Rising Majoritarianism as Challenge For Democratic Governance - Turkey in Comparative Perspective

Introduction. In many countries, including EU members and their close neighbours, we can observe the so called democratic backsliding in the current decade. Political scientists have been discussing intensively the reasons behind this process. The proposed paper focuses on the rising phenomenon of majoritarianism which seems to contribute to the problems of democratic governance - particularly in the polarised and diverse societies in terms of the world outlook, beliefs and political sympathies -because of the dominance of a particular political and social group or groups in a political system. The aim of the article is to analyse different paths of development of majoritarianism in the 1990s and the 2000s and its impact on the political regime in the current decade. The case of Turkey as one of the “hardest" cases to indicate the phenomenon is compared to some selected states from Central Europe to verify the main hypothesis that the structural factors emerging within the historical process are behind the development of majoritarianism, which has been even strengthened in the current decade, including the pandemic period in 2020.

Methods and materials. The author takes the qualitative approach. He uses the process-tracing method to investigate the development of majoritarianism in selected states and conducts the comparative analysis to identify the similarities and differences between Turkey and two Central European states - Hungary and Poland with reference to the analysed phenomenon.

Results. At the turn of the 1990s and the 2000s a concentration of the party system, producing a decrease in the number of parties in the parliament and a rising party system polarization that strengthened the two largest parties and developed two ideological blocks resulted in the development of majoritarianism in the 2000s - mainly in Turkey and Hungary. It did not lead to the democracy decline at this time. In the second decade of the 21st century single-party governments (or coalition governments with one dominating party) sharing the majoritarian understanding of democracy have consolidated their power at the cost of the weakening of the opposition as well as have strengthened the executive - in relation to the legislature and judiciary. These processes have led to limitations in working of checks and balances system but also political and social pluralism due to increasing dominance of incumbents in political and social life of analyzed countries, particularly during the pandemic period.

Discussion and conclusions. In Hungary and Poland the phenomenon of ma-joritarianism contributes so far to lowering the quality of democracy - in comparison with the Turkish situation reflecting rather the gradual change of the political regime to less democratic (i.e. a new type of authoritarianism).

1. Adamski, M., 2019. Kolejne pienigdze dla uczelni ojca Rydzyka z Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwosci [Next money for the Father Rydzyk's University from the Justice Ministry]. Rzeczpospolita. 12 February. URL: https://www.rp.pl/Sedziowie-i-sady/302139968-Kolejne-pieniadze-dla-uczelni-ojca-Rydzyka-z-Ministerstwa-Sprawiedliwosd.html.

2. Aslan-Akman, C., 2011. The 2011 Parliamentary Elections in Turkey and Challenges Ahead for Democratic Reform Under a Dominant Party System. Mediterranean Politics. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 77-95.

3. Aytag, S.E., Elgi, E., 2019. Populism in Turkey. In: Populism Around the World. A Comparative Perspective. Edited by Daniel Stockemer. Cham: Springer. P. 89-108.

4. Bankciti, M., Halmai, G., Scheppele, K.L., 2012. From Separation of Powers to a Government without Checks: Hungary's Old and New Constitutions. In: Constitution for a Disunited Nation: On Hungary's 2011 Fundamental Law. Edited by Gabor Atilla Toth. Budapest, New York: CEU Press. P. 237-268.

5. Ba§bakan Erdogan: Biz birkag gapulcunun yaptiklarini yapmayiz [Prime Minister Erdogan: We don't do what a few marauders do]. Radikal. 9 June 2013.

6. Bermeo, N., 2016. On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy. Volume 27. No. 1. P. 5-19.

7. Capaldi, N., 2019. Majoritarianism. In: EncyclopediaBritannica. URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/majoritarianism

8. Dahl, R., 2000. On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

9. Esen, B., GQmQ§gQ, S., 2017. A Small Yes for Presidentialism: The Turkish Constitutional Referendum of April 2017. South European Society and Politics. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 303-326.

10. Furtak, F.T., 2017. Democracy Under Pressure: The Case of Poland, Hungary and Turkey. Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 1-2.

11. Goksel, D.N., 2013. Gay Rights: Where is Turkey Heading? GMFAnalysis. March 2013. URL: www.gmfus.org.

12. Grigoriadis, I.N., 2018. Democratic Transition and the Rise of Populist Majoritarianism. Constitutional Reform in Greece and Turkey. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

13. Guptan, D., 2007. Citizens versus People: The Politics of Majoritarianism and Marginalization in Democratic India. Sociology of Religion. Vol. 68. No. 1. P. 27-44.

