TÜRKİYE’DE ULUSAL GÜVENLİK ANLAYIŞININ DEMOKRATİKLEŞMESİ VE SİYASAL PARTİLER

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki ulusal güvenlik anlayışının değişme sürecini ve bu süreçte siyasal partilerin oynaması muhtemel rolü incelemektedir. Çalışmada, değişim, askeri kanat üzerinde sivil kontrolün artması olarak değil; güvenliğin kapsamının genişletilmesi ve karar alma sürecine katılan sivil aktörlerin sayısının artması olmak üzere eş zamanlı iki sürecin birleşimi olarak tanımlanmıştır. Çalışma; siyasal partilerin siyaset yapma konusundaki güvenlik endişeleri sebebiyle ulusal güvenlik konusu ile ilgilenmekten kaçındıklarını ve bunun sonucunda da, değişimin sadece genişleme boyutunun gerçekleştiğini savunmakta ve ortaya çıkan sonucun da demokratikleşme değil, güvenliğin kapsamının genişlemesi olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Ulusal Güvenlik, Demokratikleşme, Türk Siyaseti, Siyasal Partiler

DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY DISCOURSE AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES IN TURKEY

This article analyzes the prospects for changes in the Turkish national security discourse and the possible role of political parties in this process. Change is differentiated from the establishment of civilian control over the military as a simultaneous process of broadening the security agenda and increasing the number of civilian actors involved in decision-making process. The main argument of the article is that because of the insecurity of doing politics inTurkey, the political parties refrain from participating in the shaping of the national security discourse and only broadening aspect of change, whose outcome is securitization instead of democratization, occurs.

Keywords:

National Security, Democratization, Turkish Politics, Political Parties,

PDF

___

AHMAD, Feroz; (2006), Modern Türkiye’nin Oluşumu, Kaynak Yayınları, İstanbul.
ANAVATAN PARTİSİ (ANAP), http://anap.org.tr, Access Date: 24.09.2001
BELGENET; (2003), 7th Harmonization Package, http://belgenet.com/yasa/ ab_uyum7-1.html, Access Date: 04.06.2008
BİLGİN, Pınar; (2007), “Making Turkey’s Transformation Possible: Claiming ‘Security-Speak’-not Desecuritization ”, South East European and Black Sea Studies, 7(4), pp. 535-571.
BİLGİN, Pınar; (2003), “Individual and Societal Dimensions of Security”, International Studies Review, 5(2), ss. 203-222.
CHIEF OF GENERAL STAFF, http://www.tsk.mil.tr/1_TSK_HAKKINDA/ 1_3_Gorevi/gorevi.htm , Access Date: 24.01.2009
CİZRE, Ümit; (2007), Prime Movers, Specific Features and Challenges of Security Sector Reform in a Guardian State: The Case of Turkey, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) Working FileContent?serviceID=DCAF&fileid=A39F51AA-6033-66F2-CDF7- A12397ED98DE&lng=en , Access Date: 04.06.2008
CİZRE, Ümit; (2003), Europeanization and the Role and Attitude of the Turkish unsy/Cyprus_Conference_Cize.pdf , Access Date: 04.07.2003
CİZRE, Ümit; (1997), “The Anatomy of the Turkish Military’s Political Autonomy”, Comparative Politics, 29(2), ss. 151-166.
COOPER, Malcolm; (2002), “The Legacy of Atatürk: Turkish Political Structures and Policy-Making”, International Affairs, 78(1), ss. 115- 128.
DOĞAN, Nejat; (2006), “Türk Siyasal Partilerinin Uluslararası İlişkilere Yaklaşımı, 1923-1980: Partilerin Benimsedikleri Dışişleri, Güvenlik ve Savunma Politikaları”, in Nejat DOĞAN and Mahir NAKİP (Ed.), Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Türk Siyasal Partileri, Seçkin, Ankara, ss. 117-154.
EUROPEAN COUNCIL; (2001), Accession Partnership Document, www.avrupa.info.tr/Files/File/RECOURCE_CENTRE/key_links/006- Accession%20Partnership%20Document.doc, 04.06.2008. Access Date:
EUROPEAN COUNCIL; (2003), Accession Partnership Document, www.avrupa.info.tr/Files/File/RECOURCE_CENTRE/key_links/006- Accession%20Partnership%20Document.doc, 04.06.2008. Access Date:
GÜNEY, Aylin; (2002), “The Military, Politics and Post-Cold War Dilemmas in Turkey”, in Kees KONINGS and Dirk KRUIJT (Ed.), Political Armies: The Military and Nation Building in the Age of Democracy, Zed Books, London and New York, ss. 163-180.
HALPERN, Manfred; (1981), “Middle Eastern Armies and the New Middle Class”, in John J. JOHNSON (Eds.), The Role of Military in Underdeveloped Countries, Greenwood Press, Connecticut, ss. 260- 279.
HEPER, Metin; (1985), State Tradition in Turkey, The Eothen Press, Northgate.
İBA, Şaban; (1998), Milli Güvenlik Devleti: Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Belgeleriyle Milli Güvenlik İdeolojisi ve Kurumlaşma, Çivi Yazıları, İstanbul.
KARAWAN, İbrahim; (2003), “Security Sector Reform and Retrenchment in the Middle East”, in Heiner HANGGI and Theodor WINKLER (Ed.), Challenges of Security Sector Governance, DCAF, Geneva, ss. 244- 261.
KAYALI, Kurtuluş; (1994), Ordu ve Siyaset: 27 Mayıs-12 Mart, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
KOĞACIOĞLU, Dicle; (2004), “Progress, Unity, and Democracy: Dissolving Political Parties in Turkey”, Law and Society Review, 38(3), ss. 433-462.
LANDAU, Jacob; (1982), “The Nationalist Action Party in Turkey”, Journal of Contemporary History, 17(4), ss. 587-606.
MCDONALD, Matt; (2002), “Human Security and the Construction of Security”, Global Society, 16(3), ss. 277-295.
MISRAHI, Frederic; (2004), “The EU and the Civil Democratic Control of the Armed Forces: An Analysis of Recent Developments in Turkey”, Perspectives, 22, ss. 22-42.
ÖZTÜRK, Metin; (1993), Ordu ve Politika, Gündoğan Yayınları, Ankara.
THOMAS, Caroline; (2001), “Global Governance, Development and Humanitarian Security: Exploring the Links”, Third World Quarterly, 22(2), pp. 159-175.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2001a), 7 August.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2001b), 11 August.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2001c), 14 August.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2001d), 17 August.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2003), 28 January.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2004a), 19 April.
TURKISH DAILY NEWS; (2004b), 24 April.
YENİ DÜŞÜNCE (MONTHLY MAGAZINE); 2001 (33).
CONSTITUTION, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/Anayasa.htm, Access Date: 24.01.2009