Examining justice-level determinants of party dissolution decisions can reveal how high Courts may influence the public choice by constraining the representation of political ideologies. We argue that Constitutional Court justices strategically engage in politics through party dissolution cases, and justices ‘en garde’ act to guard the regime against anti-establishment ideologies. As a graveyard of political parties, Turkey is an appropriate case to study this claim. By introducing a unique dataset, we demonstrate that communist, religious and ethnic parties in Turkey with considerable public support are more likely to be dissolved by justices having an activist and pro-status quo ideological stance.
AlganBulent (2011) Dissolution of Political Parties by the Constitutional Court in Turkey: An everlasting conflict between the Court and the Parliament?Ankara Universitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi Dergisi60(4): 809–836.
2.
ArmstrongDavid AIIBakkerRyanCarrollRoyceHareChristopherPooleKeith TRosenthalHoward (2014) Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
3.
BaleTim (2007) Are Bans on Political Parties Bound to Turn Out Badly? A Comparative Investigation of Three ‘Intolerant’ Democracies: Turkey, Spain, and Belgium. Comparative European Politics5(2): 141–157.
4.
BelgeCeren (2006) Friends of the Court: The Republican alliance and selective activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey. Law & Society Review40(3): 653–692.
5.
BlakeWilliam (2012) God Save This Honorable Court: Religion as a Source of Judicial Policy Preferences. Political Research Quarterly65(4): 814–826.
6.
BourneAngela K (2012) Democratization and the Illegalization of Political Parties in Europe. Democratization19(6): 1065–1085.
7.
CaldeiraGregory A (1987) Public Opinion and the US Supreme Court: FDR’s court-packing plan. American Political Science Review81(4): 1139–1153.
8.
ÇarkogluAliHinichMelvin J (2006) A Spatial Analysis of Turkish Party Preferences. Electoral Studies25(2): 369–392.
9.
CarrollRoyceLewisJeffrey BLoJamesPooleKeith TRosenthalHoward (2009a) Comparing Nominate and Ideal: Points of difference and Monte Carlo tests. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(4): 555–91.
10.
CarrollRoyceLewisJeffrey BLoKeithPooleKeith TRosenthalHoward (2009b) Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Dw-Nominate Ideal Point Estimates Via the Parametric Bootstrap. Political Analysis17(3): 261–275.
11.
CelepÖdül (2012) The Political Causes of Party Closures in Turkey. Parliamentary Affairs67(2): 371–390.
12.
CorkinNicola C (2010) Developments in Abstract Judicial Review in Germany, Austria and Italy. PhD Dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK.
13.
CousoJavierHuneeusAlexandraSiederRachel (eds) (2010) Cultures of Legality: Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DresselBjorn (ed) (2012) The Judicialization of Politics in Asia. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
15.
EpsteinLeeKnightJackShvetsovaOlga (2001) The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government. Law & Society Review35(2001): 117–164.
16.
EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew DSegalJeffrey AWesterlandChad (2007) The Judicial Common Space. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization23(2): 303–325.
17.
GibsonJames L (1983) From Simplicity to Complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior. Political Behavior5(1): 7–49.
18.
GuneyAylinBaskanFiliz (2008) Party Dissolutions and Democratic Consolidation: The Turkish case. South European Society & Politics13(3): 263–281.
19.
HakyemezYusuf SevkiAkgunBirol (2002) Limitations on the Freedom of Political Parties in Turkey and the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Mediterranean Politics7(2): 54–78.
20.
HazamaYasushi (2012) Hegemonic Preservation or Horizontal Accountability: Constitutional review in Turkey. International Political Science Review33(4): 421–440.
21.
HirschlRan (2004) Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
HowardRobert MSegalJeffrey A (2002) An Original Look at Originalism. Law & Society Review36(1): 113–137.
23.
KarvonenLauri (2007) Legislation on Political Parties: A global comparison. Party Politics13(4): 437–455.
24.
