No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
AMERİKAN HEGEMONYASI SAVUNUSU DOĞRULTUSUNDA SAMUEL HUNTİNGTON’DA SİYASAL DÜZEN TEORİSİ
Abstract
Dünyada bir düzen vardır. Dünya düzeni siyasal düzenin bir parçasıdır. Siyaset biliminde düzene ilişkin teorilerin çatı kavramı olan siyasal düzen teorisi, dünya düzeninin ardındaki temel teoridir. Aynı zamanda siyasal düzen teorisi dünya siyasetinin bütüncül bir şekilde anlaşılması için önemli bakış açısı sunar. Siyasal düzen teorisinin bu kadar önemli olmasının nedeni, siyasal yapıların hâkim bir anlayış doğrultusunda gelişen bir siyasal düzen içerisinde var olduğu gerçeğidir. Siyasal düzen teorisi konusunda en kapsamlı bilimsel açıklamaları Samuel P. Huntington yapmıştır. Samuel Huntington 20. yüzyılın en önemli siyasal düşünürleri ve siyaset bilimcileri arasındadır. Siyasal düzen teorisinin ve Huntington’un bu önemine karşın, Huntington’da siyasal düzen teorisi literatürde yeterince açıklanmamıştır. Bu makalenin amacı, Samuel Huntington’un siyasal teorilerinin ve özellikle de siyasal düzen teorisinin bütüncül ve bilimsel bir şekilde açıklanmasına katkı sunmaktır. Bu doğrultuda yapılacak bir inceleme siyasal düzen olgusu ile teorisi arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymayı da hedeflemektedir. Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi Amerikan hegemonyası savunusunun bir parçasıdır. Huntington yeni dünya düzeni döneminin teorisyenleri arasında yer alır. Bu doğrultuda, bu makale Amerikan hegemonyası savunucularının önemli tezlerini de açıklamaktadır. Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi dört başlıkta ele alınabilir: kurumsallaşma, ulusal siyasal düzenin unsurları, değişim karşısında siyasal düzen ve yeni dünya düzeni teorisi. Siyasal partiler, siyasal katılma ve siyasal kültür Huntington’a göre, ulusal siyasal düzenin temel unsurlarıdır. Sonuçta, Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi, dünyada devam eden siyasal düzen olgusunun ardında önemli bir teorik zemin olarak durmaktadır.
Siyasal katılma, toplumsal kaynak ve değerler dağıtımında karar alma mekanizmalarını etkileme ve görev alma yolu olarak tanımlanabilir. Siyasal katılım, modernleşme mekanizmalarının kurumsallaşmasının göstergesidir ve merkezileşme süreçleri ile paralel gelişir. Toplum, siyasal katılım aracılığıyla merkezi siyaset mekanizmasını yönlendirir ve devamlılığını sağlar. Geleneksel ve modern toplum arasındaki farkın katılımın alanı ve yoğunluğu olduğu genel kabul görmüştür. Katılım alanı ve yoğunluğunun genişlemesi, siyasalın demokratikleşmesini ve modernleşmenin geleceğe taşınmasını sağlar. Modernleşmenin düzeyi, siyasal kurumsallaşmanın yerelde etkileri ile bu değişim/dönüşümün merkezileşme yönünde gelişimi ile açıklanabilir. Bu araştırma, Anadolu taşrasında bir büyükşehir olan Malatya’da modernleşme sürecini, siyasal katılma davranışında yaşanan değişim ve dönüşümler üzerinden analiz etme gayretleri ile başlamıştır. Araştırma, Hüdayi Sayın’ın 1995 yılında İnönü Üniversitesi’nde yürüttüğü yüksek lisans çalışmasının güncellenerek, güncellenmiş aynı örneklem grubuna uygulanması ve dönüşüm ve gelişimlerin tartışılması ile yerel modernleşme seviyesinin tespitini amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma kendisini, TBMM’de var olan siyasal partilerin yerel yöneticileri ile sınırlamıştır. Bu yöneticilere güncellenen anket uygulanmış, elde edilen bulgular, Sayın tezi ve İl’de katılma temalı diğer tezler ile karşılaştırılarak tartışılmıştır. Bu çerçevede yerel katılma davranışına dair literatürde var olan diğer çalışmalardan da yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma örneklemini oluşturan TBMM’de var olan partilerin Malatya merkez ilçe yönetici sayısı 153’tür. Bu örneklemin % 59’una (90 kişi) erişilmiştir. Anket uygulaması esnasında yöneticilerle mülakatlar yapılmış, bulguların analizinde bu mülakatlardan yararlanılmıştır.
