Does constitutional review in emerging democracies tend to enhance horizontal accountability or to preserve state-elite hegemony? The results of a quantitative analysis of abstract constitutional review in Turkey during the 1984–2007 period show: (1) that the Constitutional Court was no more likely to accept unconstitutionality claims by state-elite parties than by non-state-elite parties; and (2) that the Constitutional Court was more likely to accept unconstitutionality claims of executive transgressions than those of state-principles violations. In sum, the findings largely point to the Constitutional Court’s preference for horizontal accountability over hegemonic preservation.
AliefendioğluY (1996) Anayasa Yargısı ve Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi. Ankara: Yetkin.
2.
Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlar Dergisi (1985–2008) The Record of Constitutional Court Decisions, 1984–2007, Vols. 20–44. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi (Constitutional Court).
Barak-ErezD (2002) Judicial review of politics: The Israeli case. Journal of Law and Society29: 611–631.
5.
BelgeC (2006) Friends of the court: The republican alliance and selective activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey. Law and Society Review40: 653–692.
6.
BoulangerC (2006) Europeanization through judicial activism? The Hungarian Constitutional Court’s legitimacy and the ‘return to Europe’. In: SadurskiWCzarnotaAKrygierM (eds) Spreading Democracy and the Rule of Law? The Impact of EU Enlargement on the Rule of Law, Democracy and Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Legal Orders. Dordrecht: Springer, 263–280.
7.
CallerosJC (2009) The Unfinished Transition to Democracy in Latin America. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
8.
CanO (2007) Anayasayı değiştirme iktidarı ve denetim sorunu. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi62: 101–139.
9.
ÇarkoğluA (2007) The nature of left–right ideological self-placement in the Turkish context. Turkish Studies8(2): 253–271.
10.
ÇarkoğluAKalaycıoğluE (2007) Turkish Democracy Today: Elections, Protest and Stability in an Islamic Society. London: IB Tauris.
11.
ÇarkoğluAMelvinJH (2006) A spatial analysis of Turkish party preferences. Electoral Studies25: 369–392.
12.
ChavezRB (2004) The Rule of Law in Nascent Democracies: Judicial Politics in Argentina. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
DiamondLPlattnerMFSchedlerA (1999) Introduction. In: SchedlerADiamondLPlattnerMF (eds) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1–10.
14.
DodsonMJacksonDW (2003) Horizontal accountability and the rule of law in Central America. In: ScottMChristopherW (eds) Democratic Accountability in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, 228–265.
15.
DurrRHMartinADWolbrechtC (2000) Ideological divergence and public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science44: 768–776.
16.
EpsteinLKnightJShvetsovaO (2001) The role of constitutional courts in the establishment and maintenance of democratic systems of government. Law and Society Review35: 117–164.
17.
EsmerY (2002) At the ballot box: Determinants of voting behavior. In: SayarıSEsmerY (eds) Politics, Parties, and Elections in Turkey. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
18.
EspinosaMJC (2005) The judicialization of politics in Colombia: The old and the new. In: SiederRSchjoldenLAngellA (eds) The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. New York: Palgrave, 67–103.
19.
FigueiredoRJPDJrJacobiTWeingastBR (2006) The new separation-of-powers approach to American politics. In: WeingastBRWittmanDA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 199–222.
20.
GarlickiLL (2002) The experience of the Polish Constitutional Court. In: SadurskiW (ed.) Constitutional Justice, East and West: Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 265–282.
21.
GinsburgT (2003) Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GinsburgT (2010) The constitutional court and the judicialization of Korean politics. In: HardingANicholsonP (eds) New Courts in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge.
23.
GloppenSWilsonBMGargarellaRSkaarEKinanderM (2010) Courts and Power in Latin America and Africa. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
HalmaiG (2002) The Hungarian approach to constitutional review: The end of activism? The first decade of the Hungarian Constitutional Court. In: SadurskiW (ed.) Constitutional Justice, East and West: Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 189–211.
25.
HazamaY (1996) Constitutional review and the parliamentary opposition in Turkey. Developing Economies34: 316–338.
26.
HazamaY (2010) Hegemonic preservation or horizontal accountability: constitutional review in Turkey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), Washington, DC, 2–5 September 2010. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1642116 (accessed 28 June 2011).
27.
HeperM (2002) Conclusion: The consolidation of democracy versus democratization in Turkey. In: RubinBHeperM (eds) Political Parties in Turkey. London: Frank Cass, 138–146.
28.
HerronESRandazzoKA (2003) The relationship between independence and judicial review in post-communist courts. Journal of Politics65: 422–438.
29.
HirschlR (2004) Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
ImmergutEM (1990) Institutions, veto points, and policy results: A comparative analysis of health care. Journal of Public Policy10: 391–416.
31.
KaiserA (1997) Types of democracy: From classical to new institutionalism. Journal of Theoretical Politics9: 419–444.
32.
KalaycıoğluE (1999) The shaping of party preferences in Turkey: Coping with the post-Cold War era. New Perspectives on Turkey20: 47–76.
