Civil society has been widely celebrated as instrumental in democratization, but in some countries it remains poorly developed. Such was the case in Turkey, but many hoped that the 1999 earthquakes would lead to an invigoration of civil society and subsequent political liberalization. Examining this claim shows that Turkish civil society has not been able to sustain the energy it enjoyed immediately after the earthquake because of factors within civil society itself and the attitude of the state. This relative failure is then contrasted with the more positive experience of civil society in East-Central Europe. The comparisons reveal some limits to the utility of a civil society approach to democratization. I conclude by assessing the ability of other actors and factors to fashion political reform in Turkey today.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramowitzM. (ed.) (2000) Turkey's Transformation and American Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
2.
AshT. G. (1989) Uses of Adversity. New York: Random House.
3.
AtauzA. (2000) ‘Deprem ve Sivil Toplum Örgütleri’, Birikimnos 125–6, 89–94.
4.
BianchiR. (1984) Interest Groups and Political Development in Turkey. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BetilI. (2000) Head of Turkish Education Volunteers Foundation, Interview, 7 July.
6.
BilaH. (2000) ‘STK'lar ve Basin-Yayin Dünyasi’, in Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlari ve Yasalar-Etik-Deprem (hereafter Sivil Toplum).Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi.
7.
ÇelikH. A. (2000) Head of Sakarya Fazilet Party, Interview, 14 July.
8.
ClarkeG. (1998) ‘NGOs and politics in the developing world’, Political Studies, 46, 1, 36–52.
9.
CunyF. (1983) Disasters and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
Di PalmaG. (1990) To Craft Democracies. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
11.
EralpA. (1990) ‘The Politics of Turkish Development Strategies’, in FinkelA.SirmanN., (eds), Turkish State, Turkish Society. London: Routledge.
12.
EsmerY. (1999) Devrim, Evrim, Statuko:Turkiye'de Sosyal, Siyasal, Ekonomik Degerler.Istanbul: Tesev.
13.
FishM. S. (1998) ‘The determinants of reform in the post-communist world’, East European Politics and Societies, 12, 1, 31–78.
14.
The Guardian (1999) ‘Troops slouch as Turks starve’, 29 August.
15.
Güneş-AyataA. (1990) ‘Class and Clientelism in the Republican People's Party’, in FinkelA.SirmanN. (eds), Turkish State, Turkish Society. London: Routledge.
16.
GüralD. (2000) Executive Director of Human Resource Development Foundation, Interview, 12 July.
17.
HeperM. (1985) The State Tradition in Turkey. London: Eothen Press.
18.
HoweM. (2000) Turkey Today:a Nation Divided over Islam.Boulder CO: Westview.
19.
IlikB. (2000) ‘Kriz Durumlari ve STK Pratikleri’, in Sivil Toplum.Istanbul: Tarih Vakfi.
20.
InglehartR. (1997) Modernization and Post-Modernization. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Istanbul University Faculty of Economics (2000) ‘Economic and Social Aspect of 17 August Earthquake in Kocaeli and Sararya Region’, unpublished draft manuscript.
22.
KalaycioǧluE. (1998) ‘Good Governance and Human Development in Turkey’, in Human Development Report: Turkey 1998.Ankara: UNDP, pp. 39–46.
23.
KalaycioǧluE. (2001) ‘Turkish democracy: patronage versus governance’, Turkish Studies2, 1.
24.
KalenderI. (2000) Spokesman for Istanbul's Fazilet Party, Interview, 4 July.
25.
KirkpatrickJ. (1979) ‘Dictatorships and double standards’, Commentary, 68, November, 34–45.
26.
KonradG. (1984) Anti-Politics. London: Quartet.
27.
LinzJ.StepanA. (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
MadraÖ. (2000) President of Açik Radyo, Interview, 18 July.
