The fact that the active and organized involvement of radical movements in Turkish politics is a recent development renders its investigation difficult. To be meaningful, the terms “Left,” “Right,” and “Islamist” have to relate to specific situations, and against a background of freedom of action. In Turkey, therefore, the main field of study should be the years following the I960 Revolution — the period which is the main concern of this book.
Professor Landau is the author of: Parliaments and Parties in Egypt (New York, Praeger: 1954). Studies in the Arab Theatre and Cinema (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press: 1958). The Israeli Communist Party and the Elections for the Fifth Knesset, 1961 (together with M. M. Czudnowski, Stanford, The Hoover Institution: 1965). Arabische Literaturgeschichte (together with H. A. R. Gibb, Zurich, Artemis Verlag: 1968). Jews in Nineteenth-Century Egypt (New York, New York University Press: 1969). The Arabs in Israel: A Political Study (London, Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs: 1970). The Hejaz Railway and the Muslim Pilgrimage: A Case of Ottoman Political Propaganda (Detroit, Wayne State University Press: 1971). Middle Eastern Themes: Papers in History and Politics (London, Frank Cass: 1973). He has edited: Israel (Nürnberg, Glock und Lutz Verlag: 1970) and Man, State and Society in the Contemporary Middle East (New York, Praeger: 1972)
Table of Contents
Preface / IX List of Abbreviations / XII
1. Introductory: Turkey in the 1960’s / 1 a. The background / .1 b. The 1960 military intervention and the 1961 Constitution / 6 c. Political parties in the 1960’s / 14 d. Some radical trends in the literature of the 1960’s / 21 e. Turkish youth and radical activities / 29 f. The 1971 military intervention and its aftermath / 44
2. The Turkish Marxist as Journalist / 49 a. Radicalization of the Turkish press / 49 b. Yon / 50 c. Ant / 64 d. Other radical journals / 74 e. Avcioglu and Devrim / 79
3. The Organized Left: From Trade Unionism Communism / 88 a. Trade unionism / 88 b. The Turkish Communist Party / 95 c. Other leftist parties and groups / 113
4. Lawful Marxism: The Labor Party of Turkey / 122 a. History and organization / 122 b. Ideology / 127 c. Aybar, Aren, Boran, and Altan / 147
5. The Growing Involvement of Islamic and Pan-Turk Groups / 171 a. Islam and politics / 171 b. Pan-Turk trends / 193
6. The Political Response of the Right: Turkey Uber Alles / 205 a. History and organization / 205 b. Ideology / 217 c. Periodicals supporting the party / 232
7. Turkish Elections: Left Versus Right / 243 a. The parties and the elections / 243 b. The 1965 elections / 247 c. Senate elections, 1966-1968 / 264 d. The 1969 elections / 276
8. In Conclusion / 287 Selected Bibliography / 292 a. Works in Turkish / 292 b. Works in other languages / 296
Index / 305
PREFACE
Turkey is European in orientation, but has one of the lowest per-capita incomes and probably the highest rate of illiteracy in the Continent. These disadvantages are, to a great extent, offset by the determination of its leadership to modernize its economy and political culture. Turkey is indeed a fascinating country for the student of politics, no less than for the tourist. In recent years political analysts, both Turkish and others, have published an impressive body of research on modern Turkey. Its emphasis, however, appears to have been on the larger political formations. On the Turkish political scene other aspects of domestic policies have been rather less thoroughly investigated. One of these is the current radicalization of politics, that is the tendency to adopt extreme ideological attitudes.
There are perhaps two main reasons for this neglect: a. In relation to the total Turkish population of over thirty millions in the 1960’s, the number who actively participated in radical politics was small. However, like the drop of dye that suffuses the wool, it was they who colored the political life of the decade.1
b. The very newness of active and organized radical involvement in Turkish politics renders its investigation difficult. In order to be truly meaningful, “left” and “right” have to relate to a situation where they can be defined as such in the context of freedom of action. In Turkey, therefore, they should be studied chiefly in the years following the 1960 Revolution—a period which is the main concern of this book.
In the following pages, the terms “left” and “right” will be used frequently. The fact that the Turks themselves employ them regularly in their press and political literature, as sol and sag, respectively, does not mean that they are exact equivalents of those terms when used in Europe or the United States. Such terms mean different things to different men and, as noted by Professor Lipset2 and others, their use varies from country to country (and from time to time inside countries, for that matter).
To approach Turkish politics in such terms would be an obvious oversimplification. Leftist and rightist parties in Turkey have their own, local characteristics; a fact which is of even greater significance, since this study is concerned with radical organizations. While the center parties in Turkey tend to be conservative, both the extreme left and the extreme right are committed to change, although their messages are distinct. The journalist Nadir Nadi, in a leading article, in the Istanbul daily Cumhuriyet,3 expressed this as follows, “Where does the extreme right start? — Beyond Ataturk’s reforms. Where does the extreme left start ? — Where totalitarian trends begin.” Actually, the situation is more complex. As Professor Weber has pointed out,4 left has ceased to be synonymous with progressive, right with reactionary (and, then, what precisely is “progressive” and “reactionary”). Indeed, both radical extremes, and some other groups in-between, address their socio-political credo to much the same strata, usually the masses, the basic difference being one of approach and emphasis, that is, tactical rather than strategic. This would seem to apply to the politics of many states, Turkey included.
Since to the best of my knowledge this is the first attempt to discuss the radical left and right in Turkey in book form, it is evidently far from complete. I have scarcely touched on external ideological influences — a topic that deserves full treatment in a tome of its own. Instead I have concentrated on the domestic ideological propaganda of radical groups and on the political activity of organized parties. Although this is necessarily a profile, rather than a full-scale portrait, it is hoped that the materials brought together and the conclusions reached will interest those concerned with the nature of politics in Turkey.
The following study is based on extensive reading of the available Turkish press and political literature of the 1960’s, as well as on election results and other statistical data. These sources are so vast that I have preferred to remain within the context of domestic politics, touching only briefly on the economic and social situation in Turkey, and only incidentally on its foreign relations. Nor have I been able to conduct quantitative research by systematic interviewing during my visits to Turkey. Conducting empirical surveys in Turkey is not impossible, but the difficulties involved are so great,5 that in the context of the present study their usefulness was open to doubt. I have, however, attempted to verify some disputed facts and several of my premises and conclusions with political scientists in Turkey, to whom I offer my thanks for their unstinting advice.
The book is published with the help of a grant from the late Miss Isobel Thornley’s Bequest to the University of London. I am grateful, for this and, also, for research grants, to the Central Research Fund and the Eliezer Kaplan School of Economics and Social Sciences, both at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the Ford Foundation, whose grant was received through the Israel Foundations Trustees, Tel-Aviv; the Mashav Devorah Company, Tel-Aviv; and the Mif’al Hapayis, Tel-Aviv, and its President, Mr. Isaac Oren. My assistants, Y. Zıngıl and A. Fattal, were particularly helpful. The views expressed in the following pages do not necessarily reflect those of the above institutions and persons. I accept responsibility for any errors of fact or judgment that remain.
1 To give one instance: the term devrimci, which formerly meant “reformist,” acquired, through radical usage, the connotation of “revolutionary” — which is its almost-general meaning today. 2 S. M. Lipset, Political man: the social bases of politics (New York: 1963), ch. 5. 3 Feb. 7, 1965, reprinted in Nadi’s 27 mayis'tan 12 mart’a (Istanbul: 1971), p. 200. 4 Eugen Weber, in his introduction to Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber (eds.), The European right: a historical profile (Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1966), pp. 1 ff. 5 L. L. Roos and N. P. Roos, “Secondary analysis in the developing areas,” The Public Opinion Quarterly (Princeton, N. J.), XXXI: Summer 1967, pp. 272-278. E.
J. Cohn, “The climate for research in the social sciences in Turkey,” The Middle East Journal (further: MEJ) (Washington, D.C.), XXII (2): Spring 1968, pp. 203-212. Nevertheless L. L. Roos and N. P. Roos did administer questionnaires, in 1956 and 1965, and published the results in their Managers of modernization: organizations and elites in Turkey (1950-1969) (Cambridge, Mass: 1971).
Chapter one
Introductory: Turkey In The 1960’s
a. The background
This introduction will examine briefly the conditions under which Turkish domestic politics1 developed in the 1960’s. The period chosen is conveniently defined by the military interventions of May 1960 and March 1971, when the armed forces for a time virtually controlled Turkey (although not in an identical manner, as we shall see). For the political analyst, one of the most interesting developments in this period of almost eleven years is the growth of radical groups and their increasing involvement in domestic politics. Some Turks too must have considered political radicalism important, for the military intervention of March 1971 was to no small extent directed against extreme radical groups.
Perhaps the most momentous decision affecting Turkish domestic politics in the post-Ataturk period was the move of the People’s Party, later renamed the Republican People’s Party (further: RPP), in 1945, to change Turkey’s single-party system into a multiparty one — with free elections.2 New parties were set up and each began to assiduously court the voting masses, who were, and are, primarily the villagers. Each established local branches in all large communities and in many of the small ones, including most of the villages. In this manner, new vistas towards political modernization were opened.3 This does not mean that apolitical peasants4 changed overnight and became politically alert.
.....
1 My work will not touch on Turkey’s foreign relations, which have been extensively dealt with by others. For recent studies, see F.-W. Fernau, “La Turquie, l’alliance atlantique et la detente,” Orient (Paris), 47-48 : 2e semestre 1968, pp. 73-89; and E. Weisband, Turkish foreign policy 1943-1945 (Princeton, N. J.: 1973).
2 On which move the best work is still K. H. Karpat, Turkey's politics', the transition to a multi-party system (Princeton, N. J.: 1959). Cf id., “Political developments in Turkey, 1950-70,” Middle Eastern Studies (London), VIII (3): Oct.1972, pp. 349-375. See also “Tiirkei,” in: Dolf Sternberger and Bernhard Vogel (eds.), Die Wahl der Parlamente, vol. I (Berlin: 1969), pp. 1331-1363.
3 As observed on the spot by J. S. Szyliowicz, Political change in rural Turkey'. Erdemli (The Hague and Paris: 1966), pp. 156, 175, 199.
4 That is, apolitical with regard to state problems. On the villagers, in addition to Szyliowicz’s book, see Paul Stirling, Turkish village (London: 1965). U. S. Agency for International Development, Yassihdyiik: a village study (Ankara: 1965). JOe E. Pierce, Life in a Turkish village (N. Y.: 1967). Ibrahim Yasa, Hasanoglan (Ankara: 1957). Id., Yirmibes ytl sonra Hasanoglan kdyü (Ankara: 1969).
Jacob M. Landau
Radical Politics in Modern Turkey
Brill
E. J. Brill Radical Politics in Modern Turkey Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East Etudes Sociales, Economiques et Politiques du Moyen Orient Volume XIV Jacob M. Landau
Radical Politics in Modern Turkey
Leiden E. J. Brill 1974
Commité de redaction — Editorial Committee F. Barth (Etnografisk Museum, Oslo), E. Gellner (London School of Economics), C. Issawi (Columbia University), S. Khalaf (American University of Beirut), M. F. al-Khatib (Cairo University), P. Marthelot (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris), S. H. Nasr (Arya-Mehr University of Technology, Tehran), M. Soysal (Ankara University), M. Zghal (Universite de Tunis).
Redacteur — Editor
C. A. O. van Nieuwenhuijze
Le but de la collection est de faciliter la communication entre le grand public international et les spécialistes des sciences sociales étudiant le Moyen-Orient, et notamment ceux qui y résident. Les ouvrages sélectionnes porteront sur les phénomènes et problèmes contemporains: sociaux, culturels, économiques et administratifs. Leurs principaux orientations relèveront de la théorie générale, de problématiques plus précises, et de la politologie: aménagement des institutions et administration des affaires publiques.
The series is designed to serve as a link between the international reading public and social scientists studying the contemporary Middle East, notably those living in the area. Works to be included will be characterized by their relevance to actual phenomena and problems: whether social, cultural, economic, political or administrative. They will be theory-oriented or policy-oriented.
Copyright 1974 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photo print, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without, written permission from the publisher