The study of intelligence is often inward-looking. Scholars focus upon the means of gathering, evaluating, and distributing information with subsequent evaluation of its impact on decision making. Institution-based analysis ignores the role that the intelligence craft plays in the broader social and political context. This is apparent in the case of intelligence failures which reach beyond government to influence public opinion and ultimately the ability of authorities to mobilise support and govern. In the wake of failure, competing elites contest for power with conspiratorial interpretations of events that provide psychological comfort by offering explanations for events, targeting culprits, and fixing blame. This essay considers the intelligence failure of September 11, 2001, and outlines the conspiracy theories of left and right raised in its wake. Among those charged were the usual suspects - Zionists, the anti-Christ, advocates of a New World Order, and members of the military-industrial complex. In response, American government authorities validated their opponents' plot-making by defending themselves with their own cries of conspiracy. Heightened government secrecy, efforts to intensify surveillance, and the rhetoric of fear deepened the intrigue. In such a culture of conspiracy, charges of subversion bring only short-run gain. Public faith in institutions is eroded and paranoia becomes the conventional wisdom.
Social mobilization is a name given to an overall process of change, which happens to substantial parts of the population in countries which are moving from traditional to modern ways of life. It denotes a concept which brackets together a number of more specific processes of change, such as changes of residence, of occupation, of social setting, of face-to-face associates, of institutions, roles, and ways of acting, of experiences and expectations, and finally of personal memories, habits and needs, including the need for new patterns of group affiliation and new images of personal identity. Singly, and even more in their cumulative impact, these changes tend to influence and sometimes to transform political behavior.
The concept of social mobilization is not merely a short way of referring to the collection of changes just listed, including any extensions of this list. It implies that these processes tend to go together in certain historical situations and stages of economic development; that these situations are identifiable and recurrent, in their essentials, from one country to another; and that they are relevant for politics. Each of these points will be taken up in the course of this paper.
Social mobilization, let us repeat, is something that happens to large numbers of people in areas which undergo modernization, i.e. , where advanced, non-traditional practices in culture, technology and economic life are introduced and accepted on a considerable scale. It is not identical, therefore, with this process of modernization as a whole, but it deals with one of its major aspects, or better, with a recurrent cluster among its consequences.
This now-classic examination of the development of viable political institutions in emerging nations is a major and enduring contribution to modern political analysis. In a new Foreword, Francis Fukuyama assesses Huntington's achievement, examining the context of the book's original publication as well as its lasting importance. "This pioneering volume, examining as it does the relation between development and stability, is an interesting and exciting addition to the literature."-American Political Science Review. "'Must' reading for all those interested in comparative politics or in the study of development."-Dankwart A. Rustow, Journal of International Affairs.
America has reached a tepid consensus that accepts a decline of U.S. power in the world as inevitable. Other nations, better judges of power, treat the United States as a hegemon. America should pursue a vision of benevolent hegemony as bold as Reagan's in the 1970s and wield its authority unabashedly. The defense budget should be increased dramatically, citizens should be educated to appreciate the military's vital work abroad, and moral clarity should direct a foreign policy that puts the heat on dictators and authoritarian regimes. Republicans are best fitted to carry out this foreign policy of national honor and elevated patriotism.
It's all very well to point to scattered events that the "civilizations" paradigm does not explain. But there is still no better framework with which to understand the post-Cold War world.
The assertion that systematic sociological analysis cannot explain specific occurrences and directions of change is critically examined. On the basis of analysis of the social and political structure of traditional centralized Empires and of the development of religions within them, it is argued that the institutionalization of any social system creates possibilities for specific and defined types of change, which develop not randomly but in specific directions to a large extent set by the very process of institutionalization.
The unipolar moment has passed. Even old allies stubbornly resist American demands, while many other nations view U.S. policy and ideals as openly hostile to their own. Washington is blind to the fact that it no longer enjoys the dominance it had at the end of the Cold War. It must relearn the game of international politics as a major power, not a superpower, and make compromises. U.S. policymaking should reflect rational calculations of power rather than a wish list of arrogant, unilateralist demands.
A group of specialists trace the origins and development of political parties, explore their impact on the system in which they exist, and raise new questions about the potential role of parties.
Among the laws that rule human societies,” de Tocqueville said, “there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased.” ¹ In much of the world today, equality of political participation is growing much more rapidly than is the “art of associating together.” The rates of mobilization and participation are high; the rates of organization and institutionalization are low. De Tocqueville's precondition for civilized society is in danger, if it is not already undermined. In these societies, the conflict between mobilization and institutionalization is the crux of politics. Yet in the fast-growing literature on the politics of the developing areas, political institutionalization usually receives scant treatment. Writers on political development emphasize the processes of modernization and the closely related phenomena of social mobilization and increasing political participation. A balanced view of the politics of contemporary Asia, Africa, and Latin America requires more attention to the “art of associating together” and the growth of political institutions. For this purpose, it is useful to distinguish political development from modernization and to identify political development with the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. Rapid increases in mobilization and participation, the principal political aspects of modernization, undermine political institutions. Rapid modernization, in brief, produces not political development, but political decay.
Social mobilization is a name given to an overall process of change, which happens to substantial parts of the population in countries which are moving from traditional to modern ways of life. It denotes a concept which brackets together a number of more specific processes of change, such as changes of residence, of occupation, of social setting, of face-to-face associates, of institutions, roles, and ways of acting, of experiences and expectations, and finally of personal memories, habits and needs, including the need for new patterns of group affiliation and new images of personal identity. Singly, and even more in their cumulative impact, these changes tend to influence and sometimes to transform political behavior.
The concept of social mobilization is not merely a short way of referring to the collection of changes just listed, including any extensions of this list. It implies that these processes tend to go together in certain historical situations and stages of economic development; that these situations are identifiable and recurrent, in their essentials, from one country to another; and that they are relevant for politics. Each of these points will be taken up in the course of this paper.
Social mobilization, let us repeat, is something that happens to large numbers of people in areas which undergo modernization, i.e. , where advanced, non-traditional practices in culture, technology and economic life are introduced and accepted on a considerable scale. It is not identical, therefore, with this process of modernization as a whole, but it deals with one of its major aspects, or better, with a recurrent cluster among its consequences.
World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations - the highest cultural groupings of people - are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other.
Copyright © 2006-2010 ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Samuel P. Huntington describes the diverse political processes through which thirty-five countries moved from authoritarianism toward democracy and derives guidelines from these experiences for future “democratizers.”
There are very few states today which do not aspire to modernity. The day of rulers who were indifferent to the archaism of the society which they governed has almost disappeared. The leaders of nearly every state—both the old established states as well as the new states of Asia and Africa—feel a pressing necessity of espousing policies which will bring them well within the circle of modernity. Much of the opposition which they encounter among their politically interested countrymen contends that they are not modern enough. Many traditionalists are constrained to assert that only by cleaving to the essence of older traditions can a genuine and stable modernity be attained.
Modern states must be “dynamic”, above all else. To be modern, an elite, as the elites of the new states see it, must not fear change; on the contrary, it umst strive to bring it about. It does not wish to remain as it is. It is against the ancien regime ; even where it affirms the past of the country, it stresses its adaptability to the needs of the pressent. “Dynamic” is one of the favorite adjectives of the elites of the new states. The elites pride themselves on their dynamism and they claim that the mass of the population demands it of them. Almost everything else which they esteem presupposes this praise of change.
Participation in America represents the largest study ever conducted of the ways in which citizens participate in American political life. Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie addresses the question of who participates in the American democratic process, how, and with what effects. They distinguish four kinds of political participation: voting, campaigning, communal activity, and interaction with a public official to achieve a personal goal. Using a national sample survey and interviews with leaders in 64 communities, the authors investigate the correlation between socioeconomic status and political participation. Recipient of the Kammerer Award (1972), Participation in America provides fundamental information about the nature of American democracy.
Successful development policy entails an understanding of the dynamics of economic change if the policies pursued are to have the desired consequences. And a dynamic model of economic change entails as an integral part of that model analysis of the polity since it is the polity that specifies and enforces the formal rules. While we are still some distance from having such a model the structure that is evolving in the new institutional economics, even though incomplete, suggests radically different development policies than those of either traditional development economists or orthodox neo- classical economists. Development economists have typically treated the state as either exogenous or as a benign actor in the development process. Neo-classical economists have implicitly assumed that institutions (economic as well as political) don't matter and that the static analysis embodied in allocative-efficiency models should be the guide to policy; that is "getting the prices right" by eliminating exchange and price controls. In fact the state can never be treated as an exogenous actor in development policy and getting the prices right only has the desired consequences when you already have in place a set of property rights and enforcement that will then produce the competitive conditions that will result in efficient markets.
Political order and political decay
- F Fukuyama
Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political order and political decay. London: Profile
Books.
Siyasal gelişme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Siyasal İlimler Derneği Yayımları
- S Huntington
- J I Dominguez
Huntington, S. P ve Dominguez, J. I. (1975). Siyasal gelişme (Çev. E. Özbudun).
Ankara: Siyasal İlimler Derneği Yayımları.
A World of Nations. Washington: The Brooking Institution
- D A Rustow
Rustow, D. A. (1967). A World of Nations. Washington: The Brooking
Institution.
- T Skocpol
Skocpol, T. (2004). Devletler ve toplumsal devrimler (Çev. S. E. Türközü).
Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.