CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2024
| Author | Cam, Ozan Utku |
|---|---|
| Title | Social Divisions, Party Systems, and Political Change in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey: A Historical Analysis |
| Summary | The dominant approach in the literature of cleavages and party systems explains the history of politics in Turkey as a stable and cultural struggle of a centre and a periphery. It is argued that secular, nationalist, bureaucratic, elite forces of the founding ideology, and their representative parties constitute the centre. Dissidents, namely Islamic, Kurdish, civilian, popular forces, and their parties constitute the periphery. Prominent scholars of this literature claimed that this division originates in the social formation of the Ottoman Empire. It was claimed that the conflict between despotic state and peasants, and the absolute dominance of the former over the latter was the defining character of the empire. Consequently, the disconnected character of centre and periphery was manifested in party systems after the transition to democracy. Although this is a popular explanation, such historical arguments concerning socio-political change/stability have not been demonstrated empirically and systematically in a longitudinal study. This study aims to address this gap critically by explaining the history of formation and evolution of cleavage and party system structures in Turkey. The second chapter engages with the claim of the stable despotic centre in the Ottoman Empire, and of the disconnection between centre and periphery in specific. Firstly, it is argued that Ottoman Empire shared the essential characteristics of feudalism with its western counterparts, and sultan’s power relied on the feudal ruling classes in the periphery. Secondly, the breaking-up of the feudal order and the radical social transformation of the 17th and 18th centuries are explained. It is argued that sultan’s power declined vis-a-vis other actors of ruling classes. Thirdly, the peculiarities of the modern-state-making processes of the 19th and 20th centuries were explained through the interaction between the Western powers’ expanding hegemony, the multicultural yet hierarchical legacy of the empire, and the emerging Muslim and non-Muslim bourgeoisie. Fourthly, it is argued that the provincial commercial and landholding bourgeoisie constituted the social base of the Turkish War of Independence. The third and fourth chapters explain the party systems, and historical alignment and de-alignment processes. It is argued that ruptures occurred and mainly five party systems emerged during the multi-party era regarding the relevant number of parties and structures of ideological dimensions and polarizations. The first party system (1950-1960) is defined as polarized two-party system that is ideologically divided between secular modernization legacy and an agrarian conservative populism. The second party system (1961-1980) is defined as polarized multi-party system that is divided into two ideological dimensions. These dimensions are called pro-secular modernization and pro-Islamic nativist modernization (1), and economic left and McCarthyist right (2). The third party system (1983-1991) was called moderately multi-party system with a predominant party, and has one ideological dimension: Neoliberal conservatism and economic populism. Both fourth(1991-2002) and the fifth(2002-2023) party systems had two ideological dimensions: pro-secular versus pro-Islamic modernization (1), and multiculturalist pro-Kurdish politics versus mono-ethnic status-quo. The former is defined as polarized multi-party system with relative balance of parties, and the latter is defined as polarized multiparty system with a predominant party. |
| Supervisor | Enyedi, Zsolt |
| Department | Political Science PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2024/cam_ozan.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University