Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Coruna]On: 27 October 2014, At: 01:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cesw20
Youth and political participation: casein TurkeyOzlem Cankurtaran Ontas , Sema Buz & Burcu HatibogluPublished online: 09 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Ozlem Cankurtaran Ontas , Sema Buz & Burcu Hatiboglu (2013) Youth andpolitical participation: case in Turkey, European Journal of Social Work, 16:2, 249-262, DOI:10.1080/13691457.2011.620567
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2011.620567
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Youth and political participation: casein TurkeyGenclik ve politik katılım: TurkiyeornegiOzlem Cankurtaran Ontas, Sema Buz &Burcu Hatiboglu
The aim of this research is to explore views about, and the extent of, political
participation amongst students in a Department of Social Work. The sample was
composed of 127 fourth and sixth-term students. One of the most striking outcomes of
the research is that young peoples’ political participation remains low, despite widespread
dissatisfaction with political and economic systems. The results of this study and analysis
are based on sociocultural and historic developments specific to Turkey, specifically the
culture of fear fostered in Turkey following the military coup d’etat of 1980, and the
influence this had in the intergenerational conveyance of the notion that the ‘father
government’ can protect the public without the need for active political participation,
which is still prevalent amongst the study participants.
Keywords: Political Participation; Policy; Social Work Students
Bu arastırmada sosyal calısma egitimi alan ogrencilerin, politik katılım hakkındaki
gorusleri ortaya cıkarılmaya calısılmıstır. Arastırmaya sosyal hizmet bolumu dorduncu
ve altıncı donem ogrencilerinden toplam 127 ogrenci katılmıstır. Arastırmaların
sonuclarına bakıldıgında genclerin ekonomik-politik sistemden memnun olmamalarına
karsın politik katılımlarının oldukca sınırlı kaldıgı gorulmektedir. Bununla birlikte
Turkiye’de genclerle yapılan politik katılımla ilgili arastırmalarda gorulen sonuclara
benzer bicimde, ornegin haberleri takip etmek en yuksek oranda politik katılım bicimi
iken herhangi bir siyasi parti faaliyetine katılım sozkonusu degildir. Genclerin basarılı
Correspondence to: Ozlem Cankurtaran Ontas, Department of Social Work, Hacettepe University Faculty of
Economics and Administrative Science Ankara, Turkey. Email: [email protected]
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
European Journal of Social Work, 2013
Vol. 16, No. 2, 249�262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2011.620567
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
olmak icin bireysel ve ailesel kaynaklarını kullanmak gerektigi dusuncesi yine
arastırmanın onemli sonuclarındandır. Genclerin devlet tarafından onemsenmedigi
dusuncesi cogunluk tarafından belirtilirken aynı zamanda kendileri de devletin
uygulamalarına guvenmemektedirler. Ote yandan ogrenciler, devletin genclere yonelik
politikalarının olusumuna tum genclerin katılımının saglanması gerektigini
dusunmektedirler. Bu arastırmanın sonucları, Turkiye’nin ozgun tarihsel ve toplumsal
kosullarına gore degerlendirildiginde, 1980 sonrası yasanan ve kusaktan kusaga
aktarılan korku kulturunun halen egemen oldugu, devlet baba kurgusunun da politik
katılım olmadan devletin kendilerini koruyacagı anlayısıyla birlikte, bu arastırma grubu
icin gecerliligini korudugunu belirtebiliriz.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Politik katılım; politika; sosyal calısma (hizmet) ogrencisi
In general, an implicit issue in any research investigation concerning young people
remains the scope and implications of the use of the word ‘youth.’ Although easily
identifiable as a distinct stage in human development, the term ‘youth’ has many
complex sociological implications, and the lack of a clear consensus within the field
of sociology regarding the scope of youth is a clear example of its complexity. One of
the proponents of the biological approach, Marcuse (1969 cited in Kentel, 2005),
argues that youth is defined by cultural constructs, dictating that they are a
homogenous, secondary group of citizens.
In rapidly developing countries, especially those that share a common culture and
history, young people are seen to be in possession of an identity over which they
exert considerable strength in ownership, and which is distinct from that of the
previous generation. According to this approach, time can be a factor determining
societal change, with the increase in the salience of age group over socioeconomic
factors as an instigator of change. However, Bourdieu (1980) emphasizes that from
a socioeconomic perspective, the term youth is only a word and that the concept of
youth can only be seen when considering differing social strata within the class
system, thus embodying the concept of disparate groups of young people. As such,
the concept of youth as entity is simply a manipulation attempting to create a youth
en masse because there are mechanisms within youth movements that re-synthesize
inequalities (cited in Kentel, 2005, p. 13). Bourdieu (1980 cited in Kentel, 2005)
argues that age is the foundation of social stratification, with power being
maintained by adults who define young peoples’ life chances and aspirations, their
boundaries and the period of time within which intergenerational struggle is
acceptable.
In this process, despite adults’ definitions of what youth should entail, the effect
these definitions have is limited and not intrinsic to young peoples’ own definitions,
neither of youth nor of their expectations, which are clearly distinct from any adult
imposition.
250 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
These definitions by Dubet (1987), Bourdieu (1980), and Marcuse (1969), when
brought together, form a more dynamic and explicatory definition of youth: that
each young generation seeks to be different from the previous by displaying different
characteristics which are, nonetheless, deeply connected to cultural and socio-
economic categorizations and developments (cited in Kentel, 2005, p. 13). This
contributes to the assertion that youth, rather than implying homogeneity, demands
critical consideration of individual groups of young people.
Modern society embodies many uncertainties for young people (Beck, 1992 cited
in Odegard & Berglund, 2008). Young people are constantly defined within society as
a vulnerable, at-risk group of people. The extent of the risks posed to young people
also affects social politics, wherein risk defines the uncertainties of society. In modern
society, youth is seen as a period during which one is not obliged to adhere to the
model based on cautiousness, but in which one can engage in risk-taking behavior.
Education is viewed as a period during which young people may be progressively
integrated into adult society. In this way, education is seen as a force that keeps young
people away from risk-taking behavior. Their understanding of the consequences of
risk-taking behavior prevents young people from fighting for their principal social
and political rights and constitutes a great disadvantage to young people.
Since the 1980s, there has been a prevailing global trend toward globalization,
resulting in freer international trade, liberalized financial markets, and a revolution in
production methods. Globalization, which aims to increase global integration, has
resulted in many countries adopting a neo-liberal trading model, leading to the use of
new technologies by workforces, which in turn has reduced production times,
increased flexibility in production, diversified factors of production and increased
capital flows. Cuts in levels of public spending from the mid-1990s onwards have led
to a pronounced reduction in living standards. This was caused by a decline in real
wages, which resulted in a decline in living standards for those on fixed incomes; this
was subsequently compounded by a loss of jobs in the primary and secondary sectors,
as technology-based solutions to labor became increasingly predominant. Together,
the consequences of the above were an increase in the size of the informal market,
increased cost of manufactured goods, and cuts in the levels of public spending on
education and health. The most negative repercussions of the above developments
were on the increased number of deprived households, and on women, children,
elderly people, and young people. When considering the above from a historical
perspective, ‘youth’ as a social construct came about during the 1960s as the symbol
and instigator of change. By the 1980s, however, together with neo-liberal policies,
the idea of youth as a symbol of change was supplanted by a belief in future
uncertainty and the necessity of conformism.
Harvey’s description (2010, p. 149) of ‘accumulation of disposition’ expressed the
global emphasis on consumerism that encircles young people and how it has led to the
continued depletion of local resources and culture, leading to young people
experiencing a conflict between local and global values. The changes brought about
by globalization in recent years have brought increasing appreciation of the
European Journal of Social Work 251
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
post-modern notion that class struggle is no longer relevant to society. According to
Shildrick et al. (2009), Beck (2001 cited in Farting 2010), and Giddens (1991), the post-
modern social class culture is determined by an ‘iron hand’ function only when
constrained by social upheaval and when social risks are individualized. Following this,
Beck (2001 cited in Farting, 2010) and Giddens (1991) suggest that formal political
participation by the youth (voting and political party membership etc.) and cause-
orientated participation (petitions, protests, demonstrations, and social network-based
campaigns etc.) have redefined the nature of political participation among young
people, emphasizing the importance of daily developments and cause-based cam-
paigns. We can say that global current political climates are compatible with this
assumption of post modern theory.
Turkey’s youth
In terms of distinguishing between youth in Turkey and its Western counterparts,
Turkish categories of youth can only be understood with explicit reference to the
desire to be acknowledged as individual entities, together with the idea of ‘my state is
my father’ (Celik, 2008). The top-down model of modernization in Turkey and its
mentality prevents the growth of communities and their young people, who are then
faced with questions of identity. Despite attempts by government to engineer society
in the way it deems fit, there has been a growing fight for existence against the
government in a way that wishes to reinvent government and Statism. In this context
we must be aware of state political power.
IMV-SAM’s research (1995) in Turkey showed that although a majority of young
people in Turkey feel constrained and suffocated, they do not actively seek freedom
and feel immobilized, unable to realize their ambitions, demotivated, and at the
mercy of diktats issued by others. The principle cause of this may be seen as
stemming from the family and conservative institutions such as schools, which
encourage total assimilation of the individual. Three comprehensive studies of the
youth of the 1980s reported striking results: the first was that young people were
apathetic and had low levels of political participation. For example, in 1999 the
publication of Konrad Adenauer VakfI, Youth of Turkey 1998: the Silent Mass
beneath the Magnifying Glass, reported that only 3.7% of young people were
members of political parties, that only 3% were members of cross-party political
organizations or NGOs, only 10% said that they discussed politics amongst friends,
and the majority said that they believed that politicians had no interest in their
problems. In the year 2003, a study of university students (Kepenek, 2003) showed
that the level of political engagement did not differ greatly in universities; for
example, only 14% of students said that they spent their free time working with
NGOs or political parties. Erdogan’s study (2003) titled Turkish Youth and
Participation showed that voting was the widest form of political participation in
Turkey (voting is compulsory in Turkey), that other forms of political engagement
were low, and that however, much people vote, they nonetheless distrust all political
252 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
institutions and have no hope in politics. The study by Erdogan (2003) discussed
three types of political involvement: conventional, unconventional, and postmodern
methods. Conventional politics is defined as an active involvement in a party or the
youth branch of a party, or in a campaign for a party’s election; only 15% of young
people were considered to be involved in conventional politics. Unconventional
politics is defined as campaigning through petitions, boycotts, protests, demonstra-
tions, and participation in events. Petition-writing is a very common campaign
method in Turkey; despite this, only 31.5% of young people were found to campaign
in this way. It was found that 14.3% of young people participate via the Internet or
have defined themselves as NGO members as postmodern participants.
According to Lukuslu (2009, pp. 166�170), since the political events of 1980 there
has been corruption and scandal in the Turkish political arena, and young people
now distrust politicians in this environment, who are perceived as placing personal
gain over public good. Further to this, many people are critical of politicians for their
corrupt and ‘clientalist’ approach to public service. Moreover, Turkey, which as yet is
not a welfare state, and is progressively distancing itself from the principle of the
welfare state, has resulted in young people placing a high value on money,
considering themselves ‘enforced conformists’ and being highly dissatisfied with
the situation. The military coup in 1980, with its oppressive politics, was
accompanied by an attempt to depoliticize the population, and may be represented
as a turning point in Turkey’s political history. Another reason that may mark 1980 as
a turning point for Turkey’s population is the implementation of neo-liberal
economic policies. The period of the 1980s with its characteristic political, economic,
and military policies had a profound effect of the country’s younger population; for
example, even university appointments were affected by neo-liberalist policies.
In a period in which Turkey pursued an outward-orientated economic policy with
high levels of foreign imports and a greater emphasis on international trade, the
Political Sciences Department of the University of Ankara, which gave tuition in
Turkish, began to lose prestige against Universities such as Bogazici, which gave
tuition in English and offered new courses such as Business Management,
International Relations and Economics. From 1980 onwards, young peoples’ dreams
were often to study one of these new courses at an English-speaking university. It was
in this setting that the word ‘Yuppie’ first began to be seen in the Turkish press.
Yuppie, a term derived in the 1990s from ‘Young Urban Professionals’ was
succeeded by the term ‘Tiki’ which was coined by young people. The term ‘Tiki’
denotes one who takes great pride in their appearance, likes to wear branded clothes
and is a passive member*if the not the slave of *big corporations and
consumerism. The word ‘Tiki’ has negative connotations and was coined by young
people who saw themselves as being different from the ‘Tikis’*the ‘anti-tikis.’
Although no one ever considered themselves to be a tiki in the 1980s or 1990s, the
venerated ideal was that of a tiki. In a time in which Turkey was introduced to the
culture of conspicuous consumption, it was inevitable that the youth of this
generation would identify closely with the culture of consumerism. Both the term
European Journal of Social Work 253
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
‘Yuppie’ and the term ‘Tiki’ were gender neutral. In 2004, after ‘Yuppie’ and ‘Tiki,’
new words started to come into use, such as ‘metrosexual.’ However, much of the
adoption of the ‘ideals’ or ‘look’ associated with metrosexuality remains urbanized,
the word itself is like both ‘Tiki’ and ‘Yuppie’ and denotes the changing face of youth
in Turkey. Metrosexual, a term that refers to men who highly value their physical
appearance, like both ‘Yuppie’ and ‘Tiki,’ is an indictment of neo-liberalist
consumerism and the importance of wealth (Lukuslu, 2005, pp. 32�34).
