Date

2022-9

Author

Baran, Servan

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

329
views

288
downloads

Cite This

In liberal democracies, which can be defined as a particular form of representation regime, the fact that political parties as legitimate channels of this representation can be dissolved creates a fundamental contradiction. The defense mechanisms developed by liberal democracies to address this contradiction are discussed under the title of different models of democratic self-defense. In this study, we intend to present an intra-critical examination of these three models of democratic self-defense, identified in the literature as militant democratic self-defense, procedural democratic self-defense, and social democratic self-defense. With this exposition, we will try to show that the dominant position of militant democracy, which appears as the fundamental legitimizing mindset in the dissolution of political parties, is obviously open to criticism. In other words, we will try to show that militant democracy which tends to discuss the closure of political parties on a purely constitutional level and reinforces official rationality, is not the only stance that can be taken regarding the practice of dissolution of political parties. We hope that presenting the promises of alternative mentalities that tend to approach the practice of party-banning from a political and sociological perspective will contribute to the enrichment of the debates on the related issue, especially in a country like Turkey, which has a high tendency to regard the closure of political parties from a purely militant perspective.

Subject Keywords

Dissolution of political parties, Democratic self-defence, Militant democracy, Procedural democracy, Social democratic self-defence

URI

https://hdl.handle.net/11511/99557

Collections

Graduate School of Social Sciences, Thesis