratic Pluralism: A
Perspectival Study of American and Indian
Nationhood Experiences-Challenges for the
Malaysian Nation-State: An Instructive look
at American and Indian Nationhood
Experiences-Lessons and Challenges for
Malaysian Nation-Statehood. TechHub
Journal, 1(2), 15-28.
Nasr, S. V. R. (2005). The Rise of" Muslim
Democracy". Journal of Democracy, 16(2),
13-27.
Nello, S. S., & Smith, K. E. (1997). The
Consequences of Eastern Enlargement of the
European Union in Stages (pp. 4-16). EUI
Working Paper RSC No. 97/51. European
University Institute.
Öniş, Z. (2004). Turgut Özal and his economic
legacy: Turkish neo-liberalism in critical
perspective. Middle Eastern Studies, 40(4),
113-134.
Oran, B. (1996). Turkish foreign policy: Notes
on its basic principles and its post-cold war
situation. Ankara University Journal of
SBF, 51(01). [In turkish]
Özdemir, H. (2015). Two National View Parties
Before and After the February 28 Process:
Welfare Party (Rp)-Virtue Party (Fp) (A
Comparative Analysis). Journal of the
Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences of Süleyman Demirel
University, 20(2), 165-193. [In turkish]
Özkır, Y. (2013). Turkey's Recent Political
History and Secularism News in Hürriyet
Newspaper: Aydın Doğan Era. Iğdır
University Journal of Social Sciences, 4,
69-94. [In turkish]
Peres, R. (2012). The Day Turkey Stood Still:
Merve Kavakci's Walk Into the Turkish
Parliament. Garnet Publishing Ltd.
Potter, D. (1997). “Explaining Democratization”.
In D. Goldblatt, M. Kiloh, and P. Lewis
(Eds.), Democratization, Cambridge: Polity
Press and The Open University.
Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the
Market: Political and Economic Reforms in
Eastern Europe and Latin America.
Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, A. (2005). Democracy as an
Equilibrium. Public Choice, 123(3),
253-273.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A. &
Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and
Development: Political Institutions and Well-
220
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
being in the World, 1950-1990. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pye, L. W., & Verba, S. (2015). Political culture
and political development. Princeton
University Press.
Sabuncu, Y. (2006). Election Thresholds and
Political Consequences. Constitutional
Jurisdiction, 22(1), 191-197. [In turkish]
Sağır, A. (2015). A Prolegomena to the Age of
Anxious Conservatives. Journal of Human
and Social Sciences Research, 4(3), 791-809.
[In turkish]
Schedler, A. (1998). What is democratic
consolidation? Journal of democracy, 9(2),
91-107.
Schmitter, P. C. (2001). The influence of the
international context upon the choice of
national institutions and policies in neo-
democracies. The international dimensions of
democratization: Europe and the Americas,
26-54.
Sel, T. (2019). February 28 Perception
management in the media during the
postmodern coup process: Critical Analysis
of Newspaper News in the subject of Imam
Hatip schools (Doctoral dissertation),
Marmara University Turkey.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/ed6a3c
dadc7d526db11328de1d05cd88/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=44156
Shirazi, F., Ngwenyama, O., &
Morawczynski, O. (2010). ICT expansion
and the digital divide in democratic freedoms:
An analysis of the impact of ICT expansion,
education and ICT filtering on
democracy. Telematics and
Informatics, 27(1), 21-31.
Stokes, G. (1986). The social origins of East
European politics. East European Politics and
Societies, 1(1), 30-74.
Taş, H. (2015). Turkey–from tutelary to
delegative democracy. Third World
Quarterly, 36(4), 776-791.
Törnquist, O. (2011). Dynamics of peace and
democratization. The Aceh
lessons. Democratization, 18(3), 823-846.
Turan, İ. (1984). The evolution of political
culture in Turkey. In Modern Turkey:
Continuity and Change (pp. 84-112). VS
publishing house for social sciences,
Wiesbaden. [In German]
Üngör, U. Ü. (2020). Paramilitarism: Mass
violence in the shadow of the state. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Weber, M. (2005). Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism (Routledge classics).
Routledge.
Whitehead, L. (1996). chapter 1 Three
International Dimensions of
Democratization. The international
dimensions of democratization: Europe and
the Americas, 3.
Yavuz, M. H. (1998). Turkish identity and
foreign policy in flux: The rise of Neo‐
Ottomanism. Critique: Journal for Critical
Studies of the Middle East, 7(12), 19-41.
Yavuz, M. H., & Özcan, N. A. (2007). Crisis in
Turkey: The conflict of political
languages. Middle East Policy, 14(3),
118-135.
Yilmaz, I., & Shipoli, E. (2021). Use of past
collective traumas, fear and conspiracy
theories for securitization of the opposition
and authoritarianisation: the Turkish
case. Democratization, 29(2), 320-336.
Yılmaz, S. (2016). National View Movement:
The Effect of Frame Change in Social
Movements. Itobiad: Journal of the Human &
Social Science Researches, 5(4). [In turkish]
Youngs, R. (2009). Democracy promotion as
external governance? Journal of European
public policy, 16(6), 895-915.
Yuksel, H., Civan, A., & Gundogan, E. (2011).
The impact of Economic and Political factors
on the 2010 Turkish Referendum. Eurasian
Journal of Business and Economics, 4(7),
69-80.