|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
175040
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Literature on Turkey’s post-2011 authoritarian turn – especially after the eruption of the 2013 nationwide Gezi Protests – adopts modern concepts such as ‘dictatorship’, ‘authoritarianism’, ‘totalitarianism’, ‘one-party government’, ‘party-state fusion’, and even ‘fascism’ mainly in order to pin down the nature of the Justice and Development Party (AKP, Turkish acronym) or depict the current character of Turkey’s regime. Through engaging the pre-modern concept of neopatrimonialism, which is derived from Max Weber’s concept of patrimonialism, this paper argues that Turkey’s encounter with authoritarianism is deeply associated with the proliferation of neopatrimonial domination, into which the legacy of patronage politics, fracture of security power, and the metastasis of crony capitalism have been conflated. This article argues that neopatrimonial features have always, to a degree, marked state-society relations in Turkey. Furthermore, this article suggests neopatrimonial characteristics started to dominate Turkey’s modern legal structure under the AKP, which led to a state crisis culminating in the 2016 attempted coup. However, despite the fact that neopatrimonialism cannot be argued as a pathological deviation from modern-legal domination, this paper concludes that tension exists between the crony capitalism-based economic model of neopatrimonalism and Turkey’s decades-long market-based capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
178788
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While much has been written to explain the mutation of Islamic-oriented parties in Turkey from pursuing an Islamic ideological cause to embracing vote-seeking behavior and democratic processes, little effort has been made to explain why the far-right establishment – represented by the Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, MHP) – still resists ideological change. This article argues that fortification of nationalism with Islam in the party, the party’s identification with Turkey’s national security issues, and the construction of personality cult around party founder Alparslan Türkeş restrict its ideological moderation. Nevertheless, the party benefits from this ideological immoderation to be a key player in Turkish politics. In other words, while ideological immoderation prevents the MHP from embracing a pluralistic political stance, it has also been functional to exert its nationalist ideology on the state without sharing governmental power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|