Turkey’s judiciary and the drift toward competitive authoritarianism

Turkey has always been considered an “illiberal democracy”, or in Freedom House’s terms, a “partly-free” country. In recent years, however, there has been a downward trend toward “competitive authoritarianism”. Such regimes are competitive in that opposition parties use democratic institutions to contest seriously for power, but they are not democratic because the playing field is heavily skewed in favour of incumbents. One of the methods employed by competitive authoritarian leaders is the use of informal mechanisms of repression. This, in turn, requires a dependent and cooperative judiciary. Thus, in Turkey the year 2014 can be described as a period when the governing AKP (Justice and Development Party) made a sustained and systematic effort to establish its control over the judiciary by means of a series of laws of dubious constitutionality

AKP at the crossroads:Erdoǧan's majoritarian drift

The cleavage between the secular centre and the religious-conservative periphery has been the most important dividing line in modern Turkish politics. In the past, centre-right parties have successfully appealed to the peripheral majority, emerging as victors in almost all parliamentary elections since 1950. This trend continues with the Justice and Development Party (AKP). In power since 2002, winner of three consecutive elections with increasing majorities, the AKP qualifies as a predominant party. The article focuses on the AKP's recent drift towards an excessively majoritarian conception of democracy, or even an electoral authoritarianism of a more markedly Islamic character. Topics discussed include the Gezi Park events in May–June 2013, the conflict with the Gülen movement, corruption charges against government ministers, recent legislation weakening judicial independence and restricting freedom of expression, and the 30 March 2014 local elections

Türk anayasa hukuku

Bu eser 5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu’nun EK 11. maddesi uyarınca İstanbul Şehir Üniversitesi görme engelli öğrencileri için yayınevinden temin edilmiştir. Diğer kişiler tarafından kullanımı kanuna aykırıdır.Bu kitap da, Türk anayasa sisteminin başlıca kurumları geniş kapsamlı biçimde incelenmiştir. İnceleme, büyük ölçüde 1982 Anayasasına dayanmakla birlikte, her konuda 1961 Anayasası ile karşılaştırmalarda bulunulmuştur. Kitapta ele alınan konular arasında, Türkiye'nin anayasal gelişmeleri, 1982 Anayasasının temel nitelikleri. Devletin fonksiyonları ve kamu hukuku işlemleri, Cumhuriyetin temel kuruluşu ve anayasa yargısı yer almaktadır. Çok sayıda Anayasa Mahkemesi kararına yer verilmiş olması, kitabın uygulamacılar açısından da yararını arttırmaktadır

Does Culture Matter? The Relevance of Culture in Politics and Governance in the Euro-Mediterranean Zone. ZEI Discussion Paper: 2002: C 111

[Table of Contents]: Culture and Governance in the Mediterranean – A Rationale and Overview, by Indra de Soysa and Peter Zervakis; The Relevance of Culture in Democratic Governance – Lessons from the Western Hemisphere, by Lawrence E. Harrison; Culture in Politics and Governance – European Experiences, by Klaus von Beyme; Penser L’Espace Mediterranean, by Mohammed Arkoun; Muslim and Western Civilization – Is Co-Prosperity and Peace Possible?, by Erich Weede; Political Culture and Democracy in Turkey, by Ergun Özbudun; The Crisis of Political Culture in the Arab World – A Conflict of Paradigms, by Paul Salem; Euro-Mediterranean Formations – Cultural Imperatives of System Change, by Dimitris K. Xenakis and Dimitris Chryssochoou; Cross-cultural Currents in the Mediterranean – What Prospects, Stephan Calleya; Politics and Governance in the Mediterranean, by Franck Biancheri; The Mediterranean - New Directions of Research and Policy-Making, by Ludger Kühnha