Anayasal devletin ortaya çıkışının sosyo-ekonomik temelleri ve anayasal devlette toplumsal azınlıklar
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2018
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Altınbaş Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Geleneksel toplumlarda insanlar cemaatler halinde yaşamaktaydılar. Sıradan bir fert neredeyse bütün sosyal ilişkilerini bulunduğu cemaat içerisinde gerçekleştiriyordu: Ekonomik, hukuki, dini, ailevi ilişkiler vs. Siyasi ilişkilerine onun yerine bakan kabile liderleri, feodal beyler, ayanlar vs. vardı. Bir ülkenin toprakları içerisindeki cemaatlerin o ülkenin yönetimine siyasi bağımlılığı söz konusuydu belki ama, hukuki ve dini yönden bağımsız oldukları söylenebilirdi. Hatta çoğu kez ekonomik açıdan da kendi kendine yeten kapalı bir sistemleri vardı ve siyasi yönden bağlı oldukları devlete kârlarından sadece vergi vermekle yükümlüydüler. Ne ekip biçtikleri, elde ettikleri kârı nereye harcadıkları kendilerini ilgilendirirdi. Yeter ki düzenli olarak vergilerini versinlerdi. Böyle parçalı bir sosyal yapıda, büyük ölçüde özerkliği haiz cemaatlerin fertleri homojen bir görünüm arz ediyordu. Dolayısıyla bir cemaate mensup bir ferdin, kendini yabancı, azınlık hissetmesi söz konusu değildi. Modern dönemde, eskiden küçük insan gruplarını bir arada tutan geleneksel bağların erimesiyle ulus kavramının ön plana çıktığına şahit oluyoruz. Artık insanlar belli bir kara parçası üzerinde ulus devlet çatısı altında yaşamaktadırlar. Dolayısıyla geleneksel bağların yerine artık “ulus” insanları bir arada tutan tutkal vazifesi görmektedir. Artık merkezî ulus devlet içinde, cemaatler özerk hukuki statülerini kaybetmişlerdir. Yasama organı tektir ve yasama faaliyeti bütün ülke topraklarında geçerli olacak şekilde icra edilmektedir; keza ulus devletin mahkemeleri de tek tiptir, yani meclisin yaptığı yasalarla bağımlıdırlar. Artık cemaatlerin kendine has mahkemeleri yoktur, uyuşmazlıkların çözümü cemaatin kendi içinde hallettiği bir faaliyet değil, ulus devletin organları vasıtasıyla resmiyete kavuşturduğu bir süreçtir. Dolayısıyla burada farklı kültürden, etnik kökenden, dinden insanların ulus devlet yapısı içinde tek bir hukuk sistemine bağlı olarak yaşamak zorunda olduklarını görüyoruz. Eğer hukuku, bir yönden, insanların hak ve özgürlüklerini, yaşam tarzlarını güvence altına alan bir kurum olarak tanımlarsak, bir ulus devlette azınlıkta kalanların yasama organında çoğunluğu oluşturmadıkça ya da meclisteki diğer grupları ikna etmedikçe, kendilerine has özelliklerinin üzerine hukuki bir çatı çatmaları mümkün olmaz. Dolayısıyla burada yasama faaliyeti azınlıkların haklarını ve özgürlüklerini korumak açısından yetersiz kalmaktadır. İşte bu nedenle, ulus devlette çoğunluğa karşı azları korumak, devletin iktidarını sınırlandırmak için, yasama organını kendisine aykırı şekilde kanun yapamayacağı bir anayasa ile bağlama gereği duyulmuştur.
In traditional societies, people live in communities. An ordinary individual was performing in the community where he had almost all social relations such as economic, legal, religious, family relations etc. There were tribal leaders, feudal bears, verses, etc., who look at political relations instead. The congregations in the territories of an country might have said that they were politically addicted to the rule of that country, but they could have said that they were independent of the legal and religious direction. In fact, they often had a self-contained closed system, often economically, and were only obliged to pay taxes on their political profits from the state they were affiliated with. What team members were interested in was that they were paying for the profit they had earned as long as they had paid their taxes regularly. In such a fragmented social structure, the members of the congregations with a large degree of autonomy had a homogeneous appearance. Therefore, it was not possible for a member of a congregation to feel a foreign or minority. In the modern era, we are witnessing that the concept of the nation has come to the forefront of the traditional bonds that formerly held small groups of people together. Now people live on a particular piece of land under the roof of a nation state. Hence, instead of traditional ties, the “nation” now sees the glue holding people together. Now, within the central nation-state, congregations have lost their autonomous legal status. The legislature is regulated and legislative action is carried out on all the territories of the country; also the courts of the nation-state are one-sided, in other words, they are subject to the laws of the parliament. There is no longer the courts of their own, the solution of the disputes is a process that the community has settled through the organs of the nation state, not an activity that the community has taken care of itself. Therefore, we see here that people from different cultures, ethnic origins and ethnicities have to live under a single legal system within the nation-state structure. If law is defined as an institution that secures rights and freedoms of people and lifestyles from one side, it is not possible for legal status to overlie their particular characteristics unless minorities in a nation state constitute a majority in the legislature or convince other groups in the parliament. Hence, legislative action here is insufficient to protect the rights and freedoms of minorities. For this reason, it has been heard that in order to protect the minorities against the majority in the nation state and to limit the power of the state, the legislative organ must be bound by a constitution which parliament can not make law against it.
In traditional societies, people live in communities. An ordinary individual was performing in the community where he had almost all social relations such as economic, legal, religious, family relations etc. There were tribal leaders, feudal bears, verses, etc., who look at political relations instead. The congregations in the territories of an country might have said that they were politically addicted to the rule of that country, but they could have said that they were independent of the legal and religious direction. In fact, they often had a self-contained closed system, often economically, and were only obliged to pay taxes on their political profits from the state they were affiliated with. What team members were interested in was that they were paying for the profit they had earned as long as they had paid their taxes regularly. In such a fragmented social structure, the members of the congregations with a large degree of autonomy had a homogeneous appearance. Therefore, it was not possible for a member of a congregation to feel a foreign or minority. In the modern era, we are witnessing that the concept of the nation has come to the forefront of the traditional bonds that formerly held small groups of people together. Now people live on a particular piece of land under the roof of a nation state. Hence, instead of traditional ties, the “nation” now sees the glue holding people together. Now, within the central nation-state, congregations have lost their autonomous legal status. The legislature is regulated and legislative action is carried out on all the territories of the country; also the courts of the nation-state are one-sided, in other words, they are subject to the laws of the parliament. There is no longer the courts of their own, the solution of the disputes is a process that the community has settled through the organs of the nation state, not an activity that the community has taken care of itself. Therefore, we see here that people from different cultures, ethnic origins and ethnicities have to live under a single legal system within the nation-state structure. If law is defined as an institution that secures rights and freedoms of people and lifestyles from one side, it is not possible for legal status to overlie their particular characteristics unless minorities in a nation state constitute a majority in the legislature or convince other groups in the parliament. Hence, legislative action here is insufficient to protect the rights and freedoms of minorities. For this reason, it has been heard that in order to protect the minorities against the majority in the nation state and to limit the power of the state, the legislative organ must be bound by a constitution which parliament can not make law against it.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Anayasal Devlet, Azınlık, Cemaat, Ulus, Constitutional State, Minority, Community, Nation
Kaynak
AURUM Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
3
Sayı
2
Künye
Mustafa, Ç. A. P. A. (2018). Anayasal devletin ortaya çıkışının sosyo-ekonomik temelleri ve anayasal devlette toplumsal azınlıklar. Aurum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 25-41.