After 1980, terms such as ‘Tiki,’ ‘Yuppie,’ and ‘Metrosexual’ began to be used
largely by young people in Turkey from the middle and upper classes who wished to
denote particular levels of consumerism. This group of people is generally termed the
‘White Turks.’ Terms such as Zonta (hick), Kiro (lout), and Maganda (rowdy),
however, are considered to belong to the ‘Black Turks,’ a group of people who are
poorly-educated immigrants from the country (Lukuslu, 2009, pp. 130). The words
used to denote the ‘Black Turks’ are usually in reference to men; terms referring to
women are unusual, as the use of such terms is culturally inappropriate.
From the 1990s onwards, another key aspect contributing to young peoples’ loss of
ideology was the lack of political integrity and the rise of religious fervor. In all of this
uncertainty, young people were caught between secularism and religion, statism and
liberalism, freedom and authoritarianism, nationalism and universalism, politicism
and apoliticism, which together produced a melting pot of different combinations
and hundreds of different identities. This, too, is brought about by a post-modernist
heterogenic and new youth (Kentel, 2005, pp. 16�17).
Recent research shows that, within this heterogeneous group, there is an increased
tendency toward religiousness among young people. An example of this is that, in a
study made by TESEV in 1998, 89.3% of university students and in 2005, 94%
students said that they believed in Allah. In the same study, 97% of students said that
they also believed in science, suggesting that the students have secularized religious
beliefs (Lukuslu, 2009). A 2001 study by Alemdaroglu (2005, p. 22) indicates that the
economic crisis at that time in Turkey had a negative impact on poverty, leading to a
damaging feeling of public mistrust. During this period of economic uncertainty, a
survey conducted at Kustepe Youth (Istanbul Bilgi University, 2002) concluded that
young people gave importance to materialistic values. The survey also highlighted
that Kustepe’s youth were cautious and, above all, are interested in being healthy,
having a good family environment and a good job. This relates to the young peoples’
concerns about their future health, familial problems, and unemployment. The
unemployment situation between 2002 and 2004 had steadily grown worse and
increased among young people from 19% to 24%.
As a result, social rights are further restricted and capitalism is becoming more
globalized in the new world. According to the 2007 Turkey Census, there were
approximately 12.4 million young people between the ages of 15 and 24, accounting
for 17.6% of the general population. Of those, 30% are of school age and 30% are of
working age. A proportion of these young people have an opportunity to access high-
quality education and others can find high-skilled jobs and employment, while a
254 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
much larger portion is devoid of these opportunities. Moreover, approximately 40%
of young people (5 million) are neither at work nor in school. Within this 40%,
millions of young individuals are in the category of ‘the invisible or less visible youth.’
The number of young women neither in education nor in employment is
approximately 2.2 million; young people with physical disabilities is about 650,000;
young people who have given up searching for work is around 300,000; children and
young offenders, children and young people living on the street account for 22,000
(cited in Cankurtaran Ontas, 2009, p. 10). Under these circumstances, Turkey’s youth
policy should include a strong human rights dimension that is relevant and
contemporary for all young people across the country. The policy must be adaptable
to take into account future needs and problems. Such a youth policy approach should
include the visible and invisible young people who were referred to earlier. To bring
social justice to the lives of young people is a challenge in today’s society. At this
point, it is desirable to investigate the views of Turkey’s young people and their
participation in the economic-political system.
Method
This research was conducted with students from Hacettepe University Department of
Social Work, which, from 1960 until recently, was the only institution of social work
education in Turkey. Social work students were selected as a youth group because part
of their education is to undertake social change and promote social justice and
therefore, by default, their work has a foundation in political participation. At the
same time, social work is a human rights profession and has a function to develop
participatory democracy (Ife, 2008). Therefore, the views of social work students on
political participation are of particular importance.
Over the last two years, new social work departments have been opened in public
universities. The new social work departments have been opened to students
commencing their fourth semester. For that reason, this cohort will not be included
in this study. The research sample was taken from the cohort attending Social Policy
lectures, which had a total of 127 participants. The composition of students is as
follows: 78 students or 61.4% were attending the fourth term; 49 students or 38.6%
were in the sixth term.
Students were questioned about living standards, quality of life, political, and
economic systems, about finding success in the current system, government
and youth policy, and participation in politics. An interview form was provided to
record their views, taking approximately 30 min to complete. Students participated
voluntarily after the lectures were completed.
