1. bookVolume 18 (2022): Edizione 2 (June 2022)
Dettagli della rivista
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno
access type Accesso libero

Patterns of the Parliamentary Debates: How Deliberative are Turkish Democratic Opening Debates?

Pubblicato online: 12 Jul 2022
Volume & Edizione: Volume 18 (2022) - Edizione 2 (June 2022)
Pagine: 175 - 199
Dettagli della rivista
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
2 volte all'anno

This study attempts to measure the deliberation quality of the Democratic Opening Debates in the Turkish Parliament through the Discourse Quality Index (DQI). The majority of studies have been conducted on the deliberation quality of relatively homogenised and developed Western societies and on less conflictual or contentious topics. In these countries, democratic culture has been institutionalised. On the contrary, Turkey is a developing country and has been going through an ethnic conflict involving violence for many decades. Thus, this case study aims to make an original contribution to empirical deliberation studies. Researchers have examined the 88-page stenographic records of the Democratic Opening Debates and put forward a DQI score. According to the findings, the controversial debates fulfill only 40% of high-level deliberative discourse ethics. This result demonstrates that the ideal deliberation process does not exist in Turkey even though a convenient atmosphere is created for deliberations by means of official procedures. Ethnic division in the society has a profoundly negative impact on the quality of deliberations.


Azmanova, A. (2011): Against the politics of fear: On deliberation, inclusion and the political economy of trust. Philosophy & Social Criticism 37(4): 401–412.10.1177/0191453710396808Search in Google Scholar

Bächtiger, A. (2014): Debate and deliberation in parliament. In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies: 145–66.Search in Google Scholar

Bachtiger, A. – Steenbergen, M. R. (2004): The real world of deliberation. A comparative study of its favorable conditions in legislatures. EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2004/17.Search in Google Scholar

Bächtiger, A. – Hangartner, D. – Hess, P. – Fraefel, C. (2008): Patterns of parliamentary discourse: How ‘Deliberative’ are German legislative debates?. German Politics 17(3): 270–292.10.1080/09644000802300486Search in Google Scholar

Bachtiger, A. – Niemeyer, S. – Neblo, M. – Steenbergen, M. – Steiner, J. (2010): Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 32–63.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.xSearch in Google Scholar

Bacik, G. (2011): The Nationalist Action Party in the 2011 elections: The limits of oscillating between state and society. Insight Turkey, 13(4), 171.Search in Google Scholar

Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (2021): Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctv1nxcvsvSearch in Google Scholar

Bohman, J. F. (1990): Communication, ideology, and democratic theory. American Political Science Review 84(1): 93–109.10.2307/1963631Search in Google Scholar

Bohman, J. – Rehg, W. (Eds.). (1997): Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT press.10.7551/mitpress/2324.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Condit, C. M. (1993): The critic as empath: Moving away from totalizing theory. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports) 57(2): 178–190.10.1080/10570319309374441Search in Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S. (1990): Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139173810Search in Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S. (2002): Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press on Demand.10.1093/019925043X.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Felicetti, A. – Niemeyer, S. – Curato, N. (2016): Improving deliberative participation: connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review 8(3): 427–448.10.1017/S1755773915000119Search in Google Scholar

Fishkin, J. S. (1997): The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. Yale university press.Search in Google Scholar

Fishkin, J. S. – Luskin, R. C. (2005): Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta politica 40(3): 284–298.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1980): The history of sexuality: interview. Oxford Literary Review, 4(2), 3–14.10.3366/olr.1980.002Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1972): The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, N. (1989): Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. U of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gerhards, J. (1997): Diskursive versus liberale Öffentlichkeit: Eine empirische Auseinandersetzung mit Jürgen Habermas. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49(1): 1–34.Search in Google Scholar

Gutmann, A. – Thompson, D. F. (1998): Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1981): Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Theory of communicative action]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1991): The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (2005): Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta politica 40(3): 384–392.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500119Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (2015): Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

Himmelroos, S. (2020): Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums – a comparison of four deliberativemini-publics.Journal of Deliberative Democracy 13(1).10.16997/jdd.269Search in Google Scholar