KassowBenjamin JSongerDonald RFixMichael P (2012) The Influence of Precedent on State Supreme Courts. Political Research Quarterly65(2): 372–384.
25.
KogaciogluDicle (2003) Dissolution of Political Parties by the Constitutional Court in Turkey: Judicial delimitation of the political domain. International Sociology18(1): 258–276.
26.
KogaciogluDicle (2004) Progress, Unity and Democracy: Dissolving political parties in Turkey. Law & Society Review38(3): 433–462.
27.
LangerLaura (2003) Strategic Considerations and Judicial Review: The case of workers’ compensation laws in the American states. Public Choice116(1): 55–78.
28.
LaxJeffrey RRaderKelly T (2010) Legal Constraints on Supreme Court Decision Making: Do Jurisprudential Regimes Exist?Journal of Politics72(2): 273–284.
29.
LindquistStefanie AKleinDavid E (2006) The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decision Making: A Study of Conflict Cases. Law & Society Review40(1): 135–162.
30.
MartinAndrew DQuinnKevin MEpsteinLee (2005) The Median Justice on the United States Supreme Court. North Carolina Law Review83(2005): 1275–322.
31.
McGuireKevin TStimsonJames A (2004) The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New evidence on Supreme Court responsiveness to public preferences. Journal of Politics66(4): 1018–1035.
32.
MolenaarFransje (2010) The Development of European Standards on Political Parties and Their Regulation. Working Paper Series on the Legal Regulation of Political Parties, No. 4. Available at: http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp0410.pdf
33.
OstbergCynthia LWetsteinMatthew E (2007) Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
34.
ÖzbudunErgun (2007) Turk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yargisal Aktivizmi Ve Siyasal Elitlerin Tepkisi [Judicial Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey and the Reaction of Political Elites]. Ankara Universitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi Dergisi62(3): 258–268.
35.
ÖzbudunErgun (2010) Party Prohibition Cases: Different approaches by the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Democratization17(1): 125–142.
36.
PooleKeithLewisJeffreyLoJamesCarrollRoyce (2011) Scaling Roll Call Votes with wnominate in R. Journal of Statistical Software42(14): 1–21.
37.
PooleKeith TRosenthalHoward (1985) A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis. American Journal of Political Science29(2): 357–384.
38.
PooleKeith TRosenthalHoward (2007) Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
39.
SchofieldNormanGallegoMariaOzdemirUgurZakharovUgur (2011) Competition for Popular Support: A valence model of elections in Turkey. Social Choice Welfare36(3): 451–482.
40.
SegalJeffrey ACoverAlbert D (1989) Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review83(2): 557–565.
41.
SegalJeffrey ASpaethHarold J (1993) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SegalJeffrey ASpaethHarold J (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
ShambayatiHootanKirdisEsen (2009) In Pursuit of ‘Contemporary Civilization’: Judicial empowerment in Turkey. Political Research Quarterly62(4): 767–780.
44.
ShapiroMartinStoneAlec (1994) The New Constitutional Politics of Europe. Comparative Political Studies26(4): 397–420.
45.
ShapiroMartinStone SweetAlec (2002) On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
StoneAlec (1992) The Birth of Judicial Politics in France: The Constitutional Council in Comparative Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
TateNeal C (1981) Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of US Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in civil liberties and economics decisions, 1946–1978. American Political Science Review75(2): 355–367.
48.
TezcurGunes Murat (2009) Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: The Turkish case. Law & Society Review43(2): 305–336.
49.
VolkensAndreaLehmannPolaMerzNicolasRegelSvenWernerAnnikaLacewellOnawa PromiseSchultzeHenrike (2013) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Available at: https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/.
50.
YatesJeffCannDamon MBoyeaBrent D. (2013a) Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for US Supreme Court Adjudication. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies10(4): 847–865.
51.
YatesJeffMoellerJustinLeveyBrian (2013b) ‘For the Times They Are a-Changin’: Explaining voting patterns of US Supreme Court Justices through identification of micro-publics. BYU Journal of Public Law28(1): 117–143.