14. Hale, W., Ozbudun, E., 2010. Islamism, Democracy and Liberalism in Turkey. The case of the AKP. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

15. Havlik, V., 2016. Populism as a threat to liberal democracy in East Central Europe. In: Challenges to Democracies in East Central Europe. Edited by Jan Holzer and Miroslav Mares. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. P. 36-55.

16. Heper, M., 2013. Islam, Conservatism and Democracy in Turkey: Comparing Turgut Ozal and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Insight Turkey. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 141-156.

17. Hungarian Government (2011). The Fundamental Law of Hungary. 25 April 2011. URL: www.kormany.hu.

18. Ilonszki, G., 2007. From Minimal to Subordinate: A Final Verdict? The Hungarian Parliament, 1990-2002. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 38-58.

19. Magyar, Balint, 2018. Wggry. Anatomia panstwa mafijnego. Czy taka przysztosc czeka Polskg? [Hungary. Anatomy of the mafia state. Is this future waiting for Poland?]. Warszawa: Magam.

20. Mansfeldova, Z., 2011. Central European Parliaments over Two Decades - Diminishing Stability? Parliaments in Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 128-146.

21. McLean, I., McMillan, A., 2009. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press.

22. Morlino, L., 2011. Changes for Democracy. Actors, Structures, Processes. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

23. Nalewajko, E., Wesotowski W., 2007. Five Terms of the Polish Parliament, 1989-2005. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 59-82.

24. Olson, D. M., Ilonszki, G., 2011. Two Decades of Divergent Post-Communist Parliamentary Development. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 234-255.

25. Olson, D.M., Norton. P., 2007. Post-Communist and Post-Soviet Parliaments: Divergent Paths from Transition. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 164-196.

26. Pozsar-Szentmiklosy, Z., 2017. Supermajority in Parliamentary Systems - A Concept of Substantive Legislative Supermajority: Lessons from Hungary. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 58. No. 3. P. 281-290.

27. Reynolds, A., 1999. Electoral Systems and Democratization in Southern Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28. Sartori, G., 1987. The theory of democracy revisited. New York: Columbia University Press.

29. Szymanski, A., 2019. De-Democratization: The Case of Hungary in Comparative Perspective. PS: Political Science and Politics. Vol. 52. No. 2. P. 272-273.

30. Szymanski, A., 2017. De-Europeanization and De-Democratization in the EU and its Neighborhood. Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 187-211.

31. Szymanski, A., 2008. Migdzy islamem a kemalizmem. Problem demokracji w Turcji [Between Islam and Kemalism. Problem of Democracy in Turkey]. Warsaw: Polish Institute of International Affairs.

32. Szymanski, A., 2015. Religion Oriented Conservative Parties and Democracy: The Case of the Turkish Justice and Development Party and Polish Law and Justice Party. Hemispheres. Studies on Cultures and Societies. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 55-70.

33. Szymanski, A. Ufel, W., 2018. Beyond Vote Rigging: Common Patterns in Electoral Malpractices in De-Democratizing Regimes. Polish Political Science Yearbook. Vol. 47. No. 4. P. 593-617.

34. Szymczyk, M., 2019. Polska wsrod homofobicznych liderow UE. 'PiS rzgdzi tak, by osoby LGBT nie miaty w Polsce zadnych praw' [Poland among homophobic leaders of the EU. 'PiS rules in such a way that LGBT persons have no rights in Poland"]. Newsweek Polska of 14 May 2019. URL: https://www.newsweek.pl.

35. Tait, R., 2017. Hungary's prime minister welcomes US 'anti-LGBT hate group'. The Guardian. 26 May. URL: https://www.theguardian.com.

36. Trocsanyi: 'There are different interpretations of democracy'. (2015). Euractive. 17 April 2015. URL: www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/trocsanyi-there-are-different-interpretations-democracy-313413.

37. Vass, A., 2019. Only a Joke? Fidesz MP Threatens to Burn Roma Man. Hungary Today. 28 March. URL: https://hungarytoday.hu/only-a-joke-fidesz-mp-threatens-to-burn-roma-man/.

38. Walker, S., 2020. Hungarian government to end Orban's rule-by-decree legislation. The Guardian. 26 May 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/hungarian-government-to-end-orbans-rule-by-decree-legislation-emergency-coronavirus.

39. White, J., 2013. Muslim Nationalism and the New Turks. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

40. Zubek, R., 2011. Negative Agenda Control and Executive-Legislative Relations in East Central Europe, 1997-2008. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 172-192.