Holzinger, K. (2004): Bargaining through arguing: an empirical analysis based on speech act theory. Political Communication 21(2): 195–222.10.1080/10584600490443886Search in Google Scholar

Hürriyet. (2009): Baykal’dan Kürt Açılımı Açıklaması. 24 August 2009.Search in Google Scholar

Laclau, E. – Mouffe, C. (2014): Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (Vol. 8). Verso Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lord, C. – Tamvaki, D. (2013): The politics of justification? Applying the ‘Discourse Quality Index’ to the study of the European Parliament. European Political Science Review 5(1): 27–54.10.1017/S1755773911000300Search in Google Scholar

Mansbridge, J. (1999): Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Milliyet. (2009): Bahçeli: İhanet Projelerine Katkıda Bulunmamızı Beklemek Akıl Tutulması. 29 September.Search in Google Scholar

O’Flynn, I. A. N. (2007): Divided societies and deliberative democracy. British Journal of Political Science 37(4): 731–751.10.1017/S0007123407000397Search in Google Scholar

Ok, E. (2011): Are we becoming more distant?Exploring the nature of social polarization along ethnic lines in the city of Izmir. Unpublished MA Thesis, Istanbul, Sabaci University.Search in Google Scholar

Parlak, İ. – Öztürk, A. (2009): 2009–2015 Araliğinda Açilim Süreçlerine Yönelik Siyasi Parti Söylemleri Üzerine Karşilaştirmali Bir Analiz. LAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 87–114.Search in Google Scholar

Pedrini, S. (2014): Deliberative capacity in the political and civic sphere. Swiss Political Science Review 20(2): 263–286.10.1111/spsr.12074Search in Google Scholar

Rasch, B. E. (2011): Legislative debates and democratic deliberation in parliamentary systems. In Oslo-Yale International Workshop on Epistemic Democracy in Practice. Yale University, New Haven: 20–22.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. (2020): A theory of justice. Harvard university press.Search in Google Scholar

Sarigil, Z., & Fazlioglu, O. (2013): Religion and ethno-nationalism: Turkey’s Kurdish issue. Nations and Nationalism, 19(3), 551–571.10.1111/nana.12011Search in Google Scholar

Şentürk, B. (2012): Bazılarının yası daha az tutulur: şiddet ve Kürt sorunu. Praksis, 28, 1–15.Search in Google Scholar

Setälä, M. (2014): Deliberative minipublics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. ECPR press.Search in Google Scholar

Stahl, B. C. (2004): Whose discourse? A comparison of the Foucauldian and Habermasian concepts of discourse in critical IS research. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, 538.Search in Google Scholar

Steenbergen, M. R. – Bächtiger, A. – Spörndli, M. – Steiner, J. (2003): Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics 1(1): 21–48.10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002Search in Google Scholar

Steiner, J. (2012): The foundations of deliberative democracy: Empirical research and normative implications. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139057486Search in Google Scholar

Steiner, J. – Bächtiger, A. – Spörndli, M. – Steenbergen, M. R. (2005): Deliberative politics in action. Analysing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511491153Search in Google Scholar

TBMM Tutanak Dergisi (Grand National Assembly of Turkey Minutes), 13 November 2009.Search in Google Scholar

TBMM Tutanak Dergisi (Grand National Assembly of Turkey Minutes), 3 November 2009.Search in Google Scholar

Ugarriza, E. – Caluwaerts, D. (Eds.). (2014): Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies: From Conflict to Common Ground. Springer.10.1057/9781137357816Search in Google Scholar

Ünal, M. C. (2016): Is it ripe yet? Resolving Turkey’s 30 years of conflict with the PKK. Turkish Studies, 17(1), 91–125.10.1080/14683849.2015.1124020Search in Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. (2007): Institutionalizing deliberative democracy. In Deliberation, participation and democracy, pp. 272–288. Palgrave Macmillan, London.10.1057/9780230591080_13Search in Google Scholar

Young, I. M. (2001): Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political theory 29(5): 670–690.10.1177/0090591701029005004Search in Google Scholar

Articoli consigliati da Trend MD

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo