Youth Political Participation in South-eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey
Caner ÖZDEMİR
Social Policy Program, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
The youth in the South Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey does not and cannot
participate in politics. There are various reasons which make the issue of political
participation of the youth a significant concern for the social policy makers. First of all,
political participation is a basic human right. Next, it is a social right and an important
dimension of being a citizen. Furthermore, the issue of youth participation has gained
importance in recent years especially through the interest shown by the international policy
agents. Finally, despite that much importance shown, youth political participation is very
low in Turkey and specifically in South-eastern Anatolia due to some regional conditions.
The quantitative survey conducted with 946 young people between the ages of 1524 who live in the South-eastern Anatolia region, fourteen focus group interviews and
twenty nine in-depth interviews indicate several reasons for the low youth political
participation in the region. Initially, the youth in the region cannot participate in social life.
The participation in educational services is also low. The school enrolment rates are low
and drop-outs are high. Moreover, the youth cannot participate in the labour market due to
the limited job opportunities in the region and their low skills and low educational level.
Furthermore, a great majority of the youth lives in their closed communities and has
limited contact with the society. Apart from these socio-economic conditions, the concrete
negative examples of the people who participate in politics and who have been repressed
are also discouraging the youth from entering into political mechanisms.
Keywords: Youth Political Participation, South Eastern Turkey, Citizenship
1. Introduction:
There are various reasons which make the issue of youth political participation
significant. First of all, political participation is a basic human right. Furthermore, political
participation is a social right and an important dimension of being a citizen. Besides, the issue has
gained importance in recent years especially through the interest shown by the international
policy agents. Finally, despite that much importance, youth political participation is very low in
Turkey and specifically in South-eastern Anatolia due to some regional conditions.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the right to vote and
participate in politics is a human right (United Nations 1948). Since that day, political
participation has become an important aspect of the human rights.
1
Furthermore, political participation is a basic citizenship right in the welfare state context.
T. H. Marshall (1963) proposed a concept of citizenship as consisting of three dimensions: civil,
political and social. He further claimed that the fully operation of citizenship has been altering the
pattern of social inequalities. Thus, political participation that is directly related to the first two
dimensions of citizenship is very crucial for social equality. In addition to this, policy
implementations that increase the democratic participation of the youth can make a major shift in
young individuals’ citizenship status (Bessant 2003).
During recent years, political participation of the youth has become a crucial policy area
for various organizations such as United Nations (UN) and World Bank (WB). ‘Action for Youth
to the Year 2000 and Beyond’ affirmed “participation” as one of its ten priority areas of action
and Article 12 of the ‘UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)’ makes it clear that
“participation” is a substantive right of all children and young people (United Nations 2003).
Both UN and WB are pursuing campaigns and publishing reports on youth political participation.
Since social policy agendas in individual countries are mostly determined by the agendas of these
organizations the issue becomes one of the major concerns for social policy.
Notwithstanding the importance and popularity it has gained through recent decades,
youth political participation is still very low in Turkey. According to the recent “State of Youth
Survey” conducted for the preparation of “United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
National Human Development Report for Turkey 2008” on youth, the percentage of the youth
who is active in a political party is 4.7 and the percentage of the youth who is a member of a nongovernmental organization is only 4 in Turkey (UNDP 2008).
Although there is a common perception that political atmosphere is much denser in Southeastern Turkey, the numbers show that the youth political participation rates in the region are not
different than the rest of the country. According to the “GAP Youth Survey” conducted by TNS
Piar, the rates of political party membership and NGO membership are both 3 % among the youth
in South-eastern Turkey. The qualitative data from focus group and in-depth interviews also
show that young people do not trust political mechanisms and are kept away from politics by
their families. Furthermore, the concrete negative examples are discouraging the youth in Southeastern Anatolia from political participation.
2
Besides, both quantitative and qualitative data indicate that young people cannot
participate in various dimensions of the society. Initially, the youth in the region cannot
participate in social life. A great majority of the youth lives in their closed communities and has
limited contact with the society. The participation in educational services is also low. The school
enrolment rates are low and drop-outs are high. Moreover, the youth cannot participate in the
labour market due to the limited job opportunities in the region and their low skills and
educational level. Non-participation in social, educational and economic life is a threat for the
social well-being and citizenship statuses of these young people and makes the issue of political
participation harder for them.
In this paper, I try to explain the level of youth political participation in the South-eastern
Anatolia Region of Turkey. After giving brief information about the methodology of this study, I
describe the level of youth participation in social life, education and labour market in the third
part. In the fourth part, the political participation data for the region and the country is analyzed
in order to see the level of youth political participation in South-eastern Anatolia. Finally, I
discuss the obstacles in front of the youth political participation.
2. Methodology and Data:
The study is mainly based on the research conducted for the project named “Construct a
future map with youth: The youth in South-eastern Anatolia”. Field research had started with a
quantitative survey conducted by TNS-Piar during May-June 2009 using face-to face interview
method with 946 young people in eight cities in the South-eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey.
After the quantitative survey fourteen focus-group interviews were conducted on August 2009
and twenty nine in-depth interviews were conducted on October 2009 with the youth in the
region.
In both the qualitative and quantitative research studies the youth is defined as the people
between the ages of 15 and 24 according to the standard definition of the UN.
In addition to the quantitative data collected in the project (GAP Youth Survey), for this
paper, in order to make a comparison with the nation-wide indicators, I use the national data
collected by YADA Foundation in ‘State of Youth Survey’ for the 2008 Turkey National Human
3
Development Report of UNDP titled ‘Youth in Turkey’ and the national data collected for the 4th
stage of European Social Survey.
3. Participation in social life, education and labour market:
As mentioned, youth political participation is very low in South-eastern Anatolia region
and this is problematic for the citizenship statuses of these young people. However, it will be
incomplete without looking at the participation of the young people in the other dimensions of the
society. Qualitative and quantitative data show that young people do not and cannot participate in
many aspects of the society.
Firstly, young people can not participate in social life. They do not go out for
entertainment; they have only contact with their parents, relatives or a few people in the
neighbourhood. Young people in the region do not use the public sphere sufficiently.
Moreover, they cannot involve in educational institutions. Although, the elementary
education of eight years is compulsory for everyone, many children cannot even complete this
compulsory education. And the drop-outs after the elementary education are also very high due to
several reasons.
Partly as a result of their low level of education, young people cannot involve in the
labour-market. In addition to their low skills, there are very scarce job opportunities for the young
people in South-eastern Anatolia.
As a consequence of not being involved in most aspects of the society, it is possible that
political participation remains as a subsidiary issue for the young people in the region.
3.1 Participation in social life:
The United Nations (2003) defined the concept of participation as being consisted of
social, cultural, economic and political dimensions. Thus, it is important to understand social,
cultural and economic dimensions of participation in order to grasp the structure of the political
participation. Young people’s participation in their communities can guide us to comprehend the
social aspect of their patterns of participation.
When we look at the qualitative data, we see that the youth in the South-eastern Anatolia
have serious problems with social participation. Most of the young people in South-eastern
4
Anatolia livee in their closed communities, interacting only with their family or relatives and a
limited number of friends. They do not go out much. They do not use the information
i
media
frequently.. The only used media is TV. Therefore, it is proper to say that in the South
South-eastern
Anatolia the young people’s social life which is restricted to the private sphere is mostly centred
on television. Nevertheless,
evertheless, it would be misleading that this situation of the social life is the
choice of these young people. There are too limited opportunities for them.
When our sample of young people were asked what they do in a regular day, ab
about 40 %
said that they help their family in works and similarly another frequent answer
answe is doing house
work (20 %). About 40 % of the youth said that they roam with their friends. Watching TV and
listening to music are other frequent answers (See Figure 1).
What do you do in a regular day?
39,5%
I help my family in family works
38,6%
Roaming with friends
34,9%
Watching TV
26,7%
Listening to music
20,6%
Doing house work
15,1%
Studying
11,9%
Reading books
ivities in a regular day
Figure 1: Activities
“Roaming with friends” is the only socializing activity among the frequent answers to the
question of what young peopl
people do in a regular day. Taken into consideration together with the
answers to the question “Where do you go out for entertainment?”, this answer becomes
somewhat meaningful. About half of the young people in the region said that they do not go out
for entertainment. And, the ones who say that they are going out are going to open spaces like
5
parks and gardens. This shows
hows why young people say that they are roaming with their friends
instead “going to the cinema with friends” or “going to cafés with friends” (See Figure 2).
Where do you go out for entertainment?
48,7%
I do not go out for entertainment
32,8%
Open spaces like parks and gardens
15,3%
Cafés
11,7%
Shopping malls
Tea gardens
5,9%
Figure 2: Entertainment spaces
It is necessary to underline here that in addition to social pressures trapping young people,
especially the women, in a small area; inadequate options in social life is also something that
young people are complaining about:
“…they call here as the Paris of the East but it is a region that the youth are not active, it
is an asocial city.” (24 year old male, Gaziantep)
“It
It is important in a city to have social activities for the young people. In Mardin and in
the South-east
east there is almost nothing as a social
so
activity.” (21 year old male, Mardin)
“I think that the girls here are not lucky. It’s not even in Mardin only. It’s the same in
other places. Girls cannot go out. For example, I have a neighbour. She cannot go out
without her mother or her father.” (19 year old female, Mardin)
The set of questions about the usage of information media shows that only between 20 %
and 30 % of the young people read books, newspapers or use
se internet regularly (See Figure 3).
6
Information Channels
Yes
78,5%
No
72,2%
71,0%
29,0%
21,5%
Do you read
newspapers regularly?
27,8%
Do you read books
regularly?
Do you use internet
regularly?
Figure 3: Information Channels
Contrary to above mentioned media,
media television is used much wider. 90 % of the youth
watch TV more than an hour a day (See Figure 4).
How many hours on average do you watch TV?
33,5%
22,9%
14,7%
6,9%
7,8%
4,7%
5,7%
3,8%
I NEVER
watch
Less than one 1-2
2 hours
our
2.1 - 3 hours 3.1 - 4 hours 4.1 - 5 hours 5.1 - 6 hours More than 6
hours
Figure 4: Average time spent in front of TV in a day
Nevertheless, when they were asked what they watch on TV, the youth mentioned
entertainment programs most frequently. TV is an entertainment media instead of information
media for the young people (See Figure 5).
7
Which programs do you watch on TV?
69,3%
Turkish TV series
35,5%
Turkish movies
32,7%
Music videos
30,8%
Music shows
Comedy shows
27,0%
Figure 5: Favourite programs on TV
3.2 Educational enrolment:
Education is also very crucia
crucial for the citizenship status of the young people. School is one
of the first places that the
he children encounter the state and its social services. Turkey’s schooling
rates have been increasing rapidly in recent years1. The overall literacy rate for Turkey is 87.31 %
by 2009. Since the schooling rates increase,
increase the literacy rate is higher for the youth (92.60 % for
the 15-24
24 ages). However, the youth in South
South-eastern
ern Anatolia has lower rates than their
counterparts in the whole county. The literacy rate for the young people between
bet
the ages of 15
and 24 in South-eastern
eastern Anatolia is 87.51 % and 36 % of the illiterate young people in Turkey is
from the region.
relative lower enrolment rates, drop-outs from school are also high in
In addition to the relatively
the region. Statistical evidence shows that more than a quarter of the young people cannot even
complete the eight years of compulsory education and one fifth leave the school after compulsory
education (See Figure 6).
1
Source: TURKSTAT, Education Statistics. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?tb_id=14&ust_id=5,
http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?tb_id=14&ust_id=5 accessed on
13.04.2010
8
Educational Status
29,1%
21,0%
20,2%
15,3%
6,7%
5,8%
1,9%
Illiterate
Less than Elementary High School High School University
elementary
School
Student
Graduate
Student
school
Graduate
University
Graduate
Figure 6: Educational Status
Interestingly, the most frequent reason for not continuing education is that the schools do
not attract these young people. Drop
Drop-outs due to the pressure from families
fam
and economic
problems are the next frequent reasons (See Figure 7).
The reasons for drop-outs
drop
I didn't want to continue, It didn't attract me
23,3%
My family didn't want me to study
23,2%
21,0%
We couldn't afford the expenses
8,8%
I had to work
7,7%
I got married/I had children
2,7%
I couldn't pass the university exam
Figure 7: The reasons for drop-outs
drop
Besides the quantitative indicators, qualitative evidence also shows that there are
problems about the quality of the education. In various interviews,
interviews respondents complained about
the lower skills of the teachers and scarcer
scarce resources with regard
rd to the western parts of Turkey:
9
“The biggest problem is education. One cannot tell what he is thinking, cannot take the
education he wanted. I cannot have the education that I could in Ankara.” (19 year old
male, Şanlıurfa)
3.3 Labour market participation:
As seen in the education part, many young people leave school early. Only 35 % of the
youth in South-eastern Anatolia are students. However, all the rest do not work. The rate of the
young people that have a job is 15 % (See Figure 8).
The second biggest group after the students is ‘house women’ in South-eastern Anatolia.
They are the women who left or had never gone to school. Some of them are married, some of
them are not. They do not or cannot work due to various reasons. Some unmarried ones left
school or cannot start working since their families do not let them or some of the married ones
have to take care of their children. Women labour force participation level is very low in Turkey
(26.0 % by 2009). Nevertheless, this level is much lower for the women in South-eastern
Anatolia Region (9.7 %)2. Thus, the women who stay at their homes constitute a major group
among the youth in South-eastern Anatolia.
The percentage of the young people who are unemployed and actively seeking jobs is 15
in the region. As employment is a crucial element of transition into adulthood (Fend 1994), youth
unemployment have serious consequences and some of these are about the citizenship statuses of
these young men and women. In her paper which analyzes the consequences of the youth
unemployment in Şanlıurfa and Ankara, Çelik (2008) states that in a country like Turkey where
job opportunities are limited and of low quality and welfare state is weak, young people depend
more on their families and “they learn to be a member of their family, instead of learning to be a
citizen or a member of society”.
Other than the unemployed young people who seek jobs actively, there are little groups
that do not look for jobs due to various reasons. One of these groups do not seek jobs because
they have lost their belief about finding a job (whom we call ‘the passive unemployed’) and the
2
TURKSTAT, Labour Force Statistics; http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?tb_id=25&ust_id=8, accessed on
13.04.2010.
10
other group does not look for a job since they do not need any job or money (whom we call ‘idle’
ones).
Socio-economic Condition
Preparing for
University
Idle
6%
5% Working
13%
House
Woman
20%
Student
35%
Passive
Unemployed Unemployed
15%
6%
Figure 8: Socio-economic Condition
There is another little group specific for Turkey: the ones who ‘prepare for university’. In
Turkey, university entrance is determined by a competitive exam to which about 1.5 million
people apply every year and only one third of them are placed into formal education institutions.
Hence, some of the high school graduates prepare for the university exam for several years after
their graduation.
As mentioned above, although only about one third of the young people continue their
education, the number of the ones that work is low. Moreover, the quality of the jobs that young
people find is quite mediocre. Three quarters of these employed youth are workers and more than
half of them are working as non-qualified workers (See Figure 9).
11
Job
Other
2%
Non-qualified
qualified
worker
45%
Civil servant/
Officer
8%
Trademan/
Craftsman
15%
Qualified
worker
30%
Figure 9: Occupational status
This is due to both scarce job opportunities in the region and the low skills of these young
people that quit their education earlier
earlier. More thann half of the working young men and women say
that they started working before the age of 15 (See Figure 10). Moreover, qualified job
opportunities are also low in the region.
When did you start working?
Age started working
50,3
14,1
Before
15
years
old
15
7,4
7,4
5,5
4,3
4,9
1,8
3,7
0,6
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Figure 10: Initial working age
12
In addition to scarce and low quality job opportunities, the formal mechanisms of
employing people in available jobs are seemingly not working well. Quantitative evidence shows
show
that only one fifth of the employed youth said that they got their jobs through formal ways.
Getting the job by the help of other people or working as family labour is more frequent (See
Figure 11). These informal hiring mechanisms also make people feel an injustice and unfair
treatment:
“Feudal structure is dominant here. There is tribalism. Everyone takes the people
from their own tribes (to
( jobs). For example, let’s say I am a tribe leader and I will open a
new place. Without looking whether they have knowledge or not I will fill the place with
wit
the people from my own tribe.
tribe.” (21 year old male, Şanlıurfa)
How did you get your current job?
39,9%
With the help of a friend or acquaintance
30,1%
I am working in family work
20,3%
After a job interview/exam
6,7%
I established my own business
Other
3,0%
Figure 11: Employment mechanisms
4. Political Participation:
In this section, I try to explain the level of political participation of the young people in
South-eastern
eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey and its relation to their citizenship statuses.
status
After
giving short theoretical information about social citizenship and the importance of youth political
participation, I describe the quantitative and qualitative evidence about the political participation
patterns of the youth in the region.
13
4.1. Citizenship and Youth Political Participation:
T.H. Marshall’s (1963) conceptualization of citizenship aimed altering the pattern of
social inequality caused by capitalist mode of production. Bryan Turner claims that Marshall’s
conceptualization is not only balancing the relation between class and capitalism but also
emphasizing the rights of women, children, and the elderly and even animals. Then, he adds that
“citizenship is concerned with the nature of the social participation of persons within the
community (Turner 1986 in Coles 1995).
Since 1950, many scholars criticized Marshall’s conceptualization. The welfare view of
citizenship has been criticized as being a passive form of citizenship since social integration was
tried to be achieved by social rights such as enrolment into education and training and social
insurance systems (Walther, et al. 2002). This helped the emergence of the concept of ‘active
citizenship’. This view of citizenship underlining the obligations of citizens in addition to rights
highlights the importance of civil society in terms of political participation. Thus, it emphasizes
the participation of individuals into policy making processes (Hoskins and Mascherini 2009).
Hoskins (2006) defines active citizenship as “participation in civil society, community and/or
political life, characterized by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human
rights and democracy.”
Nevertheless, Sloam (2007) criticizes this new view of citizenship as it leads younger
people to feel themselves responsible for obtaining housing, jobs or pensions; to expect less from
the state and to engage less in conventional forms of politics.
O’Donoghue et al. (2002) emphasize various benefits of youth involvement in decision
making in terms of development. They point out the significance of youth political participation
on organizational sustainability and efficiency and its contributions to democratic, social and
economic development. Bessant (2003) underlines the role of increased youth political
participation on improving the citizenship statuses of young people who are excluded from
political processes. She argues that exclusion of particular groups like young people make the
legitimacy of the democratic mechanisms questionable. Furthermore, she adds that inclusion of
the youth into the politics mitigates the power imbalance against them. Similarly, Forbrig (2005)
relates the value of youth political participation to democratic legitimacy. He stresses the political
participation as being one of the crucial mechanisms for legitimizing democracy socially. He says
14
that politics are in favour of urban, educated and affluent groups. Thus, inclusion of varied
groups is essential and the youth is one of them. Moreover, youth political participation is also
important since political socialization of the youth determines the future democratic legitimacy to
a significant extent.
4.2. Youth Political Participation in South-eastern Anatolia:
In this section, I try to interpret the state of youth political participation in South-Eastern
Anatolia Region and its differences from the general situation in Turkey by making use of the
regional and national data. GAP Youth Survey (GAPYS) data provides limited information about
political participation. Only 2.7 % of the youth work actively in a political party. This covers only
26 people in the sample. Even though it is hard to make complex analysis due to the small sample
size, with its larger sample size the State of Youth Survey (SYS) data and with its diverse
questions about political participation European Social Survey (ESS) data provide plenty of
information. To define political participation, I used three variables that exist in all three data
sets: voting, involvement in political parties and involvement in NGOs.
The strictest definition of political participation considers only voting as participation. All
the three data sets indicate low participation rates for the youth between the ages of 15 and 24. In
ESS only 33.6 % of the youth said that they had voted in the last parliamentary elections in 2007.
However, 15.2 % said that they had not voted since they were not eligible for voting. Still, the
participation rate among the eligible ones is 39.6 % which is 80.0 % for the whole sample.
Similarly, the youth in Southeast Anatolia Region have also low voting turnout rates. In the
GAPYS, 30.5 % of the respondents stated that they had participated in the 2007 elections while
57.4 % did not vote since they were below 18 at the time of elections and 12.1 % did not vote
although they were eligible for voting. It shows that among the respondents that were eligible for
voting in 2007, 71.7 % participated in the elections. The overall participation rate in 2007
parliamentary elections was 84.3 % in the whole country and 77.9 % in the eight cities where the
survey was conducted3.
Another indicator of involvement in institutional participation is party membership or
working actively for them. In ESS, only 1.9 % of the youth in Turkey is found to be the members
3
Source: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/secimdagitimapp/secim.zul, accessed on 03.01.2010
15
of a political party and only 3.0 % said that they worked in a political party or in an action group
in the last 12 months. It was 4.7 % for the ones who worked actively for a political party in the
SYS. This rate is even lower for the South-eastern youth (2.7 %) according to the GAPYS.
Other than institutional politics like voting, party membership or taking role in election
campaigns, Kovecheva (2005) defines protest activities and civic engagement as community
participation or voluntary work as other types of political participation. Moreover, according to
Kalaycıoğlu (1983), membership in other organizations has also an increasing effect on political
participation since it increases political interest, knowledge and activity. ESS data points out that
2.1 % of the youth responded positively to the question of whether they worked in other
organizations or associations than political parties for the last 12 months. SYS formulated the
question differently and asked the youth whether they were members of any non-governmental
organizations. Only 4.1 % said ‘Yes’. The results are not higher for the youth in South-eastern
Turkey. In GAPYS, 2.2 % of the youth expressed that they were members of or working
voluntarily for a non-governmental organization.
I argued at the beginning that the low level of participation in different dimensions of the
society prevents young people from participating in politics. Quantitative data also supports this
argument. As mentioned in the social life section, about half of the young people in South-eastern
Anatolia Region said that they do not go out for entertainment. Using this variable as an indicator
of social life participation in the public sphere, it is seen that young people who declare that they
do not go out for entertainment involve less in political parties and NGOs. However, the case is
not the same for voting participation (See Figure 12).
16
Going out vs. Political participation
Going out for entertainment
Not going out for entertainment
29,5% 31,7%
4,1%
3,3% 2,4%
1,3%
Working actively for a
political party
Voted in the last
national elections
Member of or working
voluntarily for a NGO
Figure 12: Relationship between social lif
lifee participation and political participation
Similarly, labour market participation has also a positive effect on political participation.
For all the three variables namely working for a political party, voting in the national elections
and working for an NGO that I use in order to measure political participation,
participation it is seen that the
young people involved in labour market take part more in politics (See Figure 13).
Labour market participation vs. Political
participation
Has a job
Does not have a job
41,1%
28,4%
6,7%
1,9%
Working actively for a
political party
3,1%
Voted in the last
national elections
2,8%
Member of or working
voluntarily for a NGO?
Figure 13: Relationship between labour market participation and political participation
17
About the effect of educational status on political participation,
participation GAP Youth survey data
do not let us making further reliable analysis due to the relatively small sample size. However,
ESS data enables us to make a similar analysis for the youth in Turkey. National data show that
young people involve more in politics as their educational level increases (See Figure 14).
Nevertheless, we do not have evidence to prove the same for the youth in South-eastern
South
Anatolia.
Educational level vs. Political participation
Worked in political party or action group last 12 months
Worked in another organisation or association last 12 months
Voted last national election
71%
52%
42%
15%
0%
8%
2%
13%
11% 12%
3%
1%
8% 9%
3%
9%
16%
5%
Highest level of education
Figure 14: Relationship between educational status and political participation
There are also various sociological factors which affect the participation of the youth in
politics or in other dimensions of the society. Gender and socio-economic
economic status (SES) are two
major factors. It is worth examin
xamining the effects of these two which are cross-cutting
cross
all the issues
of social life participation, educational enrolment, labour market participation and finally political
participation of the youth.
18
Gender and Political Participation:
Gender is a key variable for understanding political participation. About the role of gender
on political participation, Baykal (1970) referred to Lane’s argument: the social image that the
politics is ‘a job for men’ affects the political participation of women. Similarly, Kalaycıoğlu
(1983) claimed that women tend to involve less in politics than men due to their lower socioeconomic status. He concluded that as a result of their lower socio-economic status women have
less opportunity to use mass communication media and have low levels of political interest,
political knowledge and political activities. He also claimed that women may have more
difficulties in involving in politics, especially in more time and energy consuming political
activities since they conflict with the social role expected from them. Ayata (1998) also claims
that although there is an improvement of the political participation of women in Turkey, there are
still sociological constraints in front of them. Besides, women are limited to the “women roles”
when they enter into politics such as organizing women meetings for gaining women votes or
supporting the men in their families (usually their husbands) who are involved in politics.
Quotations below are from in-depth interviews with young women:
“Families don’t let youngsters to join politics. Girls can’t go to the meetings, or like that.
‘There are a lot of men. What will you do?’, they say. It is very narrow-mindedness. I
don’t understand why it’s like that.” (15 year old female, Mardin)
“I voted. I didn’t get excited. I signed and my brother took it. It was already determined to
whom we would vote…If it is a woman they (families) can put borders. Like ‘Don’t go
out too much’ or ‘Don’t interact with men’. There are no difficulties for men. I mean in
terms of politics.” (21 year old female, Şanlıurfa)
The country-wide data of ESS and regional data of GAPYS indicate no relationship
between gender and voting participation (See Appendix Tables 1-4). However, there are
significant differences between women and men in taking roles in political parties. SYS data
points out that, young men take part in political parties more than young women in Turkey.
GAPYS data indicates similar results for the young people in South-eastern Anatolia (See Figure
15 and Appendix Tables 5-8).
19
Member of a political party
Male
Female
7,3%
4,2%
2,0%
1,4%
South-eastern
eastern Anatolia
(GAPYS)
Turkey
(SYS)
Figure 16: Gender and political party membership
The question in the GAPYS that asked what young people talk about with their friends
may be another indicator for political interest.
interest It enables us to compare the interest of young
women and young men in South
South-eastern Anatolia. The percentage of young wome
women who state
that they talk about politics with their friends is 2.4 while
wh it is 10.4 for the young men.
There is a plenty of studies in the literature, which point out that women participate less in
politics. Many scholars argue that women take part less like other disadvantaged groups or
groups near the periphery (Milbrath 1966) (Hart 1992) (Çarkoğlu
(Çarko lu 2007) (Erdo
(Erdoğan 2003).
Although the gap is getting closed for voting participation, it seems that women in South-eastern
South
Anatolia still participate less than men in terms of political party membership and have less
interest in politics.
Class, Socio-economic
economic Development and Political Participation:
Especially in the international literature, it is argued that there is a positive correlation
between development and mass political participation. Nie et al. (1969) argue that economic
development causes the relative size of upper and middle classes become greater. Furthermore,
the concentration of the citizens in the urban areas rises. Then, the density and complexity of
20
economic and secondary organizations increases. Finally, this chain promotes an increase in
political participation.
There are also similar interpretations in the studies conducted in Turkey. Baykal (1970)
defined political participation as an attitude of middle-classness and the norms administrating the
political participation had become a part of middle-class ethics. Depending on his research study,
Kalaycıoğlu (1983) argued that all high levels of education, high occupational status and high
socio-economic status have a positive relationship with political participation in Turkey.
Moreover, recent research studies conducted by Konrad Adaneuer Foundation (1999) and Arı
Movement (Erdoğan 2003) both showed that participation increases with the socio-economic
status.
In SYS data, no significant relationship was found between political party membership
and SES of the young people in Turkey (See Appendix Tables 9-10). However, the case is not the
same for NGO membership. Increasing level of socio-economic status has a positive effect on
NGO participation (See Figures 16 and Appendix Tables 11-12)
NGO membership
SES
7,9%
5,3%
2,7%
DE
4,7%
2,8%
C2
C1
B
A
Figure 16: Socio-economic status and NGO membership
Evidence from focus group interviews also point out the same structure. In this sense,
NGO participation can be said to be a middle class, and upper middle class youth experience. For
instance, a 23-year old volunteer of a youth NGO in Diyarbakır stated that their members are
21
mostly high school and university students or graduates. He added that the youth from the
disadvantaged parts of the city “may feel a difference and may not feel themselves belong there”
in one of our focus-group meetings. UNDP (2008) offers civil society participation as an
alternative to older forms of political participation that does not attract young people any more.
However, the evidence that civil society appeals solely particular groups makes the issue more
complicated and calls for the need of the questioning NGO structures.
5. Conclusion:
Quantitative evidence shows that youth political participation is low both in Turkey and
South-eastern Anatolia. What is surprising here is that in terms of political participation rates, the
South-eastern Anatolia region does not differ from the whole country. South-eastern Anatolia is
expected to have denser political atmosphere due to the Kurdish political movement which has
become stronger in the last thirty years with the ongoing armed conflict between the Turkish state
and the armed PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The conflict is not only going on between armed
forces but also between police and civil people. In the South-Eastern Anatolia Region, the image
of children and youngsters combating policemen with Molotov cocktails and stones became very
common in the last few years. Many of these children have been arrested and some of them have
been sentenced for long years. This atmosphere is discouraging young people from any political
involvement instead of including them in politics. Having seen that their friends were
apprehended, many of their relatives or friends of their parents were arrested and convicted even
for their democratic and non-violent reactions, young people keep themselves away from any
kind of political engagement. For example, in one of the focus group meetings, a 16 year old high
school student from Diyarbakır said: “In our region, most of the ones dealing with politics are in
jail” while explaining why he is not interested in politics. The role of families is also very crucial
in this sense. Families are discouraging and even prohibiting their children to join in politics. A
high-school graduate woman in Şanlıurfa, in one of our focus-group interviews stated that she
could not participate in politics since her family-especially her father- did not let her, despite the
fact that she wished to join in political parties. Below is an example from a focus group interview
in Mardin:
22
“Respondent: Personally, I am afraid of any politics except for voting, joining into
political things, afraid of things like participation.
Interviewer: Can you tell us why you are afraid of? It is very important for us because
youngsters are scared but we don’t know why.
Respondent: Since my childhood, my friend’s father is in my subconscious. My friend is
now in İstanbul. His father, for no reason, since he talked about politics, although he
hasn’t joined any activity, only since he is political he was in jail for 15 years. I have also
seen few more examples in my life. I have seen an example from my peers. They didn’t
do anything, only a small talk. It frightened me very much. So, I am very afraid of
politics. I am afraid of its consequences. When it happens, God forbid, it doesn’t matter
how well your family treats you, one feels very disgraced to them. So, I am keeping
myself away from these things.” (15 year old male, Mardin)
This similarity between political participation rates is unique for the whole study.
Although the youth in the South-eastern Anatolia differs from the youth in the rest of Turkey in
many aspects, the low level of political participation is matching. This is partly due to the
suppression of the coup d’état in 1980 and the depoliticizing culture of the neoliberal politics
which followed the military regime that was imposed on all the young people in the country.
In this paper, by analyzing the national and the regional data I tried to reveal the level of
youth political participation in South-eastern Anatolia and the reasons for low political
participation of the youth in the region. It is found that the youth in the region cannot participate
in various dimensions of society. Being excluded from social life, being dropped-out from
education and being unable to enter into labour market make the issue of youth political
participation harder. In addition to socio-economic factors various political factors mentioned
above also discourage young people from politics. And, this does not make any help for
improving the citizenship statuses of these young people or in other words this does not help
them feel a loyalty to the state which they belong to.
Bibliography:
Ayata, Ayşe. “Laiklik, Güç ve Katılım Üçgeninde Türkiye'de Kadın ve Siyaset.” In 75 Yılda
Kadınlar ve Erkekler, edited by Ayşe Berktay Hacımirzaoğlu, 237-248. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı
Yayınları, 1998.
Baykal, Deniz. Siyasal Katılma:Bir Davranış İncelemesi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal
Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1970.
23
Bessant, Judith. “Youth Participation: A New Mode of Government.” Policy Studies 24:2 (2003):
87-100.
Coles, Bob. Youth and Social Policy: Youth Citizenship and Young Careers. New York:
Routledge, 1995.
Çarkoğlu, Ali. Youth and Participation in Turkey. 2007.
http://www.undp.org.tr/publicationsDocuments/NHDRTR2008/NHDR_BP_Ali_Carkoglu.pdf
(accessed on 09 22, 2009).
Çelik, Kezban. “‘My state is my father’: youth unemployment experiences under the weak state
welfare provisions of Turkey.” Journal of Youth Studies, 2008: 429-444.
Erdoğan, Emre. “Türk Gençliği ve Siyasal Katılım: 1999-2003.” In Türk Gençliği ve Katılım, by
ARI-Hareketi, 27-46. İstanbul: Toplumsal Gelişim ve Katılım Vakfı, 2003.
Fend, H. “The historical context of transition to work and youth unemployment.” In Youth
unemployment and society, edited by Anne C. Petersen and Jeylan M. Mortimer, 77-94.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Forbrig, Joerg. “lntroduction: Democratic Politics, Legitimacy and Youth Participation.” In
Revisiting Youth Political Participation: Challenges for Research and Democratic Practice in
Europe, edited by Joerg Forbrig, 7-18. Strasbourg Cedex: Council of Europe Publishing, 2005.
Hart, Roger A. Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Italy: UNICEF
International Child Development Centre, 1992.
Hoskins, Bryony. “Draft Framework for Indicators on Active Citizenship.” The Centre for
Research on Lifelong Learning. 31 07 2006.
http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ActiveCitizenship/Conference/01_Hoskins%20_framework_final.pdf
(accessed on 01 09, 2010).
Hoskins, Bryony L., and Maschimiliano Mascherini. “Measuring Active Citizenship through the
Development of a Composite Indicator.” Social Indicators Research, 2009: 459-488.
Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin. Karşılaştırmalı Siyasal Katılım: Siyasal Eylemin Kökenleri Üzerine Bir
İnceleme. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi, 1983.
Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Türk Gençliği 98: Suskun Kitle Büyüteç Altında. Ankara: Konrad
Adenauer Foundation, 1999.
24
Kovecheva, Siyka. “Will youth rejuvenate the patterns of political participation?” In Revisiting
Youth Political Participation: Challenges for research and democratic practice in Europe, edited
by Joerg Forbrig, 7-18. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2005.
Marshall, T. H. (1963). Citizenship and Social Class. In T. H. Marshall, Class, citizenship, and
social development; essays (pp. 67-128). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Milbrath, Lester W. Political Participation: How and Why People Involve in Politics. Chicago:
Rand Mc Nally&Company, 1966.
Nie, Norman H., G. Bingham Powell Jr., and Kenneth Prewitt. “Social Structure and Political
Participation Developmental Relationships, II.” The American Political Science Review 63, no. 3
(1969): 808-832.
O'Donoghue, Jennifer L., Benjamin Kirshner, and Milbrey McLaughlin. “Introduction: Moving
Youth Participation Forward.” New Directions for Youth Development 2002, no. 96 (2002): 1526.
Sloam, James. “Rebooting Democracy: Youth Participation in Politics in the UK.” Parliamentary
Affairs 60 (2007): 548-567.
Turner, Bryan. “Contemporary Problems in the Theory of Citizenship.” In Citizenship and Social
Theory, by Bryan Turner, 1-18. Surrey: SAGE Publications, 1993.
UNDP. Turkey 2008 Human Development Report: Youth in Turkey. Ankara: United Nations
Development Programme, 2008.
United Nations . “Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly 40/14. International Youth Year:
Participation, Development, Peace.” UN Documents. 18 11 1985. http://www.undocuments.net/a40r14.htm (accessed on 01 06, 2010).
United Nations. “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” UN Documents. 20 11 1989.
http://www.un-documents.net/crc.htm (accessed on 01 06, 2010).
United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” 1948.
United Nations. World Youth Report 2003: The Global Situation of Young People. New York:
United Nations, 2003.
Walther, Andreas, Gry Moerch Hejl, Torben Bechmann Jensen, and Amanda Hayes. “Youth
Policy, Youth Transitions and Participation.” 2002.
25
Appendix:
Table 1: Gender and Voting participation of the youth in Turkey (ESS)
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Count
% within Gender
Count
% within Gender
Count
% within Gender
Crosstab
Voted last national election
Yes
No
Not eligible to vote
73
118
39
31,7%
51,3%
17,0%
84
121
32
35,4%
51,1%
13,5%
157
239
71
33,6%
51,2%
15,2%
Total
230
100,0%
237
100,0%
467
100,0%
Table 2: Gender vs. Voting participation of the youth (ESS)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
1,394(a)
2
0,498
Likelihood Ratio
1,395
2
0,498
Linear-by-Linear Association
1,314
1
0,252
N of Valid Cases
467
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 34,97.
Table 3: Gender and Voting participation of the youth in South-eastern Anatolia (GAPYS)
E2. Did you vote in the national
elections in 2007?
A1. Gender
Female
Male
Total
Count
% within A1. Gender
Count
% within A1. Cinsiyet
Count
% within A1. Cinsiyet
YES, I
voted
155
31.3%
134
29.7%
289
30.5%
I didn’t
vote since
I was
below 18
278
56.2%
265
58.8%
543
57.4%
I didn’t vote
even if I was
above 18
62
12.5%
52
11.5%
114
12.1%
Table 4: Gender vs. Voting participation of the youth (GAPYS)
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
,669(a)
2
0.670
2
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
0.716
0.715
0.022
1
0.882
N of Valid Cases
946
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 54,35.
26
Total
495
100.0%
451
100.0%
946
100.0%
Table 5: Gender and Political party membership of the youth in South-eastern Anatolia
(GAPYS)
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Crosstab
Are you working actively for
a political party?
YES
NO
Count
7
488
% within Gender
98.6%
1.4%
Count
19
432
% within Gender
95.8%
4.2%
Count
26
920
% within Gender
97.3%
2.7%
Total
495
100.0%
451
100.0%
946
100.0%
Table 6: Gender vs. Political party membership in South-eastern Anatolia (GAPYS)
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
6,916(b)
1
0.009
5.908
1
0.015
7.118
1
0.008
Exact Sig. (2sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction(a)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
0.009
Linear-by-Linear Association
6.908
1
0.009
N of Valid Cases
946
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12,40.
Table 7: Gender and Political party membership in Turkey (SYS)
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Crosstab
Are you working actively for a
political party?
Yes
No
Count
122
1,549
% within Gender
92.7%
7.3%
Count
33
1,618
% within Gender
98.0%
2.0%
Count
155
3,167
% within Gender
95.3%
4.7%
27
Total
1,671
100.0%
1,651
100.0%
3,322
100.0%
0.007
Table 8: Gender vs. Political party membership in Turkey (SYS)
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value
df
(2-sided)
52,488(b)
1
0.000
51.303
1
0.000
55.747
1
0.000
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction(a)
Likelihood Ratio
Fisher's Exact Test
0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
52.472
1
0.000
N of Valid Cases
3,322
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 77,03.
Table 9: SES and political party membership in Turkey (SYS)
SES
A
B
C1
C2
DE
Total
Crosstab
Are you working
actively for a
political party?
YES
NO
Count
5
134
% within SES
96.4%
3.6%
Count
23
405
% within SES
94.6%
5.4%
Count
53
1,089
% within SES
95.4%
4.6%
Count
45
894
% within SES
95.2%
4.8%
Count
29
645
% within SES
95.7%
4.3%
Count
155
3,167
% within SES
95.3%
4.7%
Total
139
100.0%
428
100.0%
1,142
100.0%
939
100.0%
674
100.0%
3,322
100.0%
Table 10: SES vs. political party membership in Turkey (SYS)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
1,074(a)
4
0.898
Likelihood Ratio
1.087
4
0.896
Linear-by-Linear Association
0.082
1
0.774
N of Valid Cases
3,322
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6,49.
28
0.000
Table 11: SES and NGO membership in Turkey (SYS)
SES
A
B
C1
C2
DE
Total
Count
% within SES
Count
% within SES
Count
% within SES
Count
% within SES
Count
% within SES
Count
% within SES
Crosstab
Are you a member
of or working
voluntarily for a
NGO?
YES
NO
11
128
92.1%
7.9%
20
408
95.3%
4.7%
60
1,082
94.7%
5.3%
26
913
97.2%
2.8%
18
656
97.3%
2.7%
135
3,187
95.9%
4.1%
Total
139
100.0%
428
100.0%
1,142
100.0%
939
100.0%
674
100.0%
3,322
100.0%
Table 12: SES vs. NGO membership in Turkey (SYS)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
17,235(a)
4
0.002
Likelihood Ratio
16.710
4
0.002
Linear-by-Linear Association
12.985
1
0.000
N of Valid Cases
3,322
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,65.
29