Elise Massicard – författare

This edited collection looks at how political parties in Turkey actually work, inside and out. Departing from traditional macro-level analyses, the book offers a new sociological approach to the study of political parties, treating them as non-unitary entities composed of many different groups and individuals who both cooperate and compete with one another.

The central proposition of the book is that parties must be studied as clusters of relationships in specific locales rather than as unitary ‘black boxes.’ This ground-up approach provides new insights into the internal workings of political parties; why parties gain and lose elections and other political resources; and the ways in which power is negotiated and exercised in Turkey and beyond.

Chapters include studies of Islamic and Islamist parties from the 1970s to the present, ethnic Kurdish parties, center- and extreme right parties, and the far left, as well as independent candidates. The authors pay particular attention to relations – and the blurry boundaries-- between parties and civil society groups, religious associations, non-governmental organizations, ethnic and socio-economic groups, and state institutions, and to the variability of external and internal party politics in different geographies such as Adana, Mersin, and Diyarbakir.

This edited collection looks at how political parties in Turkey actually work, inside and out. Departing from traditional macro-level analyses, the book offers a new sociological approach to the study of political parties, treating them as non-unitary entities composed of many different groups and individuals who both cooperate and compete with one another.

The central proposition of the book is that parties must be studied as clusters of relationships in specific locales rather than as unitary ‘black boxes.’ This ground-up approach provides new insights into the internal workings of political parties; why parties gain and lose elections and other political resources; and the ways in which power is negotiated and exercised in Turkey and beyond.

Chapters include studies of Islamic and Islamist parties from the 1970s to the present, ethnic Kurdish parties, center- and extreme right parties, and the far left, as well as independent candidates. The authors pay particular attention to relations – and the blurry boundaries-- between parties and civil society groups, religious associations, non-governmental organizations, ethnic and socio-economic groups, and state institutions, and to the variability of external and internal party politics in different geographies such as Adana, Mersin, and Diyarbakir.

This book examines the development of identity politics amongst the Alevis in Europe and Turkey, which simultaneously provided the movement access to different resources and challenged its unity of action.

While some argue that Aleviness is a religious phenomenon, and others claim it is a cultural or a political trend, this book analyzes the various strategies of claim-making and reconstructions of Aleviness as well as responses to the movement by various Turkish and German actors. Drawing on intensive fieldwork, Elise Massicard suggests that because of activists’ many different definitions of Aleviness, the movement is in this sense an "identity movement without an identity."

This book examines the development of identity politics amongst the Alevis in Europe and Turkey, which simultaneously provided the movement access to different resources and challenged its unity of action.

While some argue that Aleviness is a religious phenomenon, and others claim it is a cultural or a political trend, this book analyzes the various strategies of claim-making and reconstructions of Aleviness as well as responses to the movement by various Turkish and German actors. Drawing on intensive fieldwork, Elise Massicard suggests that because of activists’ many different definitions of Aleviness, the movement is in this sense an "identity movement without an identity."

L’État turc est généralement présenté comme fort. La tradition bureaucratique de l’Empire ottoman se serait perpétuée, voire renforcée, durant la période républicaine. L’État est ainsi perçu comme une entité unifiée et douée de volonté, comme une instance souveraine nettement différenciée de la société et largement imperméable aux demandes sociales. Il est souvent considéré aussi comme l’acteur principal, voire unique, d’un processus de « modernisation » et d’« occidentalisation » volontariste de la société.Partant du constat d’un décalage entre ces manières de concevoir les modes de gouvernement en Turquie, d’une part, et les apports de la socio-histoire du politique et de la sociologie de l’État et de l’action publique, d’autre part, cet ouvrage entend dépasser l’idée d’un État monolithique et autonome. Ainsi se donne-t-il pour objectif d’ouvrir la « boîte noire » de l’État, qu’il analyse comme un système de positions complexe et mouvant. À cette fin, il observe la puissance publique en action et s’intéresse aux multiples acteurs qui interviennent dans l’action publique.Ordonner et transiger : telle est la double face de l’action publique. Elle apparaît comme l’articulation de la légalité et de la légitimité : travail d’homologation, projections d’un ordre sur la distance et la durée, conversion d’une force en droit ou réciproquement, opérations conjointes d’objectivation et de subjectivation. Mais dans le même mouvement se négocient des alliances et des transactions entre domaines privé et public, d’où l’indécision des périmètres d’intervention et les luttes dont la chose publique est la cause.Ce livre est le fruit d’un travail collectif rassemblant historiens, politistes, sociologues, anthropologues et géographes, sur des objets aussi divers que la politique religieuse, les effets socialisateurs du service militaire, l’identification des citoyens ou la production de faux, de la fin de l’Empire ottoman à nos jours. Ils ont cependant en commun de mettre en perspective l’analyse des discours officiels avec les pratiques concrètes de l’action publique, d’éclairer des clivages internes aux institutions et de souligner les chevauchements entre appareil d’État et société.Loin de s’adresser aux seuls spécialistes de l’Empire ottoman et de la Turquie, cet ouvrage a sa place dans le débat intellectuel sur la sociologie de l’État, la socio-histoire des institutions et l’analyse de l’action publique.

Populism is on the rise, and so are academic studies on populism. The study of populism has long focused on the way its spokespersons have behaved as an oppositional force, in Western countries in particular. While discourses and practices of populists exercising a protest function still merit attention, this volume trains the focus on populists in government. The real novelty of the past decade is that many populists are now (or have been) in power, in Europe as well as in other parts of the world, and this book intends to play a pioneering role from a geographical and analytical standpoint. Besides Europe and Latin America, where populism is well established, populists are today—or have been recently—in office in the Middle East (Turkey, Israel), Asia (India, Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), and the United States. In most of the cases, their rule has resulted in forms of authoritarianism, giving birth to a new kind of regime that combines elections—which populistsneed to nurture their legitimacy—and attacks against institutions in charge of checks and balances, including the judiciary. While most of the populist rulers have consolidated their power, democratic resilience has prevailed in some rare cases.