Occupational health and safety (OHS) is a vital dimension of labor policy, yet its presence in political discourse, particularly in party manifestos, remains underexplored. In democratic systems, election manifestos reflect the political will and priorities of parties, including their commitment to workers’ welfare and workplace safety.
Objective
This study aims to investigate how political parties in Turkey addressed OHS in their 2023 general election manifestos. It seeks to evaluate the specificity, relevance, and feasibility of OHS-related promises and their alignment with international labor standards.
Methods
A qualitative content analysis was conducted on the official 2023 general election manifestos of major Turkish political parties. The analysis focused on the presence, depth, and practical orientation of OHS-related discourse, examining textual data through thematic coding aligned with international policy frameworks.
Results
The findings reveal a spectrum of approaches to OHS, ranging from general symbolic statements to concrete policy proposals. Some parties emphasized regulatory reforms, institutional capacity building, and expert-driven policy, while others provided limited or ambiguous references to worker safety. Discrepancies in terminology, focus areas, and implementation strategies were notable.
Conclusions
The study concludes that OHS remains inconsistently addressed across political platforms. Ensuring institutional stability, appointing qualified experts, and adopting evidence-based, internationally compatible strategies are essential for advancing OHS policy in Turkey. A more standardized and rights-based discourse is required for effective policy continuity and worker protection.
ApakDDuygulu ElcimŞİngün KarkışÖ, et al.Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılında Siyasi Partilerin 2023 Seçim Beyannameleri Üzerinden Türkiye Siyasetine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış. Gaziantep Univ J Soc Sci2023 Oct 28; 22: 579–601.
FrickKKempaV. Actors or receptors? The role of workers and trade unions in regulating work and health. Worker representation and health and safety in small enterprises. 2011;25–44.
FrickK. Worker influence on voluntary OHS management systems – A review of its ends and means. Saf Sci2011 Aug; 49: 974–987.
12.
RothsteinHDemerittDPaulR, et al.Varieties of risk regulation in Europe: coordination, complementarity and occupational safety in capitalist welfare states. Socioecon Rev2019 Oct 1; 17: 993–1020.
13.
AlbrechtSLKelmanS. Regulating America, regulating Sweden: a comparative study of occupational safety and health policy. Contemp Sociol1982 Sep; 11: 66.
14.
WaltersD. Regulating health and safety management in the European Union: a study of the dynamics of change. In P.I.E.-Peter Lang.
15.
JainAHassardJLekaS, et al.The role of occupational health services in psychosocial risk management and the promotion of mental health and well-being at work. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021 Mar 31; 18: 3632.
16.
ElslerDEeckelaertL. Factors influencing the transferability of occupational safety and health economic incentive schemes between different countries. Scand J Work Environ Health2010 Jun; 36: 325–331.
17.
WaltersDR. Preventive services in occupational health and safety in Europe: developments and trends in the 1990s. Int J Health Serv1997 Apr 1; 27: 247–271.
18.
WaltersDR. Health and safety strategies in Europe. J Loss Prev Process Ind1996 Sep; 9: 297–308.
19.
VerraSEBenzergaAJiaoB, et al.Health promotion at work: a comparison of policy and practice across Europe. Saf Health Work2019 Mar; 10: 21–29.
20.
KarlsenJEHempel LindøeP. The nordic osh model at a turning point?Policy Pract Health Saf2006 Jan 5; 4: 17–30.
Akçay,E. Y. 24 Haziran Seçimleri Sürecinde Siyasi Partilerin Seçim Beyannamelerinde Avrupa Birliği İle İlişkiler. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi2018. doi:10.26466/opus.449745
23.
ArklanÜTanacıF. Seçı̇m Kampanyalarına Beyannameler Bağlamında Bı̇r Bakış: 31 Mart 2019 Yerel Seçı̇mlerı̇ Örneğı̇nde Karşılaştırmalı Bı̇r İnceleme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi2020 Feb 28; 11: 1–29.
24.
AytaçSE. Policy priorities in the election manifestos of political parties in Turkey, 2002–2015. SİYASAL: J Polit Sci2017 Dec 20. doi:10.26650/siyasal.2017.26.2.0001
25.
ÇatıKCengizS. Politik Pazarlama Çerçevesinde Siyasi Partilerin Seçim Beyannamelerinin İncelenmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi2019 Oct 21: 1701–1712. doi:10.17755/esosder.542057
26.
ErtürkKÖŞeşenE. Bir Halkla İlişkiler Aracı Olarak Seçim Beyannameleri: 2000’li Yıllar Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi2017 Jan 30; 5: 60–80.
27.
EvrenMB. Türk Siyasi Parti Tüzük ve Programlarında Bütünleşik Afet Yönetimi Bilinci. Resilience2023 Dec 31; 7: 221–251.
28.
KanMEKanS. Siyasi Partilerin Seçim Beyannamelerinde Kadın İstihdamı: 24 Haziran 2018 Milletvekili Genel Seçimleri Örneği. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi2022 Jul 27; 5: 234–251.
29.
KanME. Siyasi Partilerin Seçim Beyannamelerinin Karşılaştırmalı Metin Analizi: 1 Kasım 2015 ve 24 Haziran 2018 Milletvekili Genel Seçimleri Örneği. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi2023 Jan 25; 6: 1–14.
30.
TerkanB. Siyasi Partilerin Kadına İlişkin Söylem ve Politikaları (AKP ve CHP Örneği). Selçuk İletişim2013; 6: 115–136.
31.
TutanMN. Afetlerin Siyasal Söylemi: türkiye’de İktidar ve Muhalefetin Karşılıklı Çerçeveleme ve Algılamaları, 1999-2023. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi2024 Dec 31; 46: 643–667.
32.
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Partiler, Seçimler ve Beyannameler (1923-1980). Kaynar MK, Kalkan N, editors. Ankara: TBMM, 2022.
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. 28. Dönem TBMM Albümü. Ankara: Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Başkanlığı Basın, Yayın ve Halkla İlişkiler Başkanlığı, 2023, 1–393 p.
