Political parties' approaches and policy proposals concerning Syrians under temporary protection in Turkey, 2011-2022

As a result of the civil war in Syria, Turkey, due to its geopolitical position, has hosted approximately 4 million Syrians following the mass migration flows that began in 2011, and this process continues today. The intensive migration flow to Turkey has led to changes in many areas, including economic, social, cultural, and political spheres. This study focuses on the issues within the framework of which the phenomenon of migration, which has become an important topic on Turkey's agenda, has been addressed by political parties as decision-making actors. Five political parties represented by parliamentary groups in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey were included in the study: the Justice and Development Party (AK Parti), the Republican People's Party (CHP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the Good Party (İYİ Parti), and the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP). By examining how these political parties have addressed the migration issue, the policies they have implemented to date, and the policies they aim to implement in the future within the context of their projects, the study discusses the consistency and changes in their discourses and policies. In the study, in addition to written documents such as election manifestos, workshop reports, and parliamentary questions, oral sources containing political discourses, including parliamentary group meetings and rally speeches, were examined. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews were conducted with party representatives, provincial organizations, and local governments in order to closely follow their activities. The research method employed in the study is qualitative content analysis, and it aims to examine and interpret the aforementioned oral and written sources. The study observed that political parties have assumed an increasingly active role in migration policies, that they have formulated their policies within two different frameworks, namely repatriation and integration, that these policies have changed during certain periods due to domestic dynamics, and that, in practice, activities have been carried out through local governments. It was also observed that political parties have sought solutions within their own structures; however, they have failed to reach a common ground.