Introduction
This paper aims to discuss the use of web of institutionalization developed by Caren Levy (1998) in assessing the opportunities for community-led development. We will discuss a particular conflict situation, the construction of the Ilisu Dam on the lower Tigris River, and make general conclusions based on our discussion.
The case of the Ilisu Dam is quite interesting: on the one hand, this project may create at least 10.000 jobs; however, it will force more than fifty thousand people to resettle. Furthermore, it will virtually erase a great number of cultural heritage sites (Johnson et al, 2010, p 3). This situation can be regarded as conflict of interests, and one has to carefully evaluate the motives of each party that can be involved in this conflict.
Such tool as web of institutionalization can be applied to assess the opportunities for sustainability of social justice and policy planning. Furthermore, with its help one can develop strategies for resolving the dispute. These are the key issues that will be scrutinized in this paper.
Web of institutionalization as an assessment tool
In this part of the paper we need to describe the model offered by Caren Levy. The author defines institutionalization as “the process whereby social practices become sufficiently regular and continuous to be described as institutions” (Levy, 1998, p 254).
To some extent, institutionalization can be viewed as provision of guidelines that regulate the relation between people and help to resolve disputes or conflicts (Shaffer, 2004). The web itself constitutes thirteen elements, yet, their exact number depends on the specific situation, as under some circumstances, the elements of the web may be either very weak or even non-existent (Picture 1).
This web represents a chain of factors and processes which are needed for the institutionalization of a social phenomenon, for instance, pressure of political constituencies, political commitment, the structures that represent the rights of certain interest groups, methodologies that help to implement a social policy and so forth (Levy, 1998, p 254).
In its nature, web of institutionalization is a guideline that helps a political party or any other organization to work out an action plan.
Nevertheless, it can also be used as diagnostic tool. In such case, its main objective is to measure the extent of institutionalization. On the whole, the components of the web can be categorized into four spheres of influence which are as follows: Citizen Sphere, Policy Sphere, Organizational Sphere and Delivery Sphere (Johnson et al, 2010, p 13).
We will study the case from the perspective of interests of those people whose living conditions will be endangered by the construction of the Ilisu Dam. Under the current circumstances, the main task is to provide these people with an opportunity to participate in decision-making and help them to better protect their rights.
We will discuss the Ilisu Dam case considering four spheres listed above and then make generalizing conclusions about how the web of institutionalization can be used in analogical projects with respect to each sphere.
Application of the web to a particular situation
Citizen Sphere
If we apply the web of institutionalization, we can say that the citizen sphere will consist of three elements. The first component is the experiences of those people, who will have to find new housing due to the construction of this dam (Johnson et al, 2010).
In other words, the increased public concern will be the most crucial factor that may force the government to re-evaluate the necessity for project or at least to develop alternatives that would better suit the needs of this population.
The second element of citizen sphere is the pressure of political constituencies or forces which influence the government in any possible way. As for the Ilisu Dam case, we can speak primarily about the representatives of Kurdish nationalist movement, because the majority of people, who may need to resettle, are Kurds (Atakuman, 2010, p 119).
The key issue is that as a result of this construction the water will flood many sites that are of historical importance to Kurdish people (Smith, 2006). The power of Kurdish nationalist movement is very strong, in part because the government of Turkey does not want to attract international attention to this ethnic problem of the country (Arat, 2007).
The second player that can impact the outcome of this conflict is UNESCO. If this international organization decides that Hasankeyf centers are the world cultural heritage, the government may put an end to the construction of the Ilisu Dam (Johnson et al, 2010, p 7). Additionally, one should not disregard the role of non-governmental agencies that operate across Europe.
For instance, we can mention ECA (Export Credit Agency) Watch. This is the institution that regulates international export financing. ECA Watch insists that European investors should not take part in this project as it will have disastrous ecological and cultural effects (ECA Watch, n. d.).
Apart from that, the governments of bordering countries such as Syria or Iraq will also oppose to this project because they are very dependent on water supplies and the Ilisu dam will make them even more dependent on Turkey (ECA Watch, n. d. p, 12). Another group of players that will pay attention to this project are human right organizations.
This project may leave many people homeless, and if the government does not offer them an adequate substitute for their houses, the construction of the Ilisu Dam will be a direct violation of human rights. The combined power of these stakeholders is very strong, and Turkish government cannot disregard their opinion.
The third element of the citizen sphere is the representative political structure or the political party or parties that act in the best interest of these people.
Unfortunately, Kurdish people are heavily underrepresented from political standpoint and there is no party in the Turkish parliament that could voice their discontent (Roy, 2005, p 360). As a matter of fact, Turkish laws do not allow forming parties on an ethnic basis. Thus, we can say that this element of the web is very weak.
Thus, the web of institutionalization can help evaluate the effects caused by the Citizen Sphere powers that will act and complement each other if a project is implemented. These powers are the increased public concerns, impact of political forces that are capable to influence the government, and the political structures that represent people’s interests.
Together, these three powers may have significant influence on the outcome of the project implementation, that is why it is important to consider them when developing the action plan.
Policy Sphere
The policy sphere is also comprised of the elements: 1) political commitment or the willingness of politicians to address the needs of this population; 2) policy planning or those legislative acts that support the rights of people whose wellbeing is imperiled by a community-led development project; 3) resources or ways of translating the policy into practice (Levy, 1998, p ).
As regards the Ilisu dam case, the level of political commitment is very low because Turkish government is not very interested in the needs of people, who will be deprived of their houses. They are only concerned with international reaction to this problem, as the construction of the Ilisu dam can be viewed as discrimination against Kurds.
They will also have to take into account the objections raised by Syria and Iraq if these countries do object to this project. Yet, this is most likely an obligation rather than commitment.
The existing Turkish policies also will not help these people to guard themselves against intrusion into their lives. According to the current legislation, a new resettlement law, the government is not required to inform people about the resettlement plan and the options they have.
Furthermore, these families are not permitted to choose the location of their resettlement. Finally, they will be compensated only for their housing; no other losses will be taken into account (Eberlein, 2007, p 8). Overall, Turkish resettlement laws do not meet the standards, established in the EU and in no way they can promote the interests of these people (Wegerish & Warner, 2010).
The population of these areas has virtually no resources that would help them to support their interests. There is no political commitment of the government and no legislation to help them. They can only rely on the assistance of non-governmental organizations, for example, the Nature Association of Turkey and the Initiative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive (Johnson et al, 2010, p 7).
These NGOs will not approve the construction of the Ilisu dam, as it will pose a threat to environment and destroy many historical sites. The only thing that will really help them to uphold their opinion is the willingness of the Turkish government to enter the EU (The Economist, 2010). The thing is that they will certainly want no international scandal to break out in connection with this dam and particularly the rights of Kurdish people.
Thus, the elements included into the Policy Sphere of the web of institutionalization help to evaluate whether policies that relate to a project that is going to be implemented are “consonant” with the community’s interests. It gives opportunity to see the extent to which the community will actually benefit from a project and “how much” will it “cost” to it.
Organizational Sphere
The Organizational Sphere comprises such elements as mainstream location of responsibility and procedures (Levy, 1998).
The first component, mainstream location of responsibility, can be understood as the willingness of the governmental agencies to take responsibility for the well-being of this population. As regards the Ilisu dam case, there are several agencies that will be held answerable for the resettlement of these people: 1) the District Governorate of Hasankeyf and various regional developmental authorities or RDAs (Johnson et al, 2010, p 5).
The key difficulty is that the scope of their responsibilities is very limited and it can be explained by the fact that Turkish resettlement laws do not require the local government to offer adequate compensation to the displaced population (Eberlein, 2007).
As concerns the procedural part of resettlement, we need to point out that very little attention has been given to this aspect. For instance, Turkish State Hydraulic Works did not offer any security to the people, who may be displaced.
In this case, the term security means a sum of money that must be paid for the dispossession (Eberlein, 2007, p 8). More importantly, no information was provided to the affected people about the resettlement plan. It seems that their opinion is of no interest for the local government.
Thus, the components of the Organizational Sphere help understand to what extent the way fulfillment of a project is organized ensures people’s safety and secures their interest.
Delivery Sphere
The elements included to the Delivery Sphere, such as delivery of programs and projects or staff development, reflect how the corresponding fields will meet the needs of the population. Together with the elements of these three Spheres, they give the full picture of what impact the implementation of a project will have on people.
As for the Ilisu dam case, at this point, we cannot speak about the delivery sphere because no resettlement has yet to begin. However, judging from policy sphere and organizational sphere we can argue that the needs of the displaced population will not be met.
The most dangerous thing is that no one will attempt to address their grievances. As a matter of fact, such element of institutionalization web as delivery of programs and projects or staff development are non-existent in this case. This is why it is very difficult to apply this model for this particular situation.
Discussion
The examination of the Ilisu dam case has enabled us to identify those strings which must be pulled in order to prevent the construction of the Ilisu Dam or at least to help those people who will be deprived of their property as a result of this project.
First of all, this country intends to enter the European Union, and the government has to make sure that Turkish laws and governmental agencies meet the standards, established by the European commission (Çarkoğlu & Rubin, 2003). Thus, the Ilisu project can be a great barrier on Turkey’s integration into the European Community.
Another reason why Turkish State Hydraulic Works may be forced to abandon the construction is active participation of human rights agencies, which must show that the Ilisu dam threatens the well-being of a large Kurdish community. In fact, political underrepresentation of Kurds is the key obstacle on Turkey’s way to the EU.
Finally, Turkish government has to take into consideration its relations with other countries such as Syria and Iraq. The construction of the Ilisu dam can sever Turkish partnerships with these states. These are the forces that may help the displaced population to receive adequate compensation for their losses.
Conclusion
Having discussed the Ilisu dam case, we have seen how the web of institutionalization can be used as an assessment and diagnostic tool in relation to project implementation. Thus, it can be successfully applied to different community-led development project to anticipate and avoid violation of people’s interest.
On the whole, web of institutionalization is a very effective tool for evaluating social practices and assessing the behavior of governmental institutions. The findings, collected in this way may help to protect the interests of certain populations.
Nonetheless, one has to bear in mind that it was initially designed for the institutionalization of gender (Levy, 1998). Caren Levy tried to develop a strategy for empowering women in society. In itself, this web is not supposed to resolve conflict situations.
Reference List
Anonymous author. (2010). “A special report on Turkey: anchor weigh”. The Economist. Arat. Z. 2007. Human rights in Turkey. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Atakuman. C. 2010. Value of Heritage in Turkey: History and Politics of Turkey’s World Heritage. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 23.1 (2010) 107-131.
Çarkoğlu. A. & Rubin. B. 2003. Turkey and the European Union: domestic politics, economic integration, and international dynamics. London. Routledge.
Eberlein C. 2007. Evaluation of the Terms of Reference on Resettlement and their implementation for the Ilisu Dam Project in Turkey. Export Credit Agency.
ECA Watch (n.d) “Stop Ilisu”. Export Credit Agency. Johnson C. , Canellakis K. Paquet B. et al. 2010. The Iluse Dam: Negotiating the Future of Hasankeyf and the Tigris River Valley in Southeastern Anatolia. University College London.
Levy C. 1998 Institutionalization of Gender through Participatory Practice. In Gujt I. & Shah. M. ed. The myth of community: gender issues in participatory development. NY: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Kurdish Human Rights Project. 1999. The Ilisu Dam: a human rights disaster in the making : a report on the implications of the Ilisu Hydro-Electric Power Project, Batman Province, Southeast Turkey following a fact-finding mission to the region. Kurdish Human Rights Project.
Oktem K. 2002 When Dams are Built on Shaky Grounds. Erdkunde. pp 310-315
Roy. O. 2005. Turkey today: a European country? NY: Anthem Press.
Smith. H. 2006. “Bathed In controversy” Guardian.
Shaffer. E. 2004. Institutionalization of usability: a step-by-step guide. Addison-Wesley.
Yildiz. K. 2005. The Kurds in Turkey: EU accession and human rights. Pluto Press in association with Kurdish Human Rights Project.
Wegerish K. & Warner J. 2010 Politics of Water: A Survey. London: Taylor & Francis.