Findings and discussion
The study data investigated participants’ demographic profiles, living standards related
to income differences in the country and the system they live in, and also their
satisfaction level, socio-political participation, and their thoughts with regard to youth.
European Journal of Social Work 255
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
There is a quota-based application for the attendance examination of Hacettepe
University Department of Social Work, and the gender distribution of students is
equal (women 52%, men 48%). Student placement examination in Turkey is carried
out right after the end of high school and students passing the test can start university
at an early age, between 18 and 19 years, which is the reason for the low average age of
students: 70.9% of participants were aged 19�22 years; 29.1% were aged 23 years and
over. Most of the students were from urban backgrounds (82.7%) and lived with their
friends (70.9%) in Ankara.
In this study, 39.8% of participants said that their income was not sufficient to
meet their needs, while a similar percentage, 40.2% said their income was adequate.
However, when we asked them to compare their incomes to the previous year, 43.3%
of students said their income has decreased and 14.2% said their living standards had
improved. These results can be interpreted as showing that, in 2008, the global crisis
also affected Turkey and impacted on young people. However, more than half
(50.4%) of the students said that they were not satisfied with their living standards.
When we asked how their life would be five years later, more than half (56.7%) of the
students said the future is going to be much better and 27.5% of students said that
the future will be worse. Students in social work have higher employment possibilities
in Turkey, which increases their hope about their future in comparison to other
groups. Despite this, the students whose incomes are adequate, or more than enough
to meet their needs, are more optimistic than the students whose incomes are
inadequate to meet their needs and are more pessimistic in their current situation
(pB0.007). The results show that social class and present financial security is a clear
factor in how participants perceive their future. However, 89% of the students stated
that there is a huge income disparity in Turkey. A study by TUIK (2008), ‘Income
Distribution and Living Standards,’ found that, across Turkey’s total income
distribution, the top 20% of incomes was 8.1 times greater than the bottom 20%.
This also demonstrates that students who are going to be social workers have a clear
vision about their social justice mission. In conclusion, a majority (87.4%) of the
students are not satisfied with the economic system and 84.3% are not happy with
the political system (see Table 1).
According to the students’ views on Turkey’s political and economic system, a high
proportion felt unsatisfied (84.3% and 87.4%); of those, 50.4% were not satisfied with
living standards and 26.8% were not sure. In response to the question of whether they
were satisfied with their lives as a whole, 41.7% of students were not sure.
Table 1 Satisfaction
Satisfied% Unsure% Not satisfied%
How satisfied are you with the economic system in Turkey? 2.4 13.4 84.3How satisfied are you with the political system in Turkey? 2.4 10.4 87.4How satisfied are you with living standards? 22.8 26.8 50.4How satisfied are you with your life as a whole? 36.2 41.7 22
256 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
This uncertainty can be partly explained by students’ aspirations of moving up the
social scale in relation to their enforced conformism. As mentioned previously, when
social work students complete their education, their employability increases; this, in
turn, relates to aspirations of social mobility. However, it was remarkable that the
students were unable to acknowledge the evaporation of the traditional middle class
due to poverty and living a poor standard of life in Turkey. The students highlighted
their dissatisfaction with the degradation of political life and the neo-liberal
economic policies since the 1980s. It is of great interest to analyze these findings
and how young people followed the country’s realities closely, to determine and how
and when they became dissatisfied (see Table 2).
As seen in Table 2, the vast majority of students said that they follow current affairs
(always 40.9% and usually 39.4%). However, the frequency of reading the political
sections of newspapers is lower than following the daily news. The students did not
often take part in political discussion with friends or attend political forums or
meetings. The majority of the students (74.8%) stated that they had not worked in
election campaigns for a candidate party. Responses to the same open-ended
questions indicated that only 1.6% of students participated in forming groups or in
political activities. In comparison, the publication entitled Youth of Turkey 1998: the
Silent Mass beneath the Magnifying Glass (Konrad Adenauer VakfI, 1999), found that
political discussion with friends was 10%; however, the sampled students’ rates were
higher at ‘always’ (24.4%) and ‘usually’ (29.9%). Konrad Adenauer VakfI’s findings
indicated that only 3.7% of young people were members of a political party, and
membership of other political organizations such as unions and clubs was 3%.
The study by Erdogan (2003), defining three perspectives of participation by young
people in Turkey (conventional, non-conventional, and postmodern) found higher
rates of participation than those found in our own. For instance, Erdogan (2003)
found that conventional political participation*involvement in the party’s youth
branch, and/or taking an active role in a political campaign*was 15%. In
comparison, our social work students’ rates were 3.9% (‘always’) and 5.5%
(‘usually’). Attending political forums or meetings as a non-conventional political
participation was observed to be similar, although lower than the level reported by
Erdogan (2003). Erdogan (2003) indicated that the level of non-conventional
political participation among young people was 31.5%; in contrast, the level among
Table 2 Methods of political participation
Always% Usually% Sometimes% Rarely% Never%
Following daily news 40.9 39.4 15.7 3.1 0.8Reading newspapers’ political pages 24.4 29.9 32.3 11.8 1.6Political discussion with friends 12.6 29.1 45.7 11.8 0.8Attending political forums/meetings 6.3 8.7 26.0 36.2 22.8Being a candidate for election campaigns
or taking an active part in a politicalcampaign
3.9 5.5 7.9 7.9 74.8
European Journal of Social Work 257
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
the social work students in the present study was 15% (‘always’ 6.3% and ‘usually’
8.7%). Social work students are highly likely to be employed in public organizations,
following completion of the Public Personal Selective Examination and obtaining
enough graduation points*however, not before passing security and criminal record
checks. It is possible that social work students perceive that participating in any
political activities, even legal ones, may have negative consequences for their future.
Especially after 1980, the security apparatus used by the government applied power
and pressure, and people began to distance themselves from all types of political
activities. The reality is that fear spreads across society. Despite the conclusions of
Beck (2001 cited in Farting, 2010) and Giddens (1991), it can be seen that the
postmodern, cause-oriented form of political participation has not developed to the
same level amongst the students sampled in this study.
The literature highlights that in postmodern times uncertainty is a characteristic
among young people. The present study also examined the views of young people on
the main factors necessary to be successful (see Table 3).
From the results of students sampled, 88.2% (‘always’ 58.3% and ‘usually’ 29.9%)
said that success requires the right or strong connections. A total of 78.7% said skills
and talents were required ‘always’ (40.9%) or ‘usually’ (37.8%), and the same total
said hard work and effort were ‘always’ (47.2%) or ‘usually’ (31.5%) required. Almost
three quarters of students (72.4%: ‘always’ 30.7% and ‘usually’ 41.7%) said social
background is a factor in success.
It can be observed that students believed that, to be successful, and the reason behind
changing their social class, depends on having the right or strong connections,
although, following the corruption and nepotism of the 1980s, it was believed that this
was also a way of social climbing. Therefore, achieving success has taken on a new
meaning as a result of this. Contemporary young people, in assessing their own
behavior, rejected notions of social class in preference for becoming more individua-
lized, using familial and personal recourses, and for changing their social class; this
could be explained by the fact that they regarded having the right connections as being
the most important factor in success (Shildrick et al. 2009). However, students also
emphasized that hard work and effort were important factors in becoming successful.
This also indicates that they still have hope in relation to social justice.
Table 3 Main factors to be successful
Always% Usually% Sometimes% Rarely% Never%
Social background 30.7 41.7 20.5 4.7 2.4Skills and Talents 40.9 37.8 16.5 3.9 0.8Hard work and effort 47.2 31.5 13.4 6.3 1.6Having right or strong connections 58.3 29.9 7.9 1.6 2.4Gender 15.0 20.5 31.5 18.9 14.2Belonging to a specific race and ethnic
background16.5 13.4 33.1 22.0 15.0
Having good luck 23.6 22.8 8.3 18.1 7.1
258 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table 4 indicates the participants’ views on social justice. Participants stated that
the government does not take the views of young people into consideration (71.6%);
they thought they were undervalued, and they distrusted the government (distrust
68.5%). This result is similar to three large-scale studies conducted about young
people after 1980 (Konrad Adenauer VakfI, 1999; Erdogan, 2003; Lukuslu, 2009).
The majority of students thought that in having more intelligence and talent, they
did desire to earn more money (67.7%), and they indicated that they believed in
social justice and change (53.5%). In this analysis it can be said that the students view
social justice in the context of liberal principles.
Table 4 also shows that, whether or not they agree with it, students feel that a free
market economy is important for the development of the economy: 37% of the
students are in agreement, 32.3% disagree, and 30.7% are unsure. This lack of clear
consensus may be explained by the perception that, despite the many advantages of a
liberalized economy, the increasingly globalized economic system is associated with
more serious economic crises.
A total of 92.1% (‘always,’ ‘usually’) of the students in Table 5 stated that youth
policy should take young people’s needs into consideration, while 95.3% (‘always,’
‘usually’) stated that it should take young people’s differences into consideration and
also 90.5% (‘always,’ ‘usually’) highlighted the importance of poverty eradication
policies. However, the students stated that any investment in young people would be
beneficial for the whole society (96%). The students expect some changes in the
political consideration of young peoples’ needs, but without any political participa-
tion of their own, which may indicate that they accept the internalized ‘father
government’ concept.
They also supported the idea that there should be no obligation when using and
distributing social resources provided for young people; and that, in understanding
and exploiting their social opportunities, the government is on the one hand
protective father and on the other hand controller (63.7%). In this sense, young
people in Turkey are politically apathetic, but this should be seen within the context
and perspective of Turkey’s unique history, culture, its own governmental structure
and its community conditions, all of which directly relate to these views.
Table 4 Please tell us whether you agree with the following statements
Always% Usually% Sometimes% Rarely% Never%
The government does not take intoconsideration what people like me think.
36.2 35.4 19.7 3.1 5.5
I believe the government does the rightthings.
1.6 3.1 26.8 37.0 31.5
People who have more intelligence andtalent have no desire to earn money
5.5 6.3 20.5 19.7 48.0
There is no need to mention social justice,because nothing will ever change.
14.2 12.6 19.7 15.7 37.8
A free market is important for thedevelopment of the economy.
15.0 22.0 30.7 14.2 18.1
European Journal of Social Work 259
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Conclusion
One of the findings of this study is that each young generation displays their own
different characteristics, distinct from the previous generation. However, these
different developments correlate to sociocultural and socioeconomic categories. It is
necessary to evaluate the views of young people in Turkey within the context of the
political pressure and restrictions of the ‘father government’ concept, which was
founded especially after 1980, and which has since became stronger. It needs to be
said that young people in Turkey can be categorized as ‘enforced conformist.’
However, one of the important findings of this study was that, despite widespread
dissatisfaction with the economic-politic systems, the participation of young people
in politics was very limited. With regard to the political participation of young people
in Turkey, other studies have also reported that following the news was the highest
form of political participatory activity, and that active involvement in a political party
was not even a consideration. However, even though Giddens (1991) and Beck (2001
cited in Farting 2010) highlighted that cause-oriented political participation will
develop in the future modern time, this is not applicable to the results of this study,
due to the lasting effects of Turkey’s recent political history. Erdogan’s findings (2003)
show that the unconventional participation rate was 31.5%, whilst in our sample the
rate was only 15%. This result was rather unexpected, since political participation is
an integral part of the main principles of social work. A more realistic evaluation of
this result should take careful consideration of the fact that young people who are
planning to work in social welfare organizations have a ‘fear culture’ that is a social
reality.
Table 5 Can you please tell us what you think about the following statements
Always% Usually% Sometimes% Rarely% Never%
There should be no obligation, fees orother conditions to access governmentalsocial resources provided for youngpeople.
55.1 21.3 11.8 4.7 7.1
Any services for young people should bedesigned to meet their needs.
70.1 22.0 3.1 0.8 3.9
The young people of Turkey need tobehave according to the Government’swishes
34.6 29.1 23.6 8.7 3.9
The rights and services given to youngpeople should also include adults
21.3 24.4 38.6 12.6 3.1
Investment in young people is aninvestment in the long-term future.
85.0 11.0 2.4 0.8 0.8
Services provided for young people shouldbe seen as a part of poverty preventionpolicies.
60.6 29.9 7.9 0.8 0.8
Government policies and services foryoung people must take into account thediversity amongst young people.
80.3 15.0 3.1 � 1.6
260 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Another finding of this study is that young people prefer to use personal and
familial resources to succeed. Thus, young people do not take such an important role
in community changes, which is another way of saying that they prefer not to develop
forms of political participation. These results show that there is a need for further in-
depth study into how young people perceive political participation and the various
forms of political involvement.
The sampled students do not see themselves in terms of categories such as Yuppies
or Tikies, like those who grew up after 1980, but perhaps as those who have a social
justice mission, as being educated, as needing to achieve their goals in a different way,
albeit still within conformist categories.
This could be interpreted as suggesting that, on the one hand they fear government
officials and, on the other hand, they would like to have a voice in young peoples’
politics. However, they have not made any effort to make changes, and wait and
remain, politically, as ‘children.’ On this point, it can be said that the government
transforms from the role of the ‘father’ (Celik, 2008) to the role of the spectator.
Previous studies (Bickmore, 2001; Morgan & Streb, 2001; Wade, 2001 cited in
Kepenekci, 2003 and Ozdemir, 2010) suggested that encouraging young people to
participate in politics should occur within their natural environment that promotes
socialization, for example the education system and the family, as these give real life
democratic experiences. This does not mean that democracy has to be formally
taught within the education setting, but means that a mechanism is used that
develops a democratic environment for young people to learn. However, it should
not be forgotten that their family members are from the 1980s, and developed a ‘fear
culture,’ due to government pressure, which has passed to the current generation of
young people. In particular, the young people express that they are not satisfied with
Turkey’s political-economic conditions, which relates to political participation, which
is viewed as a ‘risky’ situation. However, it has been seen that when suitable
conditions have been provided for he young people, they develop effective
organizational strategies and participate in political processes. For instance,
Degirmencioglu (2004) reported that young people participated on a voluntary
basis following the 17 August Marmara and the 12 November Duzce earthquakes.
Finally, in relation to the evaluation that young people are totally apolitical,
consideration needs to be given to the different forms of political involvement. It is
fundamental that young people are recognized as having unique potential according to
their individual culture and social communities within Turkey’s sociocultural system.
References
Alemdaroglu, A. (2005) ‘Bir imkan olarak genclik’, Birikim, vol. 196, pp. 21�30.
Cankurtaran Ontas, O. (2009) ‘Cocuk ve gencler icin sosyal adalet’, Odtululer Bulteni, vol. 185, pp.
10�11.
Celik, K. (2008) ‘‘‘My state is my father’’: youth unemployment experiences under the weak state
welfare provisions of Turkey’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 429�444.
European Journal of Social Work 261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Degirmencioglu, S (2004) ‘Cocuk haklarI acIsIndan 23 Nisan: Bir basIn analizi (2001�2002)’, in
DisiplinlerarasI bakIsla Turkiye’de cocuk (IV. Ulusal Cocuk Kulturu Kongresi), 13�15 October
2008 Ankara, ed. M. Artar. Cocuk Kulturu ArastIrma ve Uygulama Merkezi YayInlarI, pp.
307�314.
Erdogan, E (2003) ‘Turk gencligi ve siyasal katIlIm: 1999�2003’, in Turk Gencligi ve KatIlIm, ed. M.
Artar, Toplumsal Gelisim ve KatIlIm VakfI, ARI-Hareketi, Istanbul.
Farting, R. (2010) ‘Politics of youthhfull antipolitics: representing the ‘‘issue’’ of youth participation
in politics’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 181�195.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern age, Oxford,
Polity.
Harvey, D. (2010) Post modernligin durumu: Kulturel degisimin kokenleri, 5th edn, Istanbul, Metis.
Ife, J. (2008) Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Right-Based Practice, Sidney, Cambridge
University Pres.
IMV- SAM (1995) 1990’larIn Gencligi arastIrmasI, Turkiye’de genclik. Yeni YuzyIl KitaplIgI,
Turkiye’nin SorunlarI Dizisi-2, Izmir.
Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi (2002) Kustepe Genclik ArastIrmasI, Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi, Kent
Monografisi Dizisi, Istanbul.
Kentel, F. (2005) ‘Turkiye’de genc olmak: konformizm ya da siyasetin yeniden insasI’, Birikim, vol.
196, pp. 11�17.
Kepenekci, Y. (2003) ‘Demokratik okul’, Egitim ArastIrmalarI Dergisi, vol. 11, pp. 44�54.
Konrad Adenauer VakfI (1999) Turk gencligi 1998: suskun kitle buyutec altInda, Konrad Adenauer
Vakfı, Istanbul.
Lukuslu, D. (2005) ‘1960’lardan 2000’lere genclik tipleri: maddeci basarIcI, manager tipten yuppi ve
tiki’ye’, Birikim, vol. 196, pp. 30�37.
Lukuslu, D. (2009) Turkiye’de ‘‘Genclik Miti’’: 1980 sonrasI Turkiye gencligi, Istanbul, Iletisim
yayInları.
Odegard, G. & Berglund, F. (2008) ‘Political participation in Late Modernity among Norvegian
youth: an individual choice or a statement of social class? Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 11, no.
6, pp. 593�610.
Ozdemir, C (2010) ‘Youth political participation in South-Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey’, in
SPA Conference meeting, Ankara, 5�7 July 2010.
Shildrick, T., Blackman, S. & MacDonald, R. (2009) ‘Young people, class and place’, Journal of Youth
Studies, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 457�465.
TUIK (2008) ‘Income Distribution and Living Standards’, Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu, Ankara.
262 O. C. Ontas et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
orun
a] a
t 01:
03 2
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
