İsmail Hamdi Köseoğlu
Fatih University, [email protected]
Is a Two-Party System Possible in Turkey?
Abstract
Turkey experienced many different party systems since the single-party system was officially removed in 1946. While only three parties participated the elections in 1950 the amount of the parties was twenty in 1999 elections. Yet the political spectrum has been dominated by the same ideologies for a long time. The most dramatically change about the party numbers in Turkish poli-tics was happened in 2002. Only two parties were could pass the election threshold. A third party was added to them in the elections in 2007. Turkish parties, which used to be close to each other regarding the votes are now crystallizing as the elites and the rest. This article investigates the future of Turkish party-system by focusing on a currently popular discussion topic in Turkey. Is a two-party system possible in Turkey? Methodology of the article is to compare statistical informa-tion of elecinforma-tions and parties in Turkey with the major theories about party numbers and elecinforma-tion systems. In order to explain the parties better, the article mainly focuses on the ideological tradi-tions in Turkish politics.
Keywords
Introduction
Turkey once again discusses to change governmental system as well the consti-tution (Today’s Zaman 2011). After the single-party system had ceased in 1945, governmental system of Turkey have been, officially, always parliamentary. Current discussions include switching to the presi-dential system which will favor a two-party system rather than the long-time practicing multi-party system (Toker 2011). Discus-sions about the constitutional change also include one of the most controversial is-sues in the Turkish electoral system - %10 election threshold. This article investigates whether a two-party system possible in Tur-key in near future. First part of the article reviews the major theories about the party numbers. Second part analyzes the histori-cal background of politihistori-cal parties and their numbers in Turkey. And the last part inves-tigates the problem of two-party system in Turkey as what is most likely to happen in the near future.
Theoretical Framework
Number of the effective political par-ties is one of the most important topics in Political Science and Political Sociology lit-erature. Discussion about the party number mostly started after the French sociologist Mourice Duverger’s hypothesis, which later identified as Duverger’s Law, about electoral systems effect on numbers of the parties. Duverger (1970 [1951]) claims that an elec-tion system which produces a single-winner (plurality voting system) is more likely to generate a two-party system. On the other hand, proportional representation system tends to favor multi-party system. However it will not be accurate to simplify Duverger’s ideas to this mechanical concept. He also mentions the voters’ psychology and says people do not want to ‘waste’ their votes by
choosing a party with less chance to win. So, they prefer to vote the lesser of two evils. Duverger also claims that number of the political parties also depend on the conflict issues in the society such as right – left and conservative – secular conflicts. And multi-party system rises when these conflicts are less related to each other.
Duverger (1970 [1951]), while analyz-ing the multi-party system, also says that when a party splits one of the parts become more moderate and this fraction always take benefit of the separation. In proportional representation system fractions of the same ideology do not favor to unite because sepa-ration does not harm them too much. So this system reduces the tendency of trans-forming to a two-party system. However he also distinguishes the phenomena of estab-lishing of a new party (a new ideology) and separating from a party (same ideology) as the first one is more difficult.
Important amendments in Duwerger’s Law have been proposed continuously. Dou-gles W. Rae (1971 cited in Riker 1982), an American political scientist, suggest that Duwerger’s Law is not applicable where strong local minority parties available. Wil-liam H. Riker (1982), an American political scientist, proposed that if a part becomes the second best choice for most of the voters and gain votes in this way one-party domi-nation will be established and two-party sys-tem will not be applicable. Riker also men-tions that smaller parties have benefits in the proportional representation system as a small or new established party can have po-litical influence with fewer votes.
Rein Taagepera and Bernard Grofman (1985), both American political scientists, suggest a combination of electoral system and conflict issue approaches. According to their suggestion if there is only one conflict
issue in a society then a two-party system will occur from plurality voting system and two or three-party system will occur from proportional representation system. On the other hand, if the country has more than one conflict issues then two or three-party system will occur from the plurality voting system and proportional representation sys-tem favors even more parties.
William Roberts Clark and Matt Golder (2006), both American political scientists, also advocate the same idea. According to their analysis social conflicts can only en-hance the number of parties when the elec-toral system allows it.
The most important study on the conflict issues, perhaps, made by Seymour Martin Lipset, an American sociologist, and Stein Rokkan, a Norwegian sociologist, in their book Party Systems and Voter Allignments. Lipset and Rokkan ( suggest that number of the political parties in a society base on the number social cleavages in the society. Lipset and Rokkan also point out that not every cleavage turns into a political party. They identify four stages for a social con-flict issue to transform into a political party. Those are – (1) legitimation, (2) incorpora-tion, (3) representation and (4) majority power. Their main focuses in this process is merges, alliance and coalition among cleav-ages while transforming to a party.
History of Turkish Party System
Political Traditions in Turkey1
Turkey has four major traditions repre-sented as political parties. (1) Kemalist tra-dition that represented by Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP; Republican People’s Party)
which is the oldest political party in Turkey. (2) Nationalistic tradition is currently repre-sented by Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi – (MHP; Nationalist Movement Party). (3) Moder-ate right wing tradition which traditional representatives lost their power and mostly dominated by the ruling Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AK Parti; Justice and Development Party). (4) Islamist tradition that represent-ed mostly, by the Saadet Partisi (SP; Felicity Party) and also which the roots of AKP lies. Among them CHP claim itself as a moder-ate left – or in other words social democrat – and others describe themselves as right wing parties. A new tradition can be added to these four historical one. Kurdish politi-cal tradition separated from other traditions and became active in politics since early 1990’s. So far three parties which claimed to represent the Kurdish identity had been banned by the Turkish judiciary. An analy-sis of the Turkish politics without concern-ing the Kurdish political parties will not be valid.
CHP was founded in 1923 only twenty days before the Turkish Republic was of-ficially established. Since then it is one of the main parties in Turkish politics. First major challenges two CHP from same tradi-tion was Cumhuriyetçi Güven Partisi (CGP; Republican Trust Party). CGP was founded by a group of politicians who separated from the CHP. They menaged to receive %6,6 and %5,3 votes in 1969 and 1973 respectively. However their momentum stopped soon after and the party only could receive %1,9 votes in 1977 elections. Second major chal-lenge to CHP rose after the 1980 military coup. CHP was banned and only new estab-lished Halkçı Parti (HP; People’s Party) was allowed to join the elections by the junta
1 Data about the parties were collected from the website of Turkish Parliamant www.tbmm.gov.tr and the official
among Kemalist tradition. Second Ke-malist party of the era was founded right after the elections. Two parties merged in 1985 and changed the name to Sosyal De-mokrat Halkçı Parti (SHP; Social Democratic People’s Party). SHP also merged with re-es-tablished CHP in 1995. Another main figure of the Kemalist tradition was Demokratik Sol Parti (DSP; Democratic Leftist Party) which formed in 1985 and led by Bülent Ecevit, former president of the CHP. Although CHP faced with some challenges by new parties which mostly established by former CHP members, it remained as the central figure of Kemalist tradition. Latest party of the Kemalist tradition was established by for-mer DP members in 2002 under the name of Yeni Türkiye Partisi (YTP; New Turkey Party). The party was abolished itself only two years later2
Nationalistic and moderate right wing traditions are effective in the politics as soon as the single-party system was abolished. Demokrat Parti (DP; DemocratParty) which identified as the source of right wing politic in Turkey was found in 1946 and became government in 1950 for ten years. Although DP was challenged by Hürriyet Partisi (HÜR. PAR; Freedom Party) it kept its position as the central and most powerful party in the moderate right wing politics. After the mili-tary coup in 1960 two parties were estab-lished as successors. Adalet Partisi (AP; Jus-tice Party) became the most powerful one among them after the 1961 elections. Yeni Türkiye Partisi (YTP; New Turkey Party) lost its power over the time and ceased itself in 1973. However another new party called De-mokratik Parti (DEM.PAR; Democratic Par-ty) also claimed legacy in the moderate right tradition and hindered the AP to become the sole successor of the DP. Two parties were
established and were allowed to participate the elections after the 1980 coup. Milliyetçi Demokrasi Partisi (MDP; Nationalist Democ-racy Party) abolished itself in 1985. On the other hand Anavatan Partisi (ANAP; Moth-erland Party) gained the central position in the moderate right wing. Former leaders of the AP established their new party called as Doğru Yol Partisi (DYP; Right Path Party) in 1983. ANAP and DYP competed during the 1990’s. They also tried to merge under the name of DP in 2007 but failed. DYP changed its name to DP eventually. Today Turkey’s moderate right wing politics does not have a powerful party. Some political analysts be-lieve that the ruling AK Parti now dominates this tradition (Ete 2008).
Millet Partisi (MP; The Nation Party), first party which represent the nationalistic tradition was found in 1948 by separating from the DP. The party changed its name to Cumhuriyetçi Millet Partisi (CMP; Republi-can Nation Party) in 1954 and merged with the minor Çiftçi Partisi (ÇP; Peasants’ Party) in 1958 and named as Republican Peasant Nation Party. The party changed its name to MHP in 1969 as Alparslan Türkeş, a re-tired coronel, became the leader of the party. MHP was banned like the other parties after the 1980 coup. Nationalist tradition estab-lished their new part under the name of Mil-liyetçi Çalışma Partisi (MÇP; Nationalist Mis-sion Party). However MÇP changed its name to MHP once again in 1993. Second and smaller party of the nationalist camp was found in 1993 by a group of former MHP members. The party was named as Büyük Birlik Partisi (BBP; Great Union Party). An-other party which favors the nationalistic ideas was found in 2002 by media tycoon Cem Uzan. Uzan called his party as Genç Parti (GP; Youth Party). Although there is 2 Two parties with the name of Yeni Türkiye Partisi were established in Turkey. First on was a moderate right party
a controversy about how the GP should be classified I believe that Uzan’s discourse was closer to the nationalism more than any-thing else3.
The Islamist tradition, however, did not come into the political scene until 1970. National Order Party which established by Necmeddin Erbakan, was the first and main political party of this tradition. Party was banned only one year later however it changed its name to National Salvation Par-ty. Erbakan’s political and economic view’s, called as Milli Görüş (The National Vision) was state centered, therefore more close to the nationalistic tradition than the moder-ate right tradition. MSP, along with other political parties banned after the 1980 coup. Refah Partisi (RP; Welfare Party) was estab-lished to represent the tradition in 1983. However it was banned by the Turkish ju-diciary in 1998. Fazilet Partisi (FP; Virtue Party) was established in the same year and became a new representative of the Islamist tradition. However it was also banned in 2001. A major disintegration was occurred in the same year. Islamist tradition split in two parts. Followers of the Milli Görüş formed a new party calles Saadet Partisi (SP; Felicity Party) and another group who think Milli Görüş is not applicable any more
es-tablished the AK Parti. SP, however, divided again in 2010. Numan Kurtulmuş, former president of the SP, resigned from the party and established a new one which, named as Halkın Sesi Partisi (HAS Parti; Voice of the People Party) with his followers.
First effective party within Kurdish tra-dition in Turkey was established in 1990 by a group of politician who had been members of SHP. The new party called Halkın Emek Partisi (HEP; People’s Labor Party). All par-ties of Kurdish tradition were banned by the judiciary. In historical order those par-ties were Demokrasi Partisi (DEP; Democracy Party), Halkın Demokrasi Partisi (HADEP; People’s Democracy Party), Demokratik Halk Partisi (DEHAP; Democratic People’s Party) and Demokratik Toplum Partisi (DTP; Democratic Society Party). Today the tradi-tion was represented by Barış ve Demokrasi Partisi (BDP; Peace and Democracy Party).
Duverger in his book, which was writ-ten in 1951, Turkish system is also a two-party system based on the results of 1950 elections. Main parties were CHP and DP in his definition. However the system changed dramatically in Turkey over the decades. Af-ter the military coup in 1960 a new system was came into scene. While nationalist
TRADITION PARTIES
KEMALIST CHP CGP HP SHP DSP YTP
MOD. RIGHT DP AP YTP DEM.PAR HÜR. PAR ANAP MDP DYP
NATIONALIST MP CMP CKMP MHP MÇP BBP GP
ISLAMIST MNP MSP RP FP SP AK Parti HAS Parti
KURDISH HEP DEP HADEP DEHAP DTP BDP
TABLE 1: LIST OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONS
3Genç Parti as a very exceptional case in Turkish politics has no clear ideology. However Cem Uzan’s election
parties continue to struggle with the percentages between %3,4 and %8,5, except the 1961 elections, Kemalist and moderate right traditions were split. In addition, Is-lamist tradition became a new challenger to the right wings parties in general after the early 1970’s. 17 governments were founded between 1961 and 1980. Only four of them were majority single party governments. A new order in party systems was established after the 1980 military coup. One-party domination with 3 major parties continued until the 1991 elections which three par-ties succeeded to have more than %20 of the votes and two more received more than %10. Seven governments which established between 1991 and 2002 were collations and two governments which formed by a single party were minority governments. One-par-ty domination with three major parties was re-established in Turkey after 2002.
Election Systems in Turkey
Turkish election system for the parlia-ment is currently a party list proportional representation system with a %10 thresh-old and D’hondt method. Parties generate their candidate lists for each district. Votes are cast for the party and the list. Numbers of the candidates who win the elections are calculated with D’hondt system for each district. However, only the parties which received more than %10 of the nationwide votes are allowed to have seats in the par-liament. In general system favors the big parties over the small or more local parties. A list based plurality voting system was ap-plied between 1950 and 1957. Proportional representation system was adopted in 1960 with a district threshold. Same system was applied until 1980 without the threshold. However in 1965 votes of the parties in an electoral district which were not enough to gain seat in the parliament add to each other and calculated in a different method called national remainder system. This method
protects the minor parties more than the proportional representation system. Pro-portional representations system was used after the 1980. However until 1995 two thresholds, %10 nationwide and electoral district was added to the system. Current election system was adopted before the 1995 elections (TÜİK 2008).
It appears that %10 percent threshold, which is the highest in Europe forces the voters to chose a fraction within the same ideology as well as to chose a party from an-other tradition if the his/her favorite party seems not to able to pass the threshold. In this regards the threshold operates like a second-round election.
ELECTIONS 1950 1954 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 TRADITIONS PARTIES % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs KEMALIST CHP 39,6 69 35,1 31 41,4 178 36,7 173 28,7 134 27,4 143 33,3 185 CGP 6,6 15 5,3 13 HP SHP DSP YTP TOTAL 39,6 69 35,1 31 41,4 178 36,7 173 28,7 134 34 158 38,6 198 MODERATE RIGHT DP 55,2 416 58,4 503 48,6 424 AP 34,8 158 52,9 240 46,6 256 29,8 149 YTP 13,7 65 3,7 19 2,2 6 DEM.PAR 11,9 45 HÜR.PAR 3,5 4 MDP ANAP DYP TOTAL 55,2 416 58,4 503 52,1 428 48,5 223 56,6 259 48,8 262 41,7 194 NATIONALIST MP 4,6 1 6,3 31 3,2 6 CMP 5,3 5 6,5 4 CKMP 14 54 2,2 11 MHP 3 1 3,4 3 MÇP BBP GP TOTAL 4,6 1 5,3 5 6,5 4 14 54 8,5 42 6,2 7 3,4 3 ISLAMIST MSP 11,8 48 RP FP SP AKP TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,8 48 KURDISH HEP HADEP DEHAP DTP BTP TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TABLE 2: ELECTIONS RESULTS IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BY PARTIES AND THE POLITICAL TRADITIONS*
ELECTIONS 1977 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2002 2007 2011 TRADITIONS % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs % MPs KEMALIST 41,4 213 10,7 49 8,7 19,4 178 20,9 99 25,9 135 1,9 3 30,5 117 24,8 99 20,8 88 8,5 10,8 7 14,6 76 22,2 136 1,2 13 1,1 43,3 216 30,5 117 33,3 99 31,6 95 25,3 125 30,9 136 21,7 178 20,9 112 25,9 135 MODERATE RIGHT 5,4 0,65 36,9 189 1,8 1 23,3 71 45,1 211 36,3 292 24 115 19,6 132 13,2 86 5,1 19,1 59 27 178 19,2 135 12 85 9,5 38,7 190 68,4 282 55,4 351 51 293 38,8 267 25,2 171 14,6 0 5,4 0 0,65 0 NATIONALIST 6,4 16 8,2 18 129 8,4 14,3 71 13 53 2,9 19 7 1,5 7,2 3 0,7 6,4 16 0 0 2,9 0 0 19 8,2 7 19,5 129 16,6 0 17,3 72 13,7 53 ISLAMIST 8,6 24 7,2 16,9 62 21,8 158 15,4 111 2,5 2,3 1,26 34,3 363 46,6 341 49,8 327 8,6 24 0 0 7,2 0 16,9 62 21,8 158 15,4 111 36,8 363 48,9 341 51,1 327 KURDISH 18 4,2 4,7 6,2 22 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 4,2 0 4,7 0 6,2 0 0 22 0 35
TABLE 2: ELECTIONS RESULTS IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BY PARTIES AND THE POLITICAL TRADITIONS*
* DEP allied with SHP and MÇP allied with RP in 1991 elections. BBP allied with ANAP in 1995 elections. DSP allied with CHP and 2007. Members of the DTP and members of the BTP joined the elections as independent candidates in 2007 and 2011 respectively
TABLE 3: PARTIES AND TRADITIONS IN THE PARLIAMENT** ELECTIONS NUMBER OF THE PARTIES PARTIES IN PARLIAMENT TRADITIONS IN PARLIAMENT 1950 3 3 3 1954 5 3 3 1957 5 4 3 1961 4 4 3 1965 6 6 3 1969 8 8 3 1973 8 7 4 1977 8 6 4 1983 3 3 2 1987 7 3 2 1991 6 5 3 1995 12 5 3 1999 20 5 4 2002 18 2 2 2007 14 3 3 2011 16 3 3
** Alliances and independent candidates did not included
TABLE 4: ELECTION RESULTS BY THE POLITICAL TRADITIONS***
ELECTIONS KEMALIST MOD. RIGHT NATIONALIST ISLAMIST KURDISH TOTAL
1950 39,6 55,2 4,6 0 0 99,4 1954 35,1 58,4 5,3 0 0 98,8 1957 41,4 52,1 6,5 0 0 100 1961 36,7 48,5 14 0 0 99,2 1965 28,7 56,6 8,5 0 0 93,8 1969 34 48,8 6,2 0 0 89 1973 38,6 41,7 3,4 11,8 0 95,5 1977 43,3 38,7 6,4 8,6 0 97 1983 30,5 68,4 0 0 0 98,9 1987 33,3 55,4 2,9 7,2 0 98,8 1991 31,6 51 0 16,9 0 99,5 1995 25,3 38,8 8,2 21,8 4,2 98,3 1999 30,9 25,2 19,5 15,4 4,7 95,7 2002 21,7 14,6 16,6 36,8 6,2 95,9 2007 20,9 5,4 17,3 48,9 4,8 97,3 2011 25,9 0,65 13,7 51,1 6,5 97,9
Conflict Issues in Turkey
Since the number of the conflict issues in a society plays a central role to determine the number of the parties, current cleavages should be studied to understand the party system.
There are three major political cleavages in Turkey. The oldest one among them is the center – periphery relations. Kemalist tra-dition represents the center and the other traditions represent the periphery in this conflict (Mardin 1973). Second major cleav-age is religion – secularism conflict. Kurdish tradition is still not very involved with this issue however, in my opinion, current rep-resentatives of this tradition is more close to the secular camp along with Kemalist tradition. Moderate right, nationalist and Islamist traditions are generally in favor of more religious ideas (Küçükömer 1969
[2009]). The most currently visible cleavage among others is the Kurdish – Turkish con-flict (Güvenç and Kirmanoğlu 2009). Main polarization in this conflict is between na-tionalist and Kurdish traditions while others swung from one side to another a few times over the years. During 2000’s Kemalist tra-dition was more close the nationalistic ideas than the Islamist tradition.
So Kemalist tradition is alone with the center-favored ideas however close to the nationalist tradition with pro-Turkish iden-tity policy. Kurdish tradition is alone with the pro-Kurdish identity politics although being a representative of the periphery. Is-lamist tradition is allied with the moderate right and nationalist traditions with the pro-religion politics. Since the Kurdish tra-dition does not have a clear position in this conflict Kemalist tradition is again isolated. TABLE 5: GRAPHIC OF THE ELECTION RESULTS BY TO THE POLITICAL TRADI-TIONS
According to Table 3 even the par-liament has more parties they are just the fractions of the same ideology rather than representing different ideas. According to the Table 2 only one of the parties within the same tradition survives over the years. If two parties compete with close percentages, like ANAP and DYP in 1990’s, most possible both of them will lose their powers. Graphic in the table 5 shows that Islamist tradition started to dominate the moderate right voters after the 1980’s. And by the Kurdish political movement be-came visible in the early 1990’s Turk-ish nationalism also started to rise (TÜİK 208; Resmi Gazete 2011).
Conclusion
As explained above Turkey has five major traditions in politics. However the moderate right tradition, which used to be the strong-est one, seems to be disappeared. Since 2002 political analysts and sociologists discuss how Ak Parti became the representative of both Islamist and moderate right traditions. Beside the transform of Turkish society over the years, my theory to AK Parti’s success is not different than Riker’s theory for the Congress in India. Ak Parti is the second best choice for the moderate rights voters as well as the Kurdish people with a more moder-ate acceptable approach than Kemalist and nationalist traditions. While the moderate right tradition descend since the 1983 elec-tions voters canalized to a tradition which is more close to them as Duverger (1970 [1951]) suggested. Ak Parti succeeded to combine Islamist tradition with the moder-ate right approach especially in economy. As Duverger (1970 [1951]) said, more moder-ate fraction took benefit of the separation. Therefore it can be said that Turkey now has four political traditions with three major political cleavages. To adopt a two-party sys-tem in Turkey number of the traditions as well as the powerful parties in each tradition should be reduced to two.
Kurdish tradition in Turkish politics was represented by local parties. Since the tra-dition only emerged after 1990’s and gain more power and attention year by year it will not disappear like the moderate right in near future. For that reason the future of the Kemalist and nationalist traditions will play the key role for the future of Turkish party system. It is possible that one of these tradi-tions lose its effectiveness in the politics ei-ther by mechanical reasons such as plurality voting system or sociological reasons such as major changes in the conflict issues or social transformation. Since Kemalist tradition
has no common points with Islamist tradi-tion. However nationalist ideology shares the periphery and religion approaches with the Islamist one and nationalism with the Kemalist tradition. Therefore, I believe that if one more tradition will lose power it will be the nationalist tradition.
There are possible scenarios if nationalist approach loses its power. (1) Supporters can shift to the Islamist – moderate right tradi-tion as they have more common points. (2) As a reaction to the Ak Parti’s pro European Union politics and growing Kurdish move-ment they may merge with the Kemalist tradition. In the first scenario Turkey might face with one-party domination for a very long period as the Liberal Democrat Party of Japan dominated the politics for more than 50 years (BBC 2009). As it can be seen from the Table 4 total votes of the moderate right, Islamist and nationalist parties were between %55 and %71,6 over the years with a mean of %63,7. In the second scenario the proposed two-party system will probably have a better functioning as both traditions and main representative parties of those traditions will have close percentages of the votes. Of course it is possible that Kemal-ist ideology can disappear because of social transformation, however, I think; such a big change will not be happen in near future.
As Rea suggested if a country has strong local minority parties even two-party system is not applicable. Thus even Turkey will try to adopt the two-party system by mechani-cal ways or one of the traditions will merge within the other there are two options: One-party domination and two-and-half-One-party- two-and-half-party-system. A True two-party system, such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan men-tioned, is not possible in the near future for Turkey.
References
BBC. 2009. “Japan victor hails ‘revolution.” BBC. Retrieved on April 04, 2011. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/asia-pacific/8229744.stm).
Duverger, Mourice. 1970 [1951]. Siyasi Partiler. Translated by Ergun Özbudun.
Clark, William Roberts and Matt Goder. 2006. “Re-habilitating Duwerger’s Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Systems.” Comparative Political Studies Volume 39 Number 6. Retrieved on May 01, 2011. (http://homepages.nyu. edu/~mrg217/cps_duverger.pdf).
Ete, Hatem. 2008. “Merkez-Sağ Siyasetiniflası ve AKP” SETA. Retrieved on 01May, 2011. (http://www.setav.org/public/HaberDetay.
aspx?Dil=tr&hid=6565&q=merkez-sag-siyasetin-iflasi-ve-ak-parti).
Güvenç, Murat and Hasan Kirmanoğlu. 2009. Türkiye Seçim Atlası 1950-2009.Istanbul. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Küçükömer, İdris. 1969 [2009]. Batılılaşma ve Düzenin Yabancılaşması. Istanbul .Profil Yayıncılık.
Lipset, M. Seymour and Stein Rokkan. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York. The Free Press. Mardin, Şerif. 1973. “Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics” Daedalus Vol. 102 No. 1.
Rae, Dougles W. 1971. The Political Consequences of the Electoral Laws, rev. ed. New Haven, Conn. Yale University Press.
Resmi Gazete. 2011. “Yüksek seçim kurulu kararı 1070” Retrieved on July 05 2011. http://www.res-migazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2011/06/20110623-4.pdf
Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-Party system and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” The American Political Science Review Vol. 76, No. 4. Retrieved May 01, 2011. (http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1962968).
Taagepera, Rein and Bernards Grofman. 1985. “Rethinking Duverger’s Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR Systems – Parties Minus Issues Equals One.” European Journal of Political Research 13. Retrieved on May 01, 2011. (http://www. socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/42%20Grofman.%20Re-thinking%20Duverger%27s%20Law..pdf).
TBMM. 2011. “Siyasi Partiler” Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. Retrieved on April 30, 2011. (http://www. tbmm.gov.tr/kutuphane/siyasi_partiler.html).
Today’s Zaman. 2011. “Erdoğan signals referendum on presidential system after polls.” Today’s Zaman. Retrieved on April 29, 2011. (http://www.todayszaman. com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&new sId=239805&link=239805).
Toker, Çiğdem. 2011. “Erdoğan: Evet iki partili system istiyorum.” Akşam. Retrieved April 29, 2011. (http://www.aksam.com.tr/erdogan-evet-iki-partili-sistemi-istiyorum-886y.html).
TÜİK. 2008. Milletvekili Genel Seçimleri: 1923-2007. Retrieved on April 30, 2011. (https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ IcerikGetir.do?istab_id=152).
