O iF STATE AND B AR ASSOC?AlIONS flS? TURKEY ■ A STi.FDY I?'? INTERES f ^ GROUP POLIT!CS A Di>serlutioii <·;> u'ic 'eyartiiKuj; of Pc>>t)c&i Sciencf Public, xji ir.'n is* rat ion Bilkcnt Univefsity in Partial Fulnilmcnt of ihe Rec'.rirenienis fo" the Degree of Gi-vcfor of Ph.'..«o.r/v>^phy A. Av>·' 0 7 man T H E STATE AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN TURKEY: A STUDY IN INTEREST - GROUP POLITICS A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Political Science and Public Administration of Bilkent University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By A. Aylin Özman June 1995 .. 5<> ■03 i •/995 E ' ^ О .< ô Approved by the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences I certify that I have read this dissertation and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. Prof.^^Ergun Özbudun ^ .^ I certify that I have read t h i ^ disserta£ion and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. Prof. Yahya Zabunoglu I certify that I have read this dissertation and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. Prof. Metin Heper I certify that I have read this dissertation and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a. dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. Prof. Ali Karaosman^JUi I certify that I have read this ^dissertation and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. Assist. Prof. Ümit Cizre Sakallioglu ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Turkish Union of Bar Associations, Burhan Karaçelik, the vice-president of Turkish Union of Bar Associations, and Ahmet tyimaya, the member of Ankara Bar Association for their provision of the necessary data, and Ercüment Damalı, Metin Nomer, and Yahya Zabunoğlu, for sharing their experiences in the profession of attorneyship with me which has contributed me in the formulation of certain ideas, specifically in the Chapter 4 of this thesis. A number of people have commented on parts of this thesis, and Simten Coşar deserves special mention for talking over many of the ideas with me and reading the whole text several times. Orhan Tekelioğlu's comments were useful on the first draft. Also I am grateful to Gülnihal Bozkurt for her specific comments on Chapter 2 of this study. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my supervisor. Metin Heper, whose help and constructive criticisms made this thesis possible. 11 ABSTRACT This study focuses on the state - bar association interface in Turkey. Bar associations are among the oldest professional associations in Turkey, dating back to the late Ottoman era. While conducting an historical analysis concerning the institutionalization of attorneyship as a profession, bar associations are analyzed as interest groups. Throughout the study, the judicio-legal sphere has been taken as the main arena of interface between bar associations and the state. The nature of the Turkish State, its extent of dominance within the judicio-legal sphere, and the institutionalization level of the bar associations have been perceived as the main determinants of the nature of the relationship in question. The study looks at the developments from the Tanzimat (Reform) Period of the late Ottoman period (1839-1876) to the present. It is concluded that the Turkish State has always had a superordinate position vis-a-vis the bar associations. The dominance of the state in the judicio-legal sphere has shaped the identity and goals of the bar associations, too. In their education and practice, attorneys came to be socialized into the norms of the state. This made bar associations impatient with their subordinate position vis-a-vis the state. Their dissatisfaction grew as bar associations were further 111 institutionalized; the conflict between the latter associations and the state became more tense. IV ÖZET Bu araştırmanın konusu Türkiye'de Devlet-Baro ilişkisidir. Türkiye'de, barolar, geçmişleri geç Osmanlı dönemine kadar uzanan en eski meslek kuruluşları içinde yer alırlar. Çalışma çerçevesinde, avukatlığın bir meslek olarak kurumlaşmasını konu alan tarihsel analizin yanısıra, barolar çıkar grubu olarak İncelenmektedir. Çalışmada, yargı-hukuk alanı barolar ile devlet arasındaki ilişkinin odaklaştığı temel alan olarak ele alınmaktadır. Türk Devletinin yapısı, yargı-hukuk alanındaki etkinliğinin boyutu ve baroların kurumsallaşma düzeyleri, üzerinde durulan ilişkinin niteliğini ortaya koyan temel belirleyiciler olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çerçevede, Tanzimat Döneminden (1839-1876) günümüze kadar uzanan süreç içerisindeki gelişmeler ele alınmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, Türk Devletinin barolar karşısında her zaman üstün bir pozisyona sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, devletin yargı-hukuk alanındaki hakimiyeti, baroların kimliğini ve hedeflerini belirlemektedir. Avukatlar gerek aldıkları eğitim, gerekse pratik alanda devletin normları uyarınca sosyalleşmişlerdir. Bunun sonucu olarak, devlet karşısındaki aşağı konumları bir rahatsızlık kaynağı olarak kendini göstermiştir. Söz konusu hoşnutsuzluk baroların kurumsallaşmasına paralel olarak artmış ve devletle olan ilişkilerinin gerginleşmesinde önemli rol oynamıştır. V A NOTE ON ORTHOGRAPY In general Modern Turkish orthography has been used for words that are now an accepted part of the Turkish vocabulary, irrespective of their origin in Arabic, Persian or Ottoman Turkish. Thus for example Shari'a (Arabic) has been written Şeriat, and Şeyhülislam has been used instead of Şhaykh ül-Islam. VI CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................... i i ABSTRACT............................................. İÜ ÖZET................................................. V NOTE ON ORTHOGRAPHY..................................Vİ CONTENTS............................................. vii Chapter One THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................... 1 The Aim and Scope of the S t u d y ........................ 1 A Terminological Clarification ........................ 9 Approaches to Interest Group Politics ................. 12 Pluralist Model................................... 13 Neo-Corporatist Model............................. 18 The Statist View: An Alternative to State- Interest Group Politics ...............................26 A Statist Critique.................................26 "Type of State" as a Determinative Variable...........................................28 "Type of State", Juridical Sphere, and Legal Professionals............................... 37 Chapter Two EVOLUTION OF ATTORNEYSHIP AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE ......................................... 40 The Early Roots of the Profession ..................... 40 From Tradition to Modernity ........................... 49 The Establishment of First Bar Association: Institutionalization of Professional Interests ....... 58 Search For a New Identity............................. 64 Chapter Three THE KEMALİST HERITAGE 72 V I 1 The Kemalist Revolution as a Socio-Cultural and Political Force of Change ........................ 72 The Reform of Law and Judiciary ....................... 79 Legal Professionals and the Kemalist Regime: A Tentative Relationship ................................ 85 Legal Professionals: A Conservative Reaction.......................................... 85 Molding Out the New Profile of the Profession........................................ 90 The Reflections of The Distrust: The Case of the Tribunals of Independence....... 90 Steps Towards Creating "Republican Type" Jurists................................ 93 Kemalist Model of Bar Associations: State Imperative in Effect ..................................100 Initial Steps Within the Process of Reorganization.................................... 100 The Process of Nationalization of Bar Associations................................. 102 The New Restructuration of The Bar Associations: An Institutional Perspective...................................107 Consolidation of the New Model.................... 109 The Quasi-Public Status of the Profession: Public Service-Private Gain.......................................... 112 Control Mechanism of the State............... 117 Chapter Four STATE vs. BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN THE POST- KEMALIST ERA: FROM A UNILATERAL TO A MULTILATERAL RELATIONSHIP ............................. 125 The Democratic Party Rule and the Bar Associations .......................................... 125 The Policies Towards the Judiciary and Its Personnel......................................125 The Rising Role of the Attorneys as Social and Political Actors....................... 132 V lll The Bar Associations in a State of Internal Politization: The Rising Political Conciousness as a Melting Pot ......................... 136 1960 Military Intervention, New Constitution and Legal Professionals ................................140 Bar Associations , State and the New Law on Attorneyship: Continuity or Change? ................... 147 The Establishment of the Turkish Union of Bar Associations: A New Face for the Old Problems........................................... 147 The Social Security Rights