THE PECULIARITIES OF TURKISH REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY IN THE 1930s: THE ÜLKÜ VERSION OF KEMALISM, 1933-1936 A PhD Dissertation by ERTAN AYDIN In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION in THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BILKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA, TURKEY September, 2003 I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope an in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. ----------------------------------------------- Associate Prof. Dr. Ümit Cizre (Supervisor) I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope an in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. ----------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Ahmet Davutoğlu (Examining Committee Member) I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope an in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. ----------------------------------------------- Assistant Prof. Dr. Nur Bilge-Criss (Examining Committee Member) I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope an in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. ----------------------------------------------- Assist. Prof. Dr. Ömer Faruk Gençkaya (Examining Committee Member) I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope an in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and Public Administration. ----------------------------------------------- Dr. Aylin Güney (Examining Committee Member) Approval of the Institute of Economics and Sciences ----------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Kürşat Aydoğan (Director) ABSTRACT THE PECULIARITIES OF THE TURKISH REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY IN THE 1930s: THE ÜLKÜ VERSION OF KEMALISM, 1933-1936 AYDIN, ERTAN P.D. Department of Political Science and Public Administration Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ümit Cizre September, 2003 This dissertation analyzes a specific version of Turkish revolutionary ideology in the 1930s, the Ülkü version of Kemalism by means of textual interpretation of Ülkü, the official journal of the People’s Houses, between February 1933 and August 1936. The Ülkü journal was published by a particular faction of the Kemalists, the Ülkü group, who competed with “conservative modernist” Kemalism and Kadrocu Kemalism for political and intellectual supremacy within the regime. Ülkü elite’s solidarist, radical secularist, and anti-liberal alternatives to the state power enabled them to present a more appealing version of Kemalism for the context of the 1930s, which was the most authoritarian and radical phase of the Turkish Republic. This study employs new methodological perspective for understanding the nature of Kemalist ideology, which would provide a key to understand the temporal and flexible nature of Kemalism. In fact, this is part and parcel of a general approach to revolutions that highlights “politics,” “political language,” and “symbolic politics” as the basic unit of analysis. When the Turkish ruling elite encountered an ideological crisis owing to the world economic depression and the failed Free Party experience, prominent figures of Ülkü attempted to form the content of the revolutionary ideology by way of employing solidarist ideological assumptions. Solidarism became an important means to establish secular, rational and social foundations of ethics as a substitute for religion, which was said to prepare the Turkish society to meet requirements of “democracy”. The solidarist line of argumentation not only created tension between democracy and secularism but also provided justification for postponing democracy to an uncertain stage of time when the democratic eligibility of the people would be proven by the “true” representatives of the national will (milli irade). Ülkü’s solidarism gave way to an understanding of democracy that was truly embedded, if not confined to, in the restrictions of a peculiar consideration of morality which the Ülkü elite called “revolutionary ethics” (inkõlap ahlakiyatõ) or “secular morality” (laik ahlak). Keywords: Ülkü, solidarism, secularism, secular morality, democracy, Turkish revolution, revolutionary ideology -iii- ÖZET TÜRK DEVRİM İDEOLOJİSİNİN 1930’LU YILLARDAKİ ÖZELLİKLERİ: KEMALİZM’İN ÜLKÜ VERSİYONU, 1933-1936 AYDIN, ERTAN Doktora, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Ümit Cizre Eylül, 2003 Bu tez Türk devrim ideolojisinin 1930lu yõllarda ortaya çõkan türlerinden birini, Kemalizm’in Ülkü versiyonunu, Halkevleri resmi yayõn organõ olan Ülkü dergisinin Şubat 1933 ile Ağustos 1936 yõllarõ arasõndaki sayõlarõnõ incelemek suretiyle çözümlemektedir. Ülkü dergisi, temel olarak, Kemalist elit içerisinde bu tezin Ülkü grubu diye tanõmladõğõ muayyen bir ekip tarafõndan çõkarõlmõştõr. Ülkü grubu başlõca rakipleri “muhafazakar modernist” ve Kadrocu Kemalist gruplarla rejim içerisinde siyasal ve entelektüel hâkimiyeti ele geçirmek hususunda bir mücadele içerisinde olmuşlardõr. Ülkü eliti’nin solidarist, radikal laik ve anti-liberal yaklaşõmlarõ Cumhuriyet tarihinin en otoriter ve radikal dönemi olan 1930lar bağlamõnda Kemalizm’in en cazip versiyonu olarak kabul görmüştür. Bu çalõşma Kemalist ideolojinin zamana bağlõ esnek ve değişken tabiatõnõ çözümlemeye yardõmcõ olacak yeni bir metodolojik bakõş açõsõ getirmektedir. Esasõnda, bