Abstract
AbstractThis paper re-evaluates the party system change in Turkey based on Sartori’s framework. It also explores the role of opposition parties in this. The paper suggests that, while a fragmented opposition may lead to the emergence of a one-party government and/or military intervention because of the high levels of polarization it induces, bilateral opposition prolongs one-party governments. The paper relies on an analysis of party programs and public opinion surveys in order to position the parties in terms of spatial distance and to understand the level of polarization.
Highlights
Turkey has had a long experience with parliamentary democracy, the trajectory of the Turkish party system reveal that it has an inchoate,1 open,2 or unstructured party system,3 which is reflected in high levels of fragmentation, volatility, and polarization
Against this background, using Sartori’s typology, we examine the change in the Turkish party system based on two criteria: (a) the number of relevant parties and (b) the spatial distance between the parties
In the case of the AKP, we rely mainly on public opinion surveys because they exist in abundance. In this light, based on Sartori’s framework, we call the period from 1923 to 1950 “one-party authoritarianism”; the period from 1950 to 1960 a “predominant party system with a leaning towards a hegemonic party system”; the period from 1961 to 1980 “polarized pluralism driven by a left–right divide”; and the period from 1983 to 2002 “polarized pluralism driven by ethnic and religious cleavages.”
Summary
Challenge to developing a consistent framework that would aid in thoroughly analyzing changes in the Turkish party system. By consistently adopting Sartori’s party system typology throughout the text, this paper goes beyond taxonomies that do not provide meaningful insights within the context of party system theory.7 Against this background, using Sartori’s typology, we examine the change in the Turkish party system based on two criteria: (a) the number of relevant parties and (b) the spatial distance between the parties (the level of polarization). In the case of the AKP, we rely mainly on public opinion surveys because they exist in abundance In this light, based on Sartori’s framework, we call the period from 1923 to 1950 “one-party authoritarianism”; the period from 1950 to 1960 a “predominant party system with a leaning towards a hegemonic party system”; the period from 1961 to 1980 “polarized pluralism driven by a left–right divide”; and the period from 1983 to 2002 “polarized pluralism driven by ethnic and religious cleavages.”. We justify why a certain period belongs to a certain party system type and discuss the causal argument, namely, the role of the opposition in the party system change
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