33.
LarkinsC (1998) The judiciary and delegative democracy in Argentina. Comparative Politics30: 423–442.
34.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
35.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In: RokkanSLipsetSM (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press, 1–64.
36.
MagaloniB (2003) Authoritarianism, democracy and the Supreme Court: Horizontal exchange and the rule of law in Mexico. In: ScottMChristopherW (eds) Democratic Accountability in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, 266–305.
37.
MainwaringSWelnaC (eds) (2003) Democratic Accountability in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
MardinŞ (1973) Center–periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?Deadalus102(1): 169–90.
39.
McGuireKTStimsonJA (2004) The least dangerous branch revisited: New evidence on Supreme Court responsiveness to public preferences. Journal of Politics66: 1018–1035.
40.
MorenoECrispBFShugartMS (2003) The accountability deficit in Latin America. In: ScottMChristopherW (eds) Democratic Accountability in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, 79–131.
41.
NunesRM (2010) Ideational origins of progressive judicial activism: The Colombian Constitutional Court and the right to health. Latin American Politics and Society52: 67–97.
42.
O’DonnellG (1994) Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy5: 55–69.
43.
O’DonnellG (1996) Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy7: 34–51.
44.
O’DonnellG (1999) Horizontal accountability in new democracies. In: SchedlerADiamondLPlattnerMF (eds) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 29–51.
45.
O’DonnellG (2005) Afterword. In: SiederRSchjoldenLAngellA (eds) The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. New York: Palgrave, 293–298.
46.
ÖzbudunE (1993a) State elites and democratic political culture in Turkey. In: LarryD (ed.) Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 247–268.
47.
ÖzbudunE (1993b) Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Ankara: Yetkin.
ÖzbudunE (2006) Political origins of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the problem of democratic legitimacy. European Public Law12: 213–223.
50.
ÖzbudunE (2007) Türk anayasa mahkemesinin yargısal aktivizmi ve siyasal elitlerin tepkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi62: 258–268.
51.
ScheppeleKL (2003) Constitutional negotiations. International Sociology18: 219–238.
52.
SchwartzH (1999) Surprising success: The new Eastern European constitutional courts. In: SchedlerADiamondLMarcFP (eds) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press, 79–131.
53.
SchwartzH (2000) The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
SegalJACoverAD (1989) Ideological values and the votes of US Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review83: 557–565.
55.
SegalJAEpsteinLCameronCMSpaethHJ (1995) Ideological values and the votes of US Supreme Court justices revisited. Journal of Politics57: 812–823.
56.
ShambayatiHKirdişE (2009) In pursuit of ‘contemporary civilization’: Judicial empowerment in Turkey. Political Research Quarterly62: 767–780.
57.
SiederRSchjoldenLAngellA (2005) Introduction. In: SiederRSchjoldenLAngellA (eds) The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. New York: Palgrave.
58.
SmitheySIIshiyamaJ (2002) Judicial activism in post-communist politics. Law and Society Review36: 719–742.
59.
SolyomL (2003) The role of constitutional courts in the transition to democracy. International Sociology18: 133–161.
60.
StatonJK (2006) Constitutional review and the selective promotion of case results. American Journal of Political Science50: 98–112.
61.
SteunenbergB (1997) Courts, cabinet and coalition parties: The politics of euthanasia in a parliamentary setting. British Journal of Political Science27: 551–571.
62.
SweetAS (2002) Constitutional politics in France and Germany. In: ShapiroMSweetAS (eds) On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VanbergG (2001) Legislative–judicial relations: A game-theoretic approach to constitutional review. American Journal of Political Science45: 346–361.
65.
VanbergG (2008) Establishing and maintaining judicial independence. In: WhittingtonKEKelemenRDCaldeiraGA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 99–118.
66.
VolcansekML (2010) Bargaining constitutional design in Italy: Judicial review as political insurance. Western European Politics33: 280–296.
67.
VonDoeppP (2006) Politics and judicial assertiveness in emerging democracies: High Court behavior in Malawi and Zambia. Political Research Quarterly59: 389–399.
68.
VonDoeppP (2008) Context-sensitive inquiry in comparative judicial research: Lessons from the Namibian judiciary. Comparative Political Studies41: 1515–1540.
69.
VonDoeppP (2009) Judicial Politics in New Democracies: Cases from Southern Africa. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
70.
WeingastBR (2002) Rational choice institutionalism. In: KatznelsonIMilnerHV (eds) Political Science: State of the Discipline. New York: WW Norton, 660–692.
71.
WilsonBM (2005) Changing dynamics: The political impact of Costa Rica’s Constitutional Court. In: SiederRSchjoldenLAngellA (eds) The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. New York: Palgrave, 47–66.
72.
WoodsPJ (2008) Judicial Power and National Politics: Courts and Gender in the Religious–Secular Conflict in Israel. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
73.
YazıcıS (2009) Yeni Bir Anayasa Hazırlığı ve Türkiye: Seçkinlikten Toplum Sözleşmesine. Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
