From Democracy to Coup D'Etat

-->

The young Turkish Republic, although it was founded only 87 years ago, faced many problems in its short history and still continues to struggle against most of these problems today… This paper aims to show these problems of Turkish Republic with respect to Metin Toker’s “Demokrasiden Darbeye” (From Democracy to Coup D’Etat) book that contains precious information about the problematic 1950-1960 Democratic Party period. I will begin by giving information about the book and the author and then I will move on to the summary of the book. Thirdly, I am going to make critical analysis of the book.

The book “Demokrasiden Darbeye” was published in 1991 by Bilgi Broadcast Company (Bilgi Yayınları) and was written by famous Turkish journalist and writer Metin Toker. It is the fourth book of Metin Toker’s seven-booked series “Demokrasimizin İsmet Paşalı Yılları” (Our Democracy’s İsmet Pasha Years). The book is in memoirs format and consists of 353 pages. Metin Toker (1924-2002) was with no doubt one of the most respected and reliable journalists of Turkish media that is expert in creating sensational, made-up news. Toker was born in 1924 in İstanbul. He studied literature in İstanbul University and then continued to his education in The Political Science Institute in Paris. After finishing his education in Paris, he returned to Turkey and published Akis magazine, a popular journal which was critical of DP authoritarianism. The magazine was later banned by Democratic Party and Toker was sent to prison for two years. Toker worked in many newspapers (for long years in Milliyet) and tried to enlighten many important political events by using his connections and making back door diplomacy. Metin Toker was married to İsmet İnönü’s daughter and Erdal İnönü’s sister Özden İnönü (Toker) and thus, had chance to get inside information for many events. However, this closeness to İnönü family and Republican People’s Party also created some problems for him as an objective journalist.

Toker’s book basically tells us about the fall of Democratic Party’s legitimacy in the eyes of Turkish people and the coming of 27 May 1960 coup d’état (revolution for some people). The book mostly deals with Democratic Party rule during 1957-1960, an eventful period that took place after the controversial 1957 elections. In the foreword section Metin Toker explains his worries about the interruptions of Turkish democracy with military interventions. In the book, there are many memories of Metin Toker that put light to the conditions of that time. After foreword section, he begins to explain reasons that prepared 1960 intervention step by step. According to Toker, the coup d’état process began to occur on 27 October 1957 after the re-election of Democratic Party in a very controversial election. DP was seemed to lose its popular support before 1957 elections and thus, began to look for other choices then the popular will (milli irade) few months before elections. Having the overwhelming majority in the parliament after 1954 elections, DP easily prevented RPP to make electoral alliances with other opposition parties by changing the electoral law. In addition, during elections many bizarre events took place; many virtual people voted in elections, many votes were disappeared, provincial records of ballots were mysteriously burned in some cities and many violent events occurred after elections especially in Gaziantep. After the day of election, on 28 October 1957, the official radio announced the victory of RPP over DP with 700 votes in Gaziantep. However, on 29 October some votes came from unknown villages and DP achieved to prevail over RPP in Gaziantep. As 29 October is the national celebration day of the republic many people were on the streets of Gaziantep and when they learned this strange and probably tricky victory of DP, they began to revolt. An RPP supporter citizen died in these events and thus, the national celebration of the republic was overshadowed. It was never proven but Toker believes this was related to DP. Toker in first chapters explains the partisan understanding of DP managers and their effort to politicize police and armed forces. The stoning of Independence War hero and RPP leader ex-president of the republic İsmet İnönü in Uşak is another event that he mentions for showing partisan reasoning of Democrats.

Toker claims that although DP and especially Adnan Menderes never wanted to completely abolish secularism principle of Turkish republic, he never avoided using religion for political benefits too. Democrats allowed the opening of “Preacher Schools (İmam Hatip Okulları)” and took the support of different religious brotherhoods especially Nurcu movement leaded by Said-i Nursi at that time. Toker in his book severely criticizes this close relation between the Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and the leader of Nurcu movement that is still a powerful force in Turkish political life, Said-i Nursi. Also, in DP period, the prayer call, which was in Turkish during RPP rule, was made Arabic again. Many new mosques were built and religious education was expanded. The army was already suspicious about DP rule due to DP’s efforts of politicization of army and police. These kinds of religious policies increased the military’s disturbance. In Toker’s idea, the army which is strongly faithful to Atatürk and his principles, had always great respect and sympathy towards İsmet İnönü and RPP whereas it approached with skepticism towards Adnan Menderes and DP. This was also caused by the failure of first multi-party regime experiences during Atatürk’s period (Progressive Republican Party and Free Party failures). Toker continues with the plane crash of Adnan Menderes and its effect on politics. At that time, Adnan Menderes’ plane had an accident and crashed into the airport while taking off from İstanbul for Menderes’ London trip. Although few people died, Adnan Menderes was rescued from the accident. DP members tried to use this miraculous event and declared the event as the order of God and Menderes’ supernatural personality in order to deceive ignorant, uneducated Turkish people living in the countryside. Another memory of Toker is related to people’s religious fanaticism and ignorance. Toker tells us that in one of the public walks of Menderes, a father believing in the supernatural being of Menderes after plane crash survival, wanted to cut and sacrifice his children for Menderes in front of him and was hardly prevented from doing it by Menderes himself. He also provides important information based on his memories about tragicomic disputes of RPP and DP members in the parliament.

Metin Toker also underlines the bravery of some people and some institutions that resisted against the arbitrary rule of DP and Adnan Menderes. According to him, only three institutions completely struggled against DP dictatorship: the youth, RPP and the army. The youth that was raised with the enthusiasm of newly founded republic during 1930’s and 1940’s and with the faithfulness to Kemalist principles, never accepted DP’s arbitrary rule and made many demonstrations in universities, in streets. Although the Village Institutes (Köy Enstitüleri) were closed at that time (contrary to popular belief Village Institutes were closed in RPP rule), we see the suddent rise of leftist movements in the youth during DP rule. This rise of left in Turkey especially in the youth later prepared new political developments during 1960’s and 1970’s. RPP always tried to convince DP officials to make new elections but was not successful in persuading them and preventing our democracy from an interruption. Toker admits that some of the RPP members were also acting with partisan understanding. RPP members chose aggressive opposition style towards DP and did not act tolerantly. They mostly attacked on the restrictive laws of DP upon press, civil society organizations and did not try much for compromise. Toker claims that everybody knew the possibility of a military intervention but DP members were behaving irresponsibly and with stubbornness. İsmet İnönü once said in the parliament “If you persevere on this course, even I will not be able to save you”. The third brave institution that resisted against DP’s oppressive rule in Toker’s idea is the Turkish Army. Toker tells us about “Nine Officers Plot” that happened in December 1957. In this event, an informer close to DP denounced a group of military officers to make plans of a coup d’état against DP government. The event came into knowledge in press and increased the tension between DP and the military. Toker believes that if Menderes and other DP officials were more responsible and logical there would never be a military intervention and Turkish democracy would be able to produce other solutions. Toker also mentions some brave individuals and their deeds against DP dictatorship. Nail Kubalı who was a law professor in Ankara University was criticizing DP’s censorship policies from a law professor’s perspective. However, Menderes was allergic to criticism and tried to get rid of Kubalı. After strong reactions of students and independent voices from the press, Menderes decided to convince Kubalı by entertaining him in his house. However, Kubalı was not a for-sale professor and person unlike many of his contemporaries and thus, continued to criticize undemocratic acts of DP and became a symbol of resistance.

Toker also explains the exaggerated communism fear and rhetoric of DP members and supporters during these years. He tells us many tragicomic stories and explains Democrats’ efforts to take economic help from USA by using communism threat issue. The most interesting story is related to the visit of American Minister of Foreign Affairs John Foster Dulles. Toker explains that in order to convince Dulles in the reality of communist threat in Turkey and to take economic help, Democrats prepared bombings by themselves in the coming day of Dulles and declared these bombings as communist acts. Toker compares this event to 6-7 October 1955 events; violent events that took place after the bombing of Atatürk’s house on Selanik and caused cruel behaviors including murder, rape of fanatic Muslims towards non-Muslim minorities living in Turkey. Toker asserts that many events of that time were prepared by DP officials in order to attract people’s attention to different areas and to take their support. Also, DP prepared lists of “hidden communists” in the country and imprisoned many writers, intellectuals and citizens. Even İsmet Pasha was in the DP’s list of hidden communists in Toker’s idea. This unnecessary allergy of communism of Democrats, directed them to more oppressive policies against press, non-governmental organizations and to people. Another aspect of 1957-1960 period is the appearance of Fatherland Front (Vatan Cephesi). It was a populist movement in order to mobilize the mass population. The system was working very simply. Every evening on the official radio, the list of people joining in Fatherland Front was announced and by this way people were encouraged for joining in Fatherland Front and thus, becoming supporter of DP rule. These kind of acts destroyed social order and peace by dividing people into two groups: DP supporters and RPP supporters. The book continues with memories of Toker related to the political developments of that time and the social problems appeared due to this polarized politics. He also mentions the secret preparation of military for coup d’état and the private life details of Adnan Menderes. The relation between Menderes and İnönü is also revelaled in the book. Toker’s book also contains information about international politics of Menderes period especially in relations between USA and Turkey. The book ends with the memory of İnönü and Metin Toker. Pasha and his son-in-law Toker went for a walk on the 26 May evening and Pasha said to Toker that the military intervention is inevitable and on its way to come, a day before the take-over.

Now, I will try to make a critical analysis of the book and the author. Metin Toker is a really experienced and skilful writer, as we can understand these qualities of him while reading his sentences. Although he really tries to be neutral in reflecting realities of that time in his book, his closeness to İnönü always creates problems of objectivity in my understanding. However, his book is still a fortune for us to understand conditions of 1950’s. His family ties to İnönü, while creating some problems related to his objectivity, also helps Toker in having never-known information about İsmet Pasha and his personality. He generously shares this special in depth knowledge with us and tells us many memories related to İsmet İnönü. He often uses short sentences and prefers clarity to literary richness. The book is very attractive for people interested in politics because it contains very interesting, never heard, tragicomic stories that focus readers’ attention. Toker does not try to hide his personality and his sympathy towards Pasha and RPP in the book, but still points out some mistakes of them. The part that disturbed me most in the book is related to Adnan Menderes’ private life. Although after coup d’état, during trials people learned all details of Menderes’ private life, I find Toker’s interest in this subject as strange and unnecessary. In addition, I think that economic problems during 1950’s were not mentioned enough in Toker’s book. Metin Toker while criticizing severely Menderes period seems to defend the 1960 intervention. However, he does not accept this and claims that although Menderes’ endless stubbornness to stay as Prime Minister by using all means, if there was no military intervention Turkish democracy would still be able to somehow produce solutions to DP’s arbitrary rule within the system. He criticizes the intervention as discrediting politics in the country and encouraging next coup d’états that will happen on 12 March 1971 and 12 September 1980. As a result, I can say that it is really an important book for understanding Democratic Party period and its conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Toker, Metin, 1991, “Demokrasiden Darbeye”, Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi (PRIMARY SOURCE)

- Harris, George S., “The Causes Of The 1960 Revolution In Turkey”

Ozan Örmeci

Carl Schmitt's Concept of Political

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) is a very controversial and important German political scientist and legal philosopher who is known with his masterpieces “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy” and “The Concept of the Political”. Although Schmitt has been criticized severely during his life time for his links to Nazi party in Germany during 1930’s and early 1940’s, he has also always been accepted as an important scholar and his ideas are worth of analysis. In this assignment I am going to analyze Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political book and discuss some key points in his theory.

First of all, before passing to the close reading of the text we can talk about the historical background of Germany at the time when he wrote this work. The Concept of the Political was published in 1932, at a time when Weimar Republic was suffering from the lack legitimacy due to the enormous economic problems, hyperinflation and huge political polarization in the country. Communists, socialists and social democrats were at the one side and nationalists, national socialists were at the other side were opposing to the democratic government and severely decreasing its legitimacy with their opposition propaganda. Schmitt wrote The Concept of the Political in this polarized context and tried to refute democratic principles by defining political as something superior to all other political tools, institutions. Now, let us have a close look on Schmitt’s arguments.

The entire book especially the early parts are written in a way to differentiate political from all other political institutions, units even from the state and to give it an abstract but superior meaning. Even Schmitt’s very choice of the word “political” instead of politics is significant here in my opinion. Schmitt begins article by refuting other definitions of political. In Schmitt’s idea many people erroneously equates state with politics (Schmitt, p. 22). In democratic states, Schmitt argues that society and state penetrate each other and thus, state affairs become social issues in addition to purely social matter that transform into state affairs. We can claim that Schmitt’s idea of the political and the state affairs is much higher than basic social matters. Schmitt asserts that the non-interventionist state of the 19^th century led to the emergence of 20^th century total states. Total states are the ones who are enslaved by the dominance of social matters and do not deal with the real political. But then what is the real political?

Schmitt believes that similar to the good-evil distinction in morality or beautiful-ugly in aesthetics or in profitable-non profitable in economics, the political is based on the dichotomy of friend and enemy (foe). “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy” (Schmitt, p. 26). For Schmitt, political is a matter of life and death, a vicious war between hostile groups, association or dissociation of groups at utmost degree of intensity. In addition, political is the negation of the other side’s presence. “Each participant is in a position to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence” (Schmitt, p. 27). According to Schmitt, political itself is not a subject matter but rather every subject can become political if it is able to group and mobilize people against other people. In other words, for him politics is fighting for or against some groups and the purpose does not matter. So, in political grouping, the enemy can be beautiful, profitable and good but it may not be enough for this group to be identified as enemy. Also, we can claim that political is not obliged to be based on the ideology of classes, but in addition to class cleavages, ethnic, religious, sectarian, linguistic differences even a hobby group can become political if it is able to differentiate its enemies and friends and also, creates an actively participant mass group. The necessity, the primary condition of being political is to create a fighting collectivity of people against a similar collectivity in Schmitt’s own words.[1] For Schmitt, this enmity is something physical that is based on killing each other. He sees all human beings as combatants and war as “the existential negation of the enemy” (Schmitt, p. 33). So, Schmitt claims unlike what Clausewitz said[2], war is the concrete form of the politics itself.

As far as Carl Schmitt is concerned, this formulation is the real definition of the political, and its essence has never changed starting from the barbaric times. He claims that especially in international politics "nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere” (Schmitt, p. 28). For Schmitt, the political is the “most intense and extreme antagonism, and every concrete antagonism becomes that much more political the closer it approaches the most extreme point, that of the friend-enemy grouping” (Schmitt, p. 29). The enmities between Muslims and Christians, Europeans and Turks are examples of international political groupings in Schmitt’s view. Schmitt further argues that all political concepts possess polemical meanings and they cease to exist as a political force when they lose their characteristic of spreading antagonism.

Schmitt is also harshly critical of democracy and liberalism. He thinks that liberalism in fact tries to “transform the enemy from the viewpoint of economics into a competitor and from the intellectual point into a debating adversary” (Schmitt, p. 28). Schmitt, as a necessity of his anti-democratic, anti-liberal tyrannical formulation of the political, blames liberalism and democracy for depoliticization. In his view, in a liberal democratic state all social forces -that do not have the quality of being political- affect state affairs and government decisions thus, weaken the state. In other words, in liberal state, the sovereignty of state is harmed by other actors which are not political. In addition, the equation of party politics with politics “is possible whenever antagonisms among domestic political parties succeed in weakening the all-embracing political unit; the state” (Schmitt, p. 32). For Schmitt, a consolidated democracy is a “completely pacified world” in which there would be no politics. He believes that without friend-foe categorization, without people ready to kill each other there would not be any meaningful political events, groups. He even questions whether “such a world without politics is desirable as an ideal situation” (Schmitt, p. 35). Schmitt ironically gives the example of a pacifist group which may turn into a political unit, if it achieves to start “a war against war” (Schmitt, p. 36). For Schmitt, if an entity claims to be a political actor, it has to be a decisive entity. If it is not, it cannot be a political actor. Schmitt continues to criticize pluralist theory and thinks that in this pluralist model state “simply transforms itself into an association which competes with other associations; it becomes a society among some other societies which exist within or outside the state” (Schmitt, p. 44).

Now, I want to discuss some concepts in Schmitt’s theory. First of all, Schmitt’s conception of political is totally abstract and very pessimistic. This tyrannical formulation orientates Schmitt to construct his pessimist and violent theory. Politics in all ideologies is defined as a mean to find solutions to social problems and exalted by philosophers. Although politics is defined by famous Soviet revolutionary Lenin in a pessimist way as “who could do what do whom”, even Lenin thought that socialist revolution would change the nature of politics. Marx also talked about the enormous problems, inequalities of bourgeois politics in the capitalist system but he also mentioned that that would change in the socialist period. In liberal doctrine too, politics is something positive that is related to and shaped by people. In both liberalism and Marxism, we see that political or politics is related to people and should be shaped according to people’s desires or class positions. However, in Schmitt’s idea, politics is something above people and social groups. Schmitt’s attitude towards political is like defending “art for art” principle. Schmitt considers politics something above people and all other things, which should be dealt by the state. Since the political is a matter of life and death, it should be only dealt on the state level and other social actors should not shape the decision in Schmitt’s idea. Moreover, Schmitt thinks that power struggles and political conflicts can only occur in the form of war. Probably, because of his distrust in democracy due to the failure of Weimar Republic, Schmitt does not believe in the success of democracy. In democracy, we know that in addition to free and contested elections, there are many political and social actors (church, syndicates, other civil societal organizations, ethnic-religious minorities, religious brotherhoods, social classes etc.) that shape the decision-making process without leading necessarily to a war. Although many of these social actors’ interests differ and in the bargaining process conflicts occur between them, democracy does not end up with civil war. Democracy is the regime of consensus as much as conflict. In a consolidated democracy, since people know that they have chance to get what they want through legal means especially if they do not constitute a minority group, no conflicts occur in the form of civil war.. This is also related to the democratic culture and democracy as being “the only game in the town” in developed countries.

Finally, in my opinion, Schmitt’s definition of political is very ambiguous and does not offer us concrete things. Accepting political as something violent would not explain the cooperation between states and harmony between different political actors and social classes in today’s democracies. Schmitt can be said to be a part of realist school but even in realist school material gains determine countries’ and social actors’ aggression. However, Schmitt fails to offer us a valid conceptual ground for people coming together and mobilizing around something. That is why Schmitt’s ideas did not seem very plausible and convincing to me.

Ozan Örmeci

---

[1] “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively according to friend and enemy” (Schmitt, p. 37).

[2] “War is the continuation of politics by other means”.

12 September at 04.00 a.m.

There is no doubt that 12 September 1980 military coup was a very important turning point in Turkish political history. The leaders of the coup not only wanted politicized people to be imprisoned, tortured and killed, but they also transformed Turkish society into a conservative mass who would easily accept neo-liberal market reforms. In a sense, liberalism and so-called democracy was settled in Turkey through a military coup. Mehmet Ali Birand, a very famous Turkish journalist who is known with his excellent political documentary films and as the anchorman of tv channel Kanal D, analyzes the coming and the consequences of 12 September coup in his book “12 Eylül Saat:04.00”. The book was published first in 1984 from Karacan publishing company. This assignment aims to make a summary and a critical analysis of Birand’s book.

Birand begins his book by explaining the two previous military interventions; 27 May and 12 March. In his view, although 27 May, which is known as a coup by colonels, was made against Democrat Party’s dictatorship and brought the liberal 1961 constitution, it was a terrible event for Turkish democracy since it started the tradition of Turkish Armed Forces’ intervention to civil political life. 12 March memorandum was issued against rising socialist student movements and terrorist activities but its unjust attitude towards young people strengthened socialist movements in the country and decreased people’s belief in Western type democracy. Moreover, 12 March limited the freedoms and rights that were guaranteed by the 1961 constitution by establishing a technocratic government with the leadership of Nihat Erim and making constitutional changes. Birand later turns onto explain the political developments after 12 March.

1973 elections saw the rapid rise of RPP with its new leader Bülent Ecevit. However, Ecevit was not able to establish a single party government that is why he made a coalition with Necmettin Erbakan’s Islamist National Salvation Party. The chief of the general staff of this period was Semih Sancar, a democrat-Kemalist soldier who made big effort not to interfere into civil political life (Birand, pg 43). Ecevit’s government was bold enough to make Cyprus Peace Operation in 1974 but this led to the isolation of Turkey from the Western world by heavy embargos (Birand, pg 44). Ecevit also declared a general amnesty which led to the release of many leftist political activists. Due to economic crises, Ecevit later had to resign and called for early elections but Demirel by convincing Türkeş and Erbakan established the first Nationalist Front government in 1975. Nationalist Front government did not try to prevent Nationalist Action Party’s youth branch’s bloody activities and political murders started first in 1975. After Ecevit’s amnesty and National Front government’s lack of control, the political polarization and armed clash in the country increased enormously (Birand, pg 45). At 1977 elections Ecevit and RPP showed again enormous rise but could not establish the government by themselves. At those years, with the retirement of three generals prior to himself, Kenan Evren was made the deputy chief of the Turkish General Staff (Birand, pg 53). Ecevit by taking help from independent deputies and transferring some of Justice Party members established his government finally in 1977 but the government did not have a long life because of shortages and economic problems (Birand, pg 55). On 6 March 1978 Ecevit government allowed Kenan Evren to become the Chief of the General Staff (Birand, pg 60). Now, the all important names of the military (Kenan Evren, Nurettin Ersin, Haydar Saltık, Necdet Üruğ) became people who are skeptic about democracy (Birand, pg 61). Moreover, bloody events were increasing day by day. In addition to many murders, on 19 December 1978 ultra-nationalist and Islamist groups attacked on leftist Alevi citizens and killed 120 of them. The event known as “Maraş Massacre” was showing that the period of democracy was about to be expired (Birand, pg 68). After Maraş Massacre, the government declared Martial Law and people began to wait for a military intervention in order to stop the flowing blood.

According to Birand, the coup could have prevented if Demirel and Ecevit were able to establish a government together and solve their problems through dialogue. However, instead of this Demirel was referring to the murder of Chilean president Salvador Allende by a pro-American coup by General Augusto Pinochet and in a sense inviting soldiers to the scene[1]. The murder of journalist Abdi İpekçi as well as many other murders in a sense prepared a comfortable condition for the military coup. In addition, Ecevit’s anti-American policies directed USA to support a pro-American military coup in the country (Birand, pg 104). The first sign of the coup came on 3 March 1979 when Chief of the General Staff Kenan Evren gave a letter criticizing the politicians to president of the Republic Fahri Korutürk (Birand, pg 60). Turkish Grand National Assembly was not even able to choose a President of the Republic by arriving at a consensus (Birand, pg 183). In an article in US Armed Forces magazine, American political scientists were claiming that the only solution way for Turkey was a military coup (Birand, pg 197).

The operation started on 12 September at 4 a.m. At 4 a.m. Turkish people woke up for the third time with “Alay Marşı” in the last 20 years (Birand, pg 287). TRT announcer Mesut Mertcan was reading the announcement of the military about the military coup. USA immediately supported the coup in Turkey. On 29 September 1980 Time magazine made its cover by using a photo of General Evren with the title “holding Turkey together” (Birand, pg 290). After the coup, National Security Council abolished the parliament, all political parties, syndicated and civil society organizations and elected Evren as the President of the Republic. All legislative and execution powers were concentrated on National Security Council. According to the statistics of Justice Ministry, 650.000 people were imprisoned, 50 people were executed, 30.000 people were thrown out of Turkish citizenship and 2 million people were indexed (Birand, pg 294). National Security Council issued 268 decrees within a year and reestablished the country’s political scene. In a sense a new Turkey was created by 12 September coup.

Birand’s book is very detailed and covers all important issues in 1970-1980 period. Although the writer tries to stay as neutral, his anti-militarist worldview forces him to criticize the military. Birand’s book also lacks emotions since it tells the tortures and sad stories just as ordinary historical events. In my opinion, the book could have been much better if this sentimental side was not neglected. However, Birand seems to be right in his criticism towards military especially after we see that the new Turkey created after 12 September is a pro-American, moderate Islamic country that is away from its founding modern principles. However, Birand does not search for the external and maybe the deep secret causes of escalating violence in the country. Terms like counter-guerilla, deep state, Gladio etc. were often used by many writers when they analyze the pre-12 September period. Moreover, Ecevit’s rapprochement with USSR and his anti-American stance may have caused American and Israeli secret services to provocate a military coup in the country by increasing the dose of polarization. In addition, what and who Birand defends today in his comments in tv and his articles in the journal (free-market economy, TÜSİAD, USA, liberalism etc.) were supporters of this military coup three decades ago and this shows how people could change in years. But still Birand’s book is a must-read book that summarizes very well the close political history of Turkey which is not taught in school.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Birand, Mehmet Ali, “12 Eylül Saat:04:00”, 1984, İstanbul: Karacan Yayınları

---

[1] “Bunların sonu da Allende gibi olacak” (Birand, pg 72).

Ozan Örmeci

A Freedom Passionate: Bülent Ecevit

-->

The young Turkish Republic, which had been established only 87 years ago, faced with many problems in its short history and it still continues to struggle against most of these problems today. Although the political history of Turkish Republic consists of near 90 years, this period has witnessed to two world wars, a cold war that separated the world into two blocs, four military interventions and a terrorist group’s bloody activities. Mustafa Bülent Ecevit, a very important figure of Turkish politics starting from the late 1950’s who died few years ago, had influential roles and parts in this period. That is why; analyzing Ecevit’s life and political career is in fact analyzing Turkish politics. This paper aims to make a detailed summary and a critical analysis of journalist Cüneyt Arcayürek’s book “A Freedom Passionate Bülent Ecevit (Bir Özgürlük Tutkunu Bülent Ecevit)”. In order to do that, I am going to give information about the book and the writer. Secondly, I am going to make a detailed summary of the book. Thirdly, I am going to make a critical analysis of the book.

The book “A Freedom Passionate Bülent Ecevit (Bir Özgürlük Tutkunu Bülent Ecevit)” was published on 2006 by Detay Publishing Company. The writer Cüneyt Arcayürek was born in 1928 and is one of the most famous journalists of Turkey for long years. Arcayürek has been working for decades in Cumhuriyet newspaper and writes articles about daily politics. The writer defends Kemalist-social democratic ideology which surely affects his positive look towards Bülent Ecevit. In addition, Ecevit and Arcayürek had a close friendship passing the limits of politician-journalist distance in the past. That is why Arcayürek has all the knowledge and details about Ecevit’s career but this situation might have overshadowed his objectivity too. The writer has more than 30 books and many journalistic awards. This book is in the memoirs format and consists of 492 pages. There are also interviews with Bülent Ecevit in the book. The book starts to analyze Ecevit’s life and political career from the late 1950’s.

Arcayürek first saw Ecevit in the early 1950’s in the office of Republican People’s Party’s official journal Ulus, when Ecevit was the assistant of RPP deputy Nihat Erim. Ecevit’s father Fahri Ecevit was an ex-RPP deputy and he requested his friend Nihat Erim to employ his son Bülent who does not want to finish the college (Arcayürek, pp. 16-17). Thus, Bülent Ecevit -without finishing his university education- started to work in Ulus newspaper and become closer to RPP circles and progressive writers and journalists. Ecevit in his youth period was a timid man who is interested in literature and poetry more than politics. He was married to Rahşan Aral, a classmate from Robert College at a very young age. 1950’s witnessed Democrat Party’s electoral successes but also increasing despotic policies against RPP and its supporters. Arcayürek was arrested at this period and Ulus journal was closed down. However, Nihat Erim himself established the journal Yeni Ulus and Arcayürek and Ecevit began to work there. Because of his fluent English, Erim and RPP leader İsmet İnönü was taking help from Bülent Ecevit when they have foreign visitors. When İnönü asked his son-in-law Metin Toker to become a deputy candidate from RPP, Toker suggested Ecevit to replace him (Arcayürek, p. 20). So, Ecevit’s first active engagement into politics started with this offer and Ecevit became a RPP deputy on 1957. 1957-1960 period was very troubled because of increasing polarization in the society and DP’s authoritarian policies. University professors, journalists and intellectuals were arrested because of their criticism towards DP government. 27 May 1960 was mostly welcomed in cities because of the hatred towards DP. The new founding assembly made and legislated the liberal 1961 constitution. RPP and Justice Party (follower of DP) established a coalition and Bülent Ecevit became the minister of Social Security on 1961 (Arcayürek, p. 26). According to Arcayürek, Ecevit’s performance as the Social Security Minister was crucial in his career because his reforms and leftist rhetoric became very popular and he started to be known as a labor-friendly populist politician. In addition, in 1965 RPP declared its leftism from the mouth of İsmet İnönü as the “left of the center” policy (Arcayürek, p. 30).

Left of the center policy was identified with the young and charismatic minister of the party. However, at the beginning, the policy became unsuccessful. RPP had defeats against JP on 1965 Parliamentary and 1966 Senate elections (Arcayürek, p. 32). JP was using the execution of Menderes and two DP ministers and was blaming RPP’s left of the center policy as being communist and atheist (Arcayürek, pg.35). At this point, Ecevit was taking the huge support of the press and intelligentsia and that is why İnönü allowed him to become the general secretary of the party. Ecevit by using his powers, now was developing new relations with the university youth, syndicates, civil society organizations etc, was increasing his power and delegate support within the party (Arcayürek, p. 37). His slogans started to become more socialism-oriented[1]. In Ecevit’s view, RPP and Mustafa Kemal were revolutionary and that is why today’s RPP should have also defended revolutionary ideas and a free and equal life for all citizens in a welfare state. He was supporting a land reform project and other socialistic projects by giving examples even from Quran (Arcayürek, p. 40). İnönü day by day became more disturbed of Ecevit’s leftism and tried to control his young secretary general. However, when Turkish Armed Forces published 12 March 1971 memorandum and tried to create a technocratic government, İnönü’s support to military separated his ways with Ecevit. Ecevit was resigned from his post and identified 12 March as a counter movement to RPP’s left of the center policies (Arcayürek, pp. 43-61). In the next congress, Ecevit and left of the centre defenders achieved to defeat the legendary İsmet Pasha and Ecevit became the third president of the RPP after Mustafa Kemal and İsmet İnönü.

At 1973 elections, young RPP showed an increasing performance and took 33,39 % of votes and became the leading party (Arcayürek, p. 69). However, RPP had to make a coalition with another party. Alternatives were few; Justice Party, Nationalist Action Party, National Salvation Party. Ecevit decided to make a coalition with National Salvation Party. This was a turning step in Turkish political history since political Islam began to be influential after this coalition when Erbakan and his followers obtained cadres in different ministries and became more legitimate in the political scene (Arcayürek, p. 70). Although Ecevit seems to be a humble man, according to Arcayürek he was very determinate, ambitious in politics (Arcayürek, p. 81). Ecevit and his young cadre tried to implement bold policies in spite of their coalition partners’ problems. They did not consider USA President Nixon’s objections and allowed Turkish farmers to implant poppies again (Arcayürek, p. 90). When a fascist coup took place in the Cyprus Republic and the junta tried to unite Cyprus with Greece (enosis), Ecevit by using Turkey’s guarantorship rights started the Cyprus Peace Operation (Arcayürek, p. 87). The operation was successful but Turkey was subjected to huge embargos and economic crises started in the country. Because of Erbakan’s hostile attitudes, RPP-NSP coalition did not work and the first National Front government (JP-NAP-NSP) was established. National Front government was not willingly to prevent the fascist attacks on leftist groups and soon, left-right conflict turned to be an armed clash. Ecevit was claiming that RPP could solve country’s problems but they should establish a single part government to work efficiently.

At 1977 elections, RPP and Ecevit showed huge successes and they took 41 % votes and 213 seats in TGNA that consisted of 450 seats (Arcayürek, p. 101). However, RPP was still not able to establish the government. So, the second National Front government was established (Arcayürek, p. 109). However, Ecevit was still determinate and he started to make secret meeting with some JP and Republican Trust Party deputies at Güneş Motel (Arcayürek, p. 117). Finally, Ecevit with the support of some independent deputies, some oppositional JP deputies and RTP deputies established RPP government on 5 January 1978 (Arcayürek, p. 119). Turkish people had hopes and they saw Ecevit as their savior, as a folk hero (Karaoğlan) who could solve economic and social problems. Ecevit’s intentions were good but he was not able to solve economic problems and prevent terrorist activities. In Arcayürek’s view, Ecevit had never thought of becoming closer to USSR but it was a fact that he was challenging the West when they were approaching to Turkey with double-standard mentality (Arcayürek, p. 122). Left-right clash was turning into an Alavite-Sunni division because of the provocations and in Sivas, Çorum and Kahramanmaraş terrible deeds were happening (Arcayürek, p. 123). Everybody began to expect another military coup but Ecevit was still hopeful and he was thinking of a “reparation government” together with JP to solve these problems. However, Süleyman Demirel was strongly against this idea (Arcayürek, p. 130). At those years, Kurdish secessionism was also on the rise after long years and the state institutions were carefully observing this trend (Arcayürek, p. 133). Ecevit’s government did not last long and a new JP government supported by NAP and NSP was established. However, 12 September 1980 military coup was approaching… Bülent Ecevit was arrested after military coup and imprisoned for few years. He continued to defend democracy and made important speeches during the trial and his imprisonment. He became the symbol of democracy. And he was cleared from all accusations at the end (Arcayürek, p. 173).

The rest of the book consists of interviews with Ecevit and more contemporary political developments concerning Ecevit after the 12 September 1980 military coup. Now, I am going to start to make a critical analysis of Arcayürek’s book and Ecevit’s political life in the pre-12 September period. First of all, as I stated before Arcayürek was a close friend of Ecevit and a Kemalist-social democratic journalist which could have prevented him to be completely objective in his writings. However, he seems to be objective at least on concrete events. Secondly, Arcayürek’s book is very beneficial but it is a journalistic book lacking political theory and macro explanations for international relations and economic performance of the country. Since Arcayürek is not a university professor, we should read the book as a journalistic book lacking qualified information and theory. Thirdly, although the book consists of memoirs, few observations were made on Ecevit’s personality and psychological situation. That is why, the book could have written in a better way if a psycho-political dimension was added to Ecevit observations. But still, as far as I am concerned the book is very beneficial for a Political Science student in order to learn more about Turkish political history and the development of social democratic movement in Turkey. All important events were recorded and were told by showing some witnesses and sources. That is why; Arcayürek’s book is an example of successful journalism that we do not see often today since the media only tries to praise the JDP government, not criticize it.

In my opinion, pre-12 September period Ecevit and RPP symbolize a different world where humans had still hopes to defeat capitalism. However, the situation was very changed after the 12 September regime and especially after the collapse of USSR. Today, free-market economics were accepted everywhere in the world and Ecevit’s projects such as “public sector” and “village cities (köykent)” seem romantic rather than realistic. Ecevit’s idealism is not seen in today’s politics since the things are handled in a more realistic and pragmatic way. In today’s world, nobody cares about inequalities and poverty, and university professors as well as politicians focus on identity problems rather than socioeconomic problems. This trend strengthens ethnic nationalisms and identity problems rather than class-based movements. Even if we look at Ecevit’s political life after 12 September, we could claim that he became a much more pragmatic and neo-liberal and got rid of his idealism of the 1970’s. Ecevit could have many mistakes in the past, but for me one thing was certain; we will absolutely miss his kindness and humbleness especially when we look at today’s politicians who act as elected kings and favor their family members and friends openly. Rest in peace Karaoğlan…

---

[1] “Dalga dalga yayılan slogan; “Toprak işleyenin, su kullananın!” oldu” (Arcayürek, p. 39).

Ozan Örmeci