Europeanization and change in domestic politics: impact and the mediating factors of the Copenhagen Political Criteria in Turkish democracy: 1999-2005 [Elektronische Ressource] / von Bardakci, Mehmet

(Ya\320mur)

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_duisburg-essen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2007
• Nombre de lectures: 26
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Europeanization and Change in Domestic Politics:
Impact and Mediating Factors of the Copenhagen Political Criteria
in Turkish Democracy: 1999-2005



Vom Fachbereich
für Gesellschaftswissenschaften
der Universität Duisburg-Essen
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades


Dr. phil.


genehmigte Dissertation


von


Bardakci, Mehmet


aus


Söke



Referent: Prof. Dr. Heinz-Jürgen Axt
Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Othmar Nikola Haberl



Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 9. März 2007

ABSTRACT


EUROPEANIZATION AND CHANGE IN DOMESTIC POLITICS:
IMPACT AND MEDIATING FACTORS OF THE COPENHAGEN POLITICAL
CRITERIA IN TURKISH DEMOCRACY: 1999-2005



Mehmet Bardakci
Dissertation, Department of Political Science
Duisburg-Essen University
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Heinz-Jürgen Axt



This study seeks to examine what domestic factors in Turkish politics refracted the
democratisation requirements laid out by the Copenhagen political criteria and what
impacts the Copenhagen political criteria have made on Turkish democracy in the 1999
post-the Helsinki era. It also explains how transformation of Turkish democracy was
made possible after 1999 Helsinki decision. In doing this, based on Europeanization
studies, the study employs a conceptual framework comprising three-steps, which are
Europeanization, goodness of fit, and mediating factors. The thesis argues that the impact
of Europeanization on Turkey’s democracy is institution dependent. Domestic
institutions are significant in two respects. First, the institutions determine the degree of
pressure for adaptation, which results from Europeanization. Second, domestic
institutions have a large impact upon the strategies by which domestic actors respond to
adaptational pressure facilitating or inhibiting institutional adaptation. One of the main
findings of the thesis is that domestic institutions comprising parties, party system, the
military, the president, civil society, the Turkish public and norms, values and traditions
embedded in the Turkish polity have refracted the EU democratic reforms sometimes
accelerating, sometimes retarding their translation into domestic politics and giving them
a national coloring. Another conclusion is that as following 1999 Helsinki decision,
“costs-benefits” equation has changed in favour of the latter from the angle of the
Turkish state, it was possible for them to take courageous steps, and for the EU to play an
effective anchor role in this transformation.




Keywords

Turkey-European Integration-Europeanization-Democratization-Copenhagen Political
Criteria

ii
















Acknowledgement


I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Heinz-Jürgen Axt for the
invaluable encouragements and comments he made on my doctoral work, without which
the thesis would not have been successfully completed.
iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS


Abstract...................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement.................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents...................................................................................................iv
List of Abbreviations............................................................................................vii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................1

1.1. Contribution of the Thesis…………………………………………………...5
1.2. Organization of the Thesis...............................................................................8
Notes to Introduction.....................................................................................12

CHAPTER II. RESEARCH DESIGN............................................................13

2.1. Methodology: Three-Step Approach to Europeanization and
Change in Domestic Politics………………………………………………..13
2.2. Questions Answered………………………………………………………..17
2.3. Hypotheses………………………………………………………………….19
2.4. Theories of Institutional Change……………………………………………21
2.4.1. Neo-functionalism …………………..21
2.4.2. Liberal Intergovernmentalism ………24
2.4.3. Historical Institutionalism……………………………………………27
2.5. Literature Review on Europeanization…………………………………..….31
2.6. Methods and Data...........................................................................................44
Notes to Chapter II..........................................................................................46

CHAPTER III. CHARACTERISTICS OF TURKISH POLITICAL
SYSTEM…………………………………………………….49

3.1. Strong State Tradition………………………………………………………50
3.2. The Military in Politics……………………………………………………..65
3.3. Characteristics of the Party System..76
3.4. Conceptualization of Minorities……………………………………………90
3.5. Islamic Politics……………………………………………………………...98
Notes to Chapter III………………………………………………………..107

CHAPTER IV. EU’S HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION
IN ENLARGEMENT PROCESS IN HISTORICAL
AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE…………………110

4.1. Evolution of the EU`s Human Rights and Democracy Promotion………...110
4.2. EU’s Human Rights and Democracy Promotion in the Enlargement Process
in Historical and Comparative Perspective………………………………...116
iv 4.2.1. EU’s Human Rights and Democracy Promotion
in the Mediterranean Enlargement…………………………………..116
4.2.2. EU’s Human Rights and Democracy Promotion
in the Eastern and Central European Enlargement………………….123
4.2.3. EU’s Human Rights and Democracy Promotion in Turkey………...131
Notes to Chapter IV………………………………………………………..159

CHAPTER V. TURKISH DEMOCRACY’S SHORTCOMINGS AND
DEFICIENCES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
COPENHAGEN POLITICAL CRITERIA...........................162

5.1. Copenhagen Political Criteria………………………………………………162
5.2. Accession Partnership Document…………………………………………..166
5.3. National Programme for the Adoption of the acquis (NPAA)……………..169
5.4. Turkish Democracy from the Perspective
of the Copenhagen Political Criteria………171
5.4.1. Stable Institutions…………………………………………………....172
5.4.1.1. Government………………...173
5.4.1.2. Parliament, Parties and Party System……………………….174
5.4.1.3. Civil Society and Organized Interests……………………....174
5.4.1.4. The Role of the Army in Politics and
the National Security Council……………………………...175
5.4.2. Rule of Law………………………………………………………….177
5.4.3. Human Rights……………………………………………………….181
5.4.3.1. Freedom of Expression…………………………………….183
5.4.3.2. Freedom of the Press………………………………………189
5.4.3.3. Freedom of Broadcasting………………………………….192
5.4.3.4. Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly………….193
5.4.3.5. Banning of Political Parties and Politicians……………….195
5.4.3.6. Death Penalty……………………………………………...199
5.4.3.7. Prisons and Enforcement of Sentences……………………202
5.4.3.8. Torture and Ill-treatment…………………………………..207
5.4.4. Minorities…………………………………………………………..211
5.4.4.1. Kurdish Issue...211
5.4.4.2. Non-Muslim Minorities........................................................214
Notes to Chapter V......................................................................................217

CHAPTER VI. IMPACT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ON
TURKISH DEMOCRACY...................................................220

6.1. National Security Council and the Role of the Military………………….220
6.2. Rule of Law……………………………………………………………….223
6.3. Human Rights……………………………………………………………..227
6.4. Enforcement of Human Rights………………………...233
6.5. Capital Punishment……………………………………………………….236
6.6. Torture and Ill Treatment…………………………………………………238
6.7. Prison System……………………………………………………………..244
6.8. Freedom of Expression…………………………………………………...248
6.9. Freedom of the Press……………………………………………………...253
6.10. Freedom of Broadcasting…………………………………………………255
v 6.11. Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly…………………………257
6.12. Political Parties……………………………………………………………262
6.13. Minorities…………………………………………………………………264
6.13.1. Kurdish Issue……………………………………………………...264
6.13.2. Non-M