This thesis explores how the Turkish democratization has been affected by conservative parties during the historical process. In addition, it provides information about the democratization experience of Turkey. Furthermore, it reveals the difference of Turkish democracy from that of other democratic countries. How Turkey went through interrupted periods of democratization experience in these periods, and gains and losses as a result of these periods were addressed in this thesis separately. The analysis and evaluations were conducted through the interviews with persons, who have a say in the political history of Turkey. / 博士(グローバル社会研究) / Doctor of Philosophy in Global Society Studies / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University

No description available.

This dissertation examines the role of the social struggles and alliances in shaping the Constitutional Court rulings that structure core political controversies in Turkey. By adopting Joel Migdal’s State-in-Society approach, the Court is conceived as an organization that exists in an environment of conflict. By following a process oriented approach, this study analyzes the ways in which the relation between the Court and other actors influence the Constitutional Court of Turkey’s motives, capacity and manner of activism mainly during the period under the 1961 Constitution. This study argues that the limits of the Court’s power and its role in structuring the core political controversies that define and divide society can be explained by looking at the alliances formed between the Court and other actors. Alliances extend the jurisdiction of the Court by opening new avenues for political intervention and creating a support network for the reasoning and the justification of its rulings. By comparing the Court’s activism under the 1961 Constitution and under the 1982 Constitution, it is demonstrated that neither the nature nor the influence of these alliances remains static. In fact, this dissertation points out that we need to make a conceptual differentiation between two forms of alliances; strategic alliances and judicial coalitions. Strategic alliances refer to implicit alliances between the Court and other actors formed around an issue, whereas judicial coalitions refer to alliances based on a common normative framework and a shared identity. Whereas the Court’s activism in the first period is best described in terms of a strategic alliance, its activism in the 1990’s and 2000’s is best described with the term judicial coalition. / 10000-01-01

Kurdish political identity, their quest for recognition has been an everlasting issue in the Turkish politics since the establishment of Turkish Republic (1923). When the Republic was building by the Republican elite during the single-party regime, the Turkish identity and Mustafa Kemal’s principles became constituent elements of Republican agenda which was ideologically aimed to be a modern nation-state that showed no tolerance to those who stayed out of its scope (i.e Kurds). The frames of Turkish identity were firstly secularism, and secondly nationalism which required one language, one identity and territorial integrity. These frames which were copied from Jacobin French nationalism regulated the Turkification process and shaped the assimilationist policies towards non-Turkish ethnic groups. This paper examines the outlines of both Turkish politics and Kurdish resistance. While providing political consequences of reluctant policies toward Kurds and the Turkish perspective of Kurds as threats towards mainstream Turkish identity, the study also touches upon the ideological transition of Kurdish movement that appeared within the Justice and Development Party (AKP) reign. The evolution of Kurdish politics eventually utilized Kurds to emancipate from being a perception of threat to Turkish nationalism and finally offers a possible solution to the conflict.

No description available.