Interdisciplinary Approaches to Political Clientelism and Patronage in Turkey

Abstract

The growth of interdisciplinary work in Turkish Studies has increased the likelihood that the findings will reach an audience in the academic world beyond those specializing in Turkey's history, politics, and society. Clientelism and patronage represent genuinely interdisciplinary concepts and they have been used widely in the social sciences and humanities. The main purpose of this paper is to assess the contribution of clientelism and patronage to the interdisciplinary approaches in Turkish Studies, with special emphasis on the origins and growth of party politics in Turkey. Since the mid-1970s, there have been two major research waves on political clientelism in Turkey. While the main focus of the early studies was on traditional patron–client relations in the provincial small-towns and villages, recent research has been primarily concerned with clientelistic networks and patronage distribution among the urban poor in the low-income districts of the major cities, especially Istanbul. Programmatic appeals, popularity of the leaders, and the management of the economy are important in shaping the preferences of the voters in Turkey. But an equally important factor is the distribution of goods and services in exchange for votes through political clientelism and patronage.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Sabri Sayarı is Professor of Political Science at Bahçeşehir University. Previously, he taught at Sabancı University where he became an Emeritus Professor of Political Science in 2011. From 1994 to 2005 he served as the Director of the Institute of Turkish Studies at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service. He has published extensively on Turkey's domestic politics and foreign policy. His most recent publications include The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey (2012) co-edited with Metin Heper, “Party System and Democratic Consolidation in Turkey: Problems and Prospects,” in Turkey's Democratization Process (2014) edited by Carmen Rodriguez, Antonio Avalos, Hakan Yılmaz, and Ana I. Planet, and “New Directions in Turkey–USA Relations” in the Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies (2013).

Notes

1. On the benefits and advantages of interdisciplinary studies, see Nissani, “Three Cheers for Interdisciplinarity,” 201–216.

2. Roniger, “Political Clientelism, Democracy, and Market Economy,” 354.

3. Stokes et al., Brokers, Voters, and Clientelim, 21.

4. Sayarı, “Clientelism and Patronage in Turkish Politics,” 81–94.

5. See, for example, Wolf, “Kinship, Friendship, and Patron–Client Relationships,” 1–22, Scott, “Patron–Client Relations and Political Change,” 1142–1158, Graziano, “Conceptual Framework for the Study,” 149–174.

6. See Powell, “Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics,” 147–160.

7. Kitschelt and Wilkinson, “Citizen–Politician Linkages,” 6. For a useful review of the literature where the concepts of the first and second waves of research are introduced, see Roniger, “Political Clientelism, Democracy, and Market Economy.” For collections of studies on clientelism and patronage during the first wave of research, see Gellner and Waterbury, Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, Schmidt et al., Friends, Followers, and Factions, and Eisenstadt and Lemarchand, Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development. On the second wave of research, see Kitschelt and Wikinson (eds), Patrons, Clients, and Policies, Auyero, Poor People's Politics, Stokes, “Political Clientelism,” 604–627, and Piattoni, Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation.

8. Stokes, “Vote Buying in Latin America,” 66.

9. Hopkin, “Clientelism and Party Politics,” 407.

10. For a critical perspective on the definitions of clientelism, see Hilgers, “Clientelism and Conceptual Stretching,” 567–588.

11. Stokes, “Political Clientelism,” 605.

12. Hopkin, “Clientelism and Party Politics,” 406.

13. Mainwaring, Rethinking Party Systems, 179.

14. Ibid, 177.

15. Fredman, Patronage: An American Tradition, 1994.

16. Kudat, “Patron–Client Relations,” 61–87, Sayarı, “Political Patronage in Turkey,” 103–113, Sayarı, “Some Notes on the Beginnings,” 121–122, Güneş-Ayata, Participation and Organization in Local Politics, and Özbudun, “Turkey: The Politics of Political Clientelism,” 249–268.

17. Scott, “Patron–Client Relations and Political Change,” Lemerchand, “Political Clientelism and Ethnicity,” 68–90, Lande, “Networks and Groups in Southeast Asia,” 103–127, Weingrod, “Patrons, Patronage, and Political Parties,” 376–400, and Powell, “Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics.”

18. Sayarı, “Political Patronage in Turkey” and Güneş-Ayata, “Roots and Trends of Clientelism.”

19. See, for example, İnalcık, “The Nature of Traditional Society,” 42–63, Hourani, “Ottoman Reform and Politics,” 41–68, and Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats, 91–97. For a comparative analysis that includes the Ottoman case, see Kettering, “The Historical Development of Political Clientelism,” 419–447.

20. Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, 17.

21. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 441–444.

22. Unbehaun, Türkiye Kırsalında Klientalizm and Güneş-Ayata, CHP: Örgüt ve İdeoloji.

23. Sayarı, “Clientelism and Patronage in Turkish Politics.”

24. Sayarı, “Some Notes on the Beginnings.”

25. For example, an anthropological study of a Black Sea district noted that following the beginning of multi-party politics “cleavages between groups became apparent because they could be openly expressed in political competition. Only one aspect of the excitement of those days was the tendency for the Karahasanoghlu and the Hadjimehmetoghlu, who had previously headed the two “parties” of the nineteenth century, to align themselves with opposing national political parties.” Meeker, “The Great Family Aghas,” 243. See also Tachau, “Turkish Provincial Party Politics,” 283–314.

26. Güneş-Ayata, CHP: Örgüt ve İdeoloji.

27. Sayarı, “Some Notes on the Beginnings.”

28. Kudat, “Patron–Client Relations.”

29. Unbehaun, Türkiye Kırsalında Klientalizm ve Siyasal Katılım.

30. Sayarı, “Political Patronage in Turkey.”

31. Ibid., 108–109. See also Özbudun, “Turkey: The Politics of Political Clientelism,” and Güneş-Ayata, “Roots and Trends of Clientelism.”

32. Sunar, “Populism and Patronage,” 745–757.

33. Sayarı, “Some Notes on the Beginnings.”

34. See Güneş-Ayata, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi.

35. See, for example, Güneş-Ayata “Roots and Trends of Clientelism,” 49–63, Schüler, Türkiye'de Sosyal Demokrasi, and Alexander, Personal States.

36. Özler, “Politics of the Gecekondu in Turkey,” 39–58.

37. Sherwood, “The Rise of the Justice Party in Turkey,” 57.

38. White, Islamist Mobilization in Turkey, 73.

39. See Gümüşçü , Gürleyen, and Aytaç, “Clientelism in Contemporary Turkish Politics,” Kemahlıoğlu and Bayer, “Intergovernmental Partisan Ties,” Aytaç and Çarkoğlu, “Who Gets Targeted for Vote Buying?” Ark, “From Metropolitan Projects to Local Politics,” Akdağ, “Ethnicity and Clientelistic Mobilization,” and Tafolar, “Social Goods Provisioning,” all presented at the Conference on “Local Elections and Clientelism in Turkey.”

40. Gümüşçü, Gürleyen, and Aykaç, “Clientelism in Contemporary Turkish Politics.”

41. Ark, “The Old Politics in Support of the New.”

42. Gümüşçü, Gürleyen, and Aykaç, “Clientelism in Contemporary Turkish Politics.”

43. Ark,“The Old Politics in Support of the New,” 9.

44. Bayraktar and Altan, “Explaining Turkish Party Centralism,” 17–36.

45. Akdağ, Ethnicity and Elections in Turkey.

46. Aytaç, “Distributive Politics in a Multiparty System,” 1–27.

47. Kemahlıoğlu, Agents or Bosses? 2012.

48. Massicard and Watts, “Introduction: Reconsidering Parties, Power,” 6.

49. Kalaycıoğlu, “Turkish Democracy: Patronage versus Governance,” 62.

50. Heper and Keyman, “Double-Faced State,” 162. For a critical perspective, see also Komşuoğlu, “Birimiz Hepimiz, Hepimiz Birimiz İçin mi?” 21–54.

51. See, Metin, “Sosyal Politika Açısından AKP Dönemi,” 179–200.

52. See, “Istanbul's Income is Earned,” and Sancar, “Bir Siyasal Model Olarak,” 20–22.

53. See, for example, Sayarı, “Political Patronage in Turkey,” Özbudun, “Turkey: The Politics of Political Clientelism,” Güneş-Ayata, “Roots and Trends of Clientelism.”