Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-xc2tv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-05T09:52:59.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reluctant at the Center, Embracing Locally: Mainstream Political Parties and Deliberation in Ankara

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2025

Savaş Zafer Şahin Open the ORCID record for Savaş Zafer Şahin [Opens in a new window]
Savaş Zafer Şahin*
Affiliation:
Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University/School of Land Registry and Cadastre, Türkiye
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Deliberative practices have gradually become part of the political discourse, policies, and governance, particularly over the last 30 years in the Republic of Türkiye (Şahin 2024b). However, this period also coincides with a rise in competitive authoritarianism through centralization and regime change (Ergenç and Yüksekkaya 2024; Esen 2021). As debates continue regarding the mechanisms of representative democracy and basic human rights, the ruling party, AKP, presents deliberation as a tool for legitimizing its power, whereas opposition parties see it as a means by which to uphold democratic rights. Despite the wide use of deliberation-related terminology, effective and innovative deliberative examples remain scarce (Tansel 2018).

Information

Type
Political Parties and Democratic Deliberation
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Akgül, Çiğdem Görgün, and Akgül, Musa. 2022. “Patterns of the Parliamentary Debates: How Deliberative are Turkish Democratic Opening Debates?” Politics in Central Europe 18 (2): 175–99.10.2478/pce-2022-0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demirci, Mustafa. 2010. “Katılımcı demokrasi açısından kent konseyleri: Eleştirel bir değerlendirme.” Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler 19 (1): 21–46.Google Scholar
Ergenç, Ceren, and Yüksekkaya, Özge. 2024. “Institutionalizing Authoritarian Urbanism and the Centralization of Urban Decision-Making.” Territory, Politics, Governance 12 (3): 410–29.10.1080/21622671.2021.2020156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertugal, Ebru. 2022. “Does Policy Style Shift When the Political Regime Changes? Insights from Türkiye.” Contemporary Politics 28 (2): 144–66.10.1080/13569775.2021.1976941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esen, Berk. 2021. “Competitive Authoritarianism in Türkiye under the AKP Rule.” In The Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Türkiye, Joost Jongerden, ed. 153–67. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429264030-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esen, Berk. 2024.“The Opposition Alliance in Türkiye’s 2023 Elections.” In Elections and Earthquakes: Quo Vadis Türkiye, Nikos Christofis ed. 71–89. London: Transnational Press.Google Scholar
Esen, Berk, and Gümüşçü, Şebnem. 2021. “Why Did Turkish Democracy Collapse? A Political Economy Account of AKP’s Authoritarianism.” Party Politics 27 (6): 1075–91.10.1177/1354068820923722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, Sergiu, ed. 2024. Political Parties and Deliberative Democracy in Europe: A Convenient Relationship? Oxford: Taylor & Francis.10.4324/9781003503309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, Sergiu, and Jacquet, Vincent. 2023. “Why Political Parties Use Deliberation: A Framework for Analysis.” Acta Politica 58:495–511.10.1057/s41269-022-00232-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, Sergiu, Soare, Sorina, and Jacquet, Vincent. 2020. “Deliberative Democracy and Political Parties: Functions and Consequences.” European Political Science 19 (2): 200–11.10.1057/s41304-019-00234-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junius, Nino, Caluwaerts, Didier, Matthieu, Joke, and Erzeel, Silvia. 2021.“Hacking the Representative System through Deliberation? The Organization of the Agora Party in Brussel.” Acta Politica 58 (3): 512–530.10.1057/s41269-021-00226-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya, Zeynep N., and Whiting, Matthew. 2020. “The HDP, the AKP and the Battle for Turkish Democracy.” In A Century of Kurdish Politics, Güneş Murat Tezcür, ed. 92–106. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429282690-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyman, E. Fuat. 2010.“The CHP and the ‘Democratic Opening’: Reactions to AK Party’s Electoral Hegemony.” Insight Turkey 12 (2): 91–108.Google Scholar
Lombard, Melanie. 2013. “Citizen Participation in Urban Governance in the Context of Democratization: Evidence from Low‐Income Neighbourhoods in Mexico.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (1): 135–150.10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01175.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niessen, Christoph, and Reuchamps, Min. 2019. “Designing a Permanent Deliberative Citizens Assembly: The Ostbelgien Modell in Belgium.” Working paper, Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Oh, Juhwan, Ko, Young, Alley, Allison Baer, and Kwon, Soonman. 2015. “Participation of the Lay Public in Decision-Making for Benefit Coverage of National Health Insurance in South Korea.” Health Systems & Reform 1 (1): 62–71.10.4161/23288604.2014.991218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Özdemir, Ali Tamer. 2011. “Mahalli idarelerde halk katılımı bağlamında kent konseyleri.” Sayıştay Dergisi 83:31–56.Google Scholar
Özden, Miray. 2024. “Active Participation or Legal Obligation? A Qualitative Study of the Effectiveness of Participatory Methods Designed for Local Participation.” Quality & Quantity 58 (1): 559–80.10.1007/s11135-023-01658-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmaksız, Pınar Melis Yelsalı. 2019. “The Transformation of Citizenship before and after the 15 July Coup Attempt: The Case of Civil Martyrdom.” In Erdoğan’s ‘New’ Turkey, ed. Christofis, Nikos, 113–24. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429330216-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramazanoğulları, Hande. 2022.“After the Protest: Istanbul Park Forums and People’s Engagement in Political Action.” Social Movement Studies 21 (4): 420–35.10.1080/14742837.2021.1894550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şahin, Savaş Zafer. 2015. “Kent Konseylerinin Katılımcılık Kapasitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: Ankara Örneğinden Bazı Çıkarımlar.” Paradoks Ekonomi Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi 11 (2): 194–216.Google Scholar
Şahin, Savaş Zafer. 2019. “The urbanization policy of Turkey: an uneasy symbiosis of unimplemented policy with centralized pragmatic interventions.” Turkish Studies 20 (4): 599–618.10.1080/14683849.2019.1602826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şahin, Savaş Zafer. 2023. Participatory and Resilient Urban Governance: The Case of Ankara Citizen Council, ed. New York: Consortium for Sustainable Urbanisation.Google Scholar
Şahin, Savaş Zafer. 2024a. “Halkın kent yönetimine katılımda yetim çocuğu: Kent Konseyleri.” Birikim Dergisi, Şubat-Mart, 137–52.Google Scholar
Şahin, Savaş Zafer. 2024b. “Türkiye Cumhuriyetinde Demokratik Katılımın Kısa Tarihi.” In Cumhuriyetin 100, Yılı Özel Yayını Cilt No: 5, ed. Arslan, M. Cemil. Marmara: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Kültür Yayınları, 200–220.Google Scholar
Tansel, Cemal Burak. 2018. “Authoritarian Neoliberalism and Democratic Backsliding in Türkiye: Beyond the Narratives of Progress.” South European Society and Politics 23 (2): 197–217.10.1080/13608746.2018.1479945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varol, Cigdem, Ercoskun, Ozge Yalciner, and Gurer, Nilufer. 2011. “Local Participatory Mechanisms and Collective Actions for Sustainable Urban Development in Türkiye.” Habitat International 35 (1): 9–16.10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalçın-Riollet, Melike. 2019. “Coproduction of Participation Policies in Turkey: The Making of City Councils.” Mediterranean Politics 24 (3): 338–55.10.1080/13629395.2017.1398888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yıldırım, Kerem. 2022. “Clientelism and Dominant Incumbent Parties: Party Competition in an Urban Turkish Neighbourhood.” In Varieties of Clientelism, Edward Aspinall, Ward Berenschot, ed. 81–99. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003352259-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar