Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
Alper ÇAKMAK1 THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO UNDERSTAND EASTERN ENLARGEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CASE OF TURKEY Abstract The paper is set out to examine the dynamics of eastern enlargement of European Union through different perspectives, to what extent these approaches are successful in giving a viable response to the case and lastly a conclusive section about Turkey and the implications of each perspective on the accession process of Turkey. The first aim is to point out whether a specific perspective is sufficiently viable to figure out the factor mechanism in the enlargement process, and secondly Eastern Europe enlargement process and the accession negotiation process of Turkey will be examined in terms of any reciprocity of factors. Many scholars try to explain the enlargement process through non-theoretical basis and what is significant in this paper is the exclusion of story-making about the enlargement priorities of European Union. Enlargement priorities for EU can be viewed through different perspectives and each of these perspective/approaches has their own emphasis on specific factor analysis that is put forward to be explanatory of the enlargement process and their implications on the case of Turkey will be interrogated thoroughly to analyze the deficits and adequacies. Keywords: Turkey, European Union, enlargement, approaches, theoretical analysis DOĞU GENİŞLEMESİNİ ANLAMAK İÇİN ÜÇ FARKLI YAKLAŞIM: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ ÜZERİNE ÇIKARIMLAR Özet Bu makale Avrupa Birliği’nin doğuya genişleme sürecinin dinamiklerini farklı perspektifler aracılığıyla incelemek için kaleme alınmıştır, bu bağlamda farklı yaklaşımların hangi oranda Türkiye örneğine doğru bir açıklama getirebildiği ve son olarak Türkiye örneği üzerine her bir yaklaşım üzerinden çıkarımlar yapmaya çalışmaktadır. Buradaki ilk amaç, öne çıkan yaklaşımların genişleme 1 1
Arş. Gör., Süleyman Şah Üniversitesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı,
[email protected] Research Assistant, Suleyman Sah University, International Relations Department
Alper Çakmak
564
sürecinin tüm örneklerini ve bu sürecin tamamını açıklayabilme yetisi, doğu genişlemesi süreci ele alınarak bu sürecin Türkiye örneği üzerine çıkarımlarını öne çıkan faktörlerin benzerliği veya karşılıklılığı üzerinden ortaya koymaya çalışmaktır. Literatürde mevcut olan bir çok kaynak, bu süreç üzerine yazılmış hikayelerden ibaret olduğundan teorik bir alt yapıya sahip değildir ve bu makalede ön plana çıkan en önemli unsur hikayelerden arındırılmış ve sadece yaklaşımların yeterliliği üzerine odaklanmasıdır. Avrupa Birliği için genişleme sürecinde öncelikler farlı yaklaşımlar ile açıklanabilir ve her bir yaklaşım bazı spesifik faktörleri süreci açıklama bakımından ön plana çıkarmakta olup, her birinin Türkiye üzerine açıklayıcı ve eksik noktaları makale içerisinde değerlendirilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Türkiye, Avrupa Birliği, Genişleme, Yaklaşımlar, Teori Analizi
The paper is set out to examine the dynamics of Eastern Enlargement through different approaches, to what extent these approaches are successful in giving a viable response to the case and lastly a conclusive section about Turkey and the implications of each perspective on the accession process of Turkey. These approaches will include contributions that focus on the history of EU-Turkey-Eastern Europe relations as well as contributions that try to make sense of this contested rapprochement between these three parties from a theoretical perspective. The first aim is to point out whether a specific perspective is sufficiently viable to figure out the factor mechanism in the enlargement process, and secondly Eastern Europe enlargement process and the accession negotiation process of Turkey will be examined in terms of any reciprocity or differentiations of fore-factors. Many scholars try to explain the enlargement process through non-theoretical basis and what is significant in this paper is the exclusion of story-making about the enlargement priorities of European Union. The subject is open to story-making since there is not adequate basis or framework to understand why Poland became a member of the EU but not Bosnia-Herzegovina thus it is of significance to secure the paper of the story-telling/making about different cases or processes. Enlargement priorities for the EU can be viewed through different perspectives and each of these perspective/approaches has their own emphasis on specific factor analysis that is put forward to be explanatory mechanism of the enlargement process. 1.1 Moravcsik’s Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Implications: Liberal-intergovernmentalism molded by the rationalist paradigm demonstrates the factors shaping the enlargement priorities of EU in terms of “utility maximization” and “instrumental calculation of costs and benefits” as would Moravcsik claim (Moravcsik et al., 1993 p.475). It is also of significance that costs and benefits calculation and interest calculation of rationalism here is not only of economic means but also non-economic means that are taken into thorough consideration and what counts is the long term perspective rather than only shortterm costs and benefits and whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. It can be argued that the “black-box” nature of rationalism is also valid in this perspective though it might be unfair to argue that it is a sub-branch of rationalism totally. It is worth noting that “the cost of exclusion” is also taken regard of. The accession negotiations process is of the same kind of nature not only for the EU, but also for the candidate states that can be understood easily when
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
565
Three Different Approaches to Understand Eastern Enlargement: Implications for the Case of Turkey
taken regard of the fact that “candidate states are willing to accept hard negotiation process”, which is obvious especially in the accession process of central and eastern European countries, since they showed political willingness to be the EU member rather than “the other way around”, since the costs of “other way around” was more than that of “hard negotiation processes”(Schimmelfennig et al., 2003 p.499). Full membership objective of candidate states also demonstrates “an asymmetrical-interdependence” throughout the negotiation process since the one applying for the membership takes more risks (economic and political reforms that may create resentment in the society ) than that of EU core members (Moravcsik et al., 1993 p.479). 1.2 What is Missing in Liberal Intergovernmentalism? Moravcsik is not necessarily of a federalist view of EU’s future, and it is evident that the liberal intergovernmentalism does not pay attention to the issues related to European identity that are accepted as irrelevant or only as issues that can become important only in the political discourse that will be discussed later. For instance; Moravcsik does not take “public opinion issue” into consideration when EU-Turkey relations is the case. In Moravcsik’s literature, there is no problem concerning the implications of enlargement as such. Intergovernmentalism is of a limited framework since it does not put light on the labyrinths of such a multi-faceted, amalgamated issue of enlargement. It does not put light on religious, identity, culture and geographical basis of the issue. Intergovernmentalism fails to give a viable response or an answer to the reason why EU went beyond of the associational-agreements, in other words, why EU did not content itself with the associational-agreements and even admitted the eastern European Countries. Intergovernmentalism also excludes the human, and the approach is void of the human factor, preferences and tendencies of public opinion of the member states. 2.1 New Methods of Conduct: Sociologic-institutionalism After the end of Cold War, intensification of relations with East European countries was not a big surprise since there was an urgent need to recover stability after the collapse of Soviet Union since the costs of instability would exceed the benefits of non-inclusion or the neutral position of EU. Instability reminded EU member countries with the awaiting hazard of “migration flight” since people were escaping from Balkan countries due to the political and economic problems of unemployment, instability and being displaced (Schimmelfennig et al., 2001 p.60). At the beginning of the 90’s, the first step offered to these countries is the “Europe Agreements” such as; “association agreements”, “trade liberalization”, “political dialogue”, “cultural cooperation” and “stabilization of the region” which can be perceived as a “central objective”(Schimmelfennig et al.,2003 p.501). Schimmelfennig (2003) makes it clear that “association agreements” and such can be explained through liberal inter-governmentalism however it fails to give a viable response to the fact that this process ended up with the full membership (Schimmelfennig et al.,2003 p.501). Schimmelfennig (2003) maintains that the process of admission is not of a clear-cut nature, rather he shows that fifteen EU members were divided into two main groups; advocating “inclusive enlargement” and “preferred inclusion”: the former claiming that there should be no discrimination, the latter advocating a step by step process, starting from the candidates that are mostly developed and geographically close with a perspective of quick but selective process (Schimmelfennig et al.,2003 p.504). Given the division among the EU members, Schimmelfennig (2003) argues that Moravcsik’s clear-cut rationalist view of the process fails (Schimmelfennig et al.,2003 p.501). What Schimmelfennig(2001)proposes is the concept of
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
Alper Çakmak
566
“sociologic-institutionalism” that could be explained as the “expansion of international community that is based upon shared values such as liberal democracy, human rights and Copenhagen Criteria”(Schimmelfennig et al., 2001 p.62). Economic terms are not adequate tools to explain the process of enlargement, rather it is the liberal democratic states that are taken into consideration and accession processes were of supportive nature for such states. 2.2 Rhetorical Action Eastern European countries did not have sufficient bargaining power during the negotiation processes, and it is not possible to legitimize the eastern European countries’ admission with a mere calculation of costs-benefits. The use of non-material values / means such as rhetorical action as a means of strategic use of normative values function to give incentive to the idea that “shared values” are necessary and sufficient argument for the admission processes, while intergovernmentalist view perceives it as insufficient since economic gains play a more crucial role and overwhelms the significance of the “shared values”.Very similar to the core of constructivism, ideas, norms and value systems go into the foreign policy-making of EU and EU’s definition of an identity for itself which is a catalyst in defining the enlargement priorities. The term, “rhetorical action” consists of making use of European identity argument (as family of Europe, attribution to the eastern European countries as artificially kidnapped part of Europe and EU’s debt and duty for them), accession criteria and exposing of inconsistencies in prior enlargement rounds. Schimmelfennig(2001) argues that it would be impossible to realize eastern enlargement process with a mere argument of economic gains (Schimmelfennig et al., 2001 p.62). It is also of significance that not only the EU member supporting the accession process, but also the eastern countries made use of the same rhetorical action that included normative arguments and that kinds of political discourse. It is evident that during the eastern Europe enlargement process, what sociologic institutionalism provisions emerges on the stage. The political discourse used was focused on the point that the credibility of EU would decrease if the full membership would not be the case for these countries. The political discourse functioned in such a way that it is not unfair to claim that it was a crucial strategy firstly to silence the members who support “preferred inclusion” though not changing their attitudes, since that kind of rhetoric could “put shame” on such member states since it made attribution to the historical duties of EU (Schimmelfennig et al., 2001 p.62). The ones supporting “preferred inclusion” were rhetorically entrapped and ridden the language of cayenne paper. As an accepted representative of “inclusive enlargement” idea, Thatcher’s support and claim that the option of full membership is clearly and generously on the table for eastern European countries is a good sample that is improved on the basisof silenced “preferred inclusion” idea. It is clear in all these arguments above that the history and identity related normative arguments are not the essentia, but the arguments utilized strategically in order to flatten the division among member states and deter the member states from making use of their veto rights. 3.1. New Methods to Harness the Divisions The division among member states to some extent has forced them to apply and create new “flexible strategies” expected to increase the possibility of accession (Nugent et al., 2004 p.108). One of the “flexible strategies” was, as Nugent makes reference to, “the open-method of coordination” which means “policy making without legislation or laws” (Nugent et al., 2004 p.89). The division among member states and the notion of national sovereignty created a
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
567
Three Different Approaches to Understand Eastern Enlargement: Implications for the Case of Turkey
difficult sphere of policy making, thus “the open-method of coordination” has been applied so far to serve the purpose of “differentiated integration”(Nugent et al., 2004 p.89). “Rhetorical action and rhetorical entrapment” could be used strategically in a different sense and it is also evident that slow motion of reform process and Cyprus issue can easily be used as “counter rhetorical action”. Sjursen(2002) makes it clear that rationalist approach that is based upon pragmatic and utility is not adequate in figuring out a complete picture of the situation.(Sjursen et al.,2002, p.500) Though enlargement is a subject related exclusively to benefits, Sjursen(2002) emphasizes that “the eastern enlargement can simply distort the central balance of EU due to the number of countries added”(Sjursen et al., 2002, p.490). New borders have the implication of new divisions, disseminations and clashes. Painful economic and financial adjustments would be necessary for the new member states and the process, by nature, is of potential threats and risks that may create “resentment and loss of legitimacy” in the eyes of people (Sjursen et al., 2002, p.490). Sjursen (2002) makes allusion to the term “shared values” that is outside of the pragmatic arguments that proposes “values-based” and “rights-based” approaches. Rights-based approach can be claimed to be the official discourse (and also a remedy for the anticipated risks mentioned above) of EU that includes Copenhagen Criteria and there is no need to have a European identity to be in compliance with the universal rights. Values-based approach includes “ethical-political” approach that makes allusion to what Schimmelfennig(2001) proposed as “shared values” (p.60). Though EU’s official discourse is based upon “rights-based” discourse, the functioning of the process is values-based to a greater extent. Thus, though Copenhagen Criteria points out that it is of “rights-based” process, European family and historical duty arguments and claims are systematically fore in the claims of many politicians which points out an ethical approach. 3.2. Sjuerson’s Mid-Way: More Than Instrumental Calculations, Less Than Universal Rights: Universal rights or rights based approach is not enough to determine precisely the borders (future) of EU. In view of the geographical position that EU stands on, universal rights do not describe what EU is. Making use of a mere utility based approach or only shared values notion is not enough, thus Sjursen makes use of a mid-way between these two. It is clear that security concerns were the prominent issue for Eastern European countries, but taking regard of the accession sequence, one would expect EU to accept the ones with the most instability however, it was never the case. Sjursen also makes it clear that “enlargement process requires more than instrumental calculations and less than a pure concern of universal rights-based approach”(Sjursen et al., 2002 p.508) 4.1.How Far These Approaches Put Light on Turkey-EU Relations? Turkey is of significance in the debate concerned here since the case and accession process of Turkey is not in full compliance with none of these three approaches, if it were possible to understand the case of Turkey through a mere use of one these approaches, actually it would be nonsense to argue about these three distinctions of understandings. Sjuersen’s (2002) research on the EU leaders’ statements about Turkey makes clear that most of the statements make use of ‘utility’ argument in order to justify the process with Turkey(Sjursen et al., 2002 p.504) . The partnership is of geo-political significance, rather than kinship feelings since Turkey and Russia has always been perceived as “the others” of Europe due to Ottoman
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
Alper Çakmak
568
and Tsar Regime heritage. It is also clear that it is not only the universal-right notion that is the driver force for the accession process.Following the rationalist and sociologic institutionalism paradigms that are mostly used to delve into the enlargement dynamics of EU, it is still difficult to what extent which theory applies to the process of Turkey-EU relations. In regard of the rationalist paradigm, it could be suitable to underline the costs and benefits. As far as the Turkey case concerned, Turkey’s admission to the customs union can be evaluated as a method of coordination to increase the level of integrationin economic means since Turkey is the only country that is not of membership. Firstly, 70 million population is accepted as a provision of huge market that creates new consumers, young dynamic works force which is important if aging EU is taken into regard and the fact that in the aged EU, migrants are needed in the future. The geo-strategic significance of Turkey, standing at the cross-roads of Europe and Muslim world would increase the soft-power of EU and taking regard of its military power, it would contribute to the EU’s security and defense policy.The last Ukraine Crisis has shown that whenever “Western Alliance” and Russia has a conflict, the importance of Turkey for the Western Alliance increases as in the example of 1850 Crimean War and “Cold War in 1950’s”(Zürcher et al., 2004 p.224). Depending on the deepening in the crisis, the strategic and geo-political capital of Turkey will increase, but the problem is the way this strategic and geopolitical capital is used. This crisis can contribute to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of EU. The cost is also related to the size of population which would have a crucial effect on the decision mechanisms, in other words, the future EU can be of a nature that a body governed by Turkey and it was also evident that EU did not have the “adoption capacity” to make such a candidate state as Turkey taking regard of the freedom of movement (Torreblanca et al., 2007 p.111). Taking regard of the costs that would disrupt the institutional mechanisms of EU, one wonders the reason why accession negotiations started in 2004 at all. It is clear in Nugent’s argument that in 2004, a rapid full membership is not the case, and in the long process there is an expectation that the costs-benefits balance would change. In view of Europeanization process, Turkey had already been well under-way and sufficiently can be Europeanized in time. Another factor is the division that EU member states were in. The claims made about Turkey also makes use of “the strategic partner” and “the geo-politic position” arguments(Barysch et al., 2007 p.77). Therefore, it is not unfair to make a claim that on the one hand kinship and family notions are forefront in the discourse supportive for eastern European countries, the same discourse turns into “utility” notion when the case is Turkey. 5.1. Discourse as a Mechanism of Deterrence for the Core Members of Preferred Inclusion Supporters The question why EU has not remained so far as it had been and why individual states did not make use of ‘veto rights’ when the unanimity was the case and why it gave priority to some candidate states rather than the others are the questions that need to be discussed further since the approaches mentioned above are not still sufficient to give a complete answer. However this paper is not set out to put forward a new approach but rather to suggest that each of these approaches should be used as case-sensitive, rather than applying one approach to understand all of the cases of eastern enlargement. It is not unfair to argue that enlargement will always happen if EU is convinced that admitting a new member will benefit and this anticipation is in compliance with the rationalist approach. Another argument isethical-
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
569
Three Different Approaches to Understand Eastern Enlargement: Implications for the Case of Turkey
political value based approach signifying that EU will admit those member states that share the same concession called “good life” that is the basis of “collective identity”, “shared values for how to lead a good life, and shared European identity”(Schimmelfennig et al., 2001, p.62) Thirdly, the moral approach whose focus is on “universal-rights” is associated with what is called “universal standards” as protection of human rights and democratic governments but these are not necessarily identified or restricted as/to Europe or EU which means that any country that is in compliance with human rights can become a member of EU(Sjursen et al.,2002 p.495). The hypothesis put forward by Sjuerson(2002) as EU giving priority to countries that give more benefits than costs and respecting universal standards is open to debate since during the enlargement process happening in reality in short and medium term, it is unclear whether there will be outweighing of benefits or costs since unknown variables at hand in designating the benefits-costs calculation. During Cold War period, Europe was divided into two due to political reasons and this division was described as “artificial” and “inorganic”, thus EU’s duty was formulated towards re-foundation of “European family of nations” which envisions the Eastern Europe’s reunification with Europe which was also perceived as moral duty. One of the significant divisions among ethical-political approach and rational approach is the debate about the terms and arguments utilized by ethical-political approach. Sjuerson (2002) claims that the values mentioned are not instruments but rather the aim itself in achieving a European identity(Sjursen et al.,2002 p.495). However, the answer of rational approach to whether the norms or benefits are determinant of the process is strategic use of norms and instrumentalization of the values. Enlargement process is reflected as a subject on which no single concession can be reached among the member states and in order to shame the member states who oppose that process, these values are instrumentalized as a discourse in order to prevent the blockage of the enlargement process. These norms and values were to a great extent included in the political discourse to silence the opponents and convince the people. However there is still open questions if we delve into the case further. After eastern enlargement, the discourse of EU leaders have shown that the support for the enlargement process among the people of member states has been on steady decrease. If one tries to explain the enlargement process through Sjuerson’s (2002) “kinship and identity” catalyst, it becomes impossible to explain the feeling of regret after 2004 among the citizens of EU member states (Sjursen et al.,2002 p.495). One may also argue that 600000 people migrated to UK from Poland, 20000 to Ireland and Sweden, however these countries did not apply any restriction on the freedom of movement against their “European brothers” and it is not unfair to argue that if the other core European Union members did not apply any restriction on the freedom of movement, may be, they would be scattered more evenly among the member states. Conclusive remarks: It is also problematic to view EU core members as the ones who will benefit from advantages of enlargement process evenly thus it can also be argued that benefits will be distributed among old member states unevenly and this argument may lead one to the question why the old member states that will benefit relatively less than the others did not use their veto rights. Thus it would be simple and one dimensional political view if one only tries to understand the enlargement process through rationalist approach. Though rationalist approach also puts lights on the non-economic benefits such as stability concerns, it is also evident that
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
Alper Çakmak
570
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo have not been accepted as member states so far which also show another weak point of the approach since non-admission of such states point out that EU’s aim is not political stabilization, or at least political stabilization is not prominent in the enlargement process. Another proposal is rights-based approach which is also open to criticism. It is really difficult to answer the question why some states’ accession process starting in 90’s took 14 years which is a long process taking regard of the state’s compliance with universal rights. Eastern European countries’ freedom of movement right was also restricted during that period. Eastern enlargement round can be explained to a great extent through “ethical-political approach” since it makes reference to “European identity”, “duty of solidarity” and “kinship- based feelings” and these arguments and terms are also of drive-force in mobilizing the support of EU citizens which is also close to rationalist approach since there is also instrumentalization of these terms. Regarding again the implications of these approaches on the case of Turkey, both of the sides need time in order to decrease the devastating effects of possible costs, according to rationalist approach, one cannot argue that Turkey cannot be a member of EU since long term perspective figures out a different picture. It can also be argued that kinship argument cannot be used for Turkey, and it is never open to be debated, however the overwhelming of benefits to a great extent may put the European identity argument to the last section in order of importance. What one easily gets out of this debate is the multi-faceted, amalgamated nature of applying the same approaches to the case of Turkey. It does not take a genius to claim that each case has its own specific nature, and one even may argue that each of the eastern European countries that have become the members of European Union has been attributed with different rhetorical actions, means of association and cost and benefit calculations. Another implication is the assumption that if Turkey is of a continual economic development higher than that of many EU countries, cost and benefit calculations would matter much that would contribute to the accession process at the end of the negotiation process. The future studies will probably be based upon the costs and benefits notion regarding the Turkish case and these studies’ focus will probably on the economic development factor and the geo-political importance.
REFERENCES AVCI G. (2004) Turkish Political Parties and the EU discourse in the post-Helsinki period: a case of Europeanization, in: M. Uğur & N. Canefe (eds) Turkey and European Integration – Accession prospects an dissues, Routledge: London& New York, pp. 194-214 ANDREW M. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach, Journal of Common Market Studies31 (4): 473– 524 BARYSCH K.(2007) What Europeans Think about Turkey and Why?,Center forEuropean Reform Essays GEDDES B. (2003).Paradigms and Sand Castles.Research Design and the Accumulation of Knowledge; Big Questions and Little Answers: How the questions you choose affect the answers you get; How the cases you choose affect the answers you get; How the evidence you use affect the answers you get, pp. 1-175.
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571
571
Three Different Approaches to Understand Eastern Enlargement: Implications for the Case of Turkey
JIMÉNEZ Ruiz.,TORREBLANCA José I..(2007). European Public Opinion and Turkey’s Accession.Making Sense of Arguments For and Against, European Policy Institutes Network NUGENT N. (2004). European Union Enlargement. Palgrave MacMillan: New York NUGENT N. (2005). Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol. 5 No. 26 NUGENT M. (2004). European Union Enlargement. Palgrave MacMillan: New York NUGENT N.(2007). The EU's Response to Turkey's Membership Application: Not Just a Weighing of Costs and Benefits, Journal of European Integration 29 (4) 481-502 SCHIMMELFENNIG F. (2001). The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union International Organization55 (1) 47–80 SCHIMMELFENNIG F., SEDELMEIER, Ulrich. (2004). Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Journal of EuropeanPublicPolicy, 669–687 SCHIMMELFENNING F. (2003). Costs, Commitmentand Compliance: The Impact of EU Democratic Conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey, Journal of Common Market Studies, 495-518 SJURSEN, Helene.(2002).“Why Expand? The Question of Legitimacy and Justification in the EU’s Enlargement Policy”. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (3): 491-513 ZÜRCHER E.J.. (2004). Turkey – A Modern History.I.B.Tauris, London. (Ch. 13: The Rule of Democratic Party, 1950-1960) pp. 221-240
The Journal of Academic Social Science Yıl: 2, Sayı: 5, Eylül 2014, s. 563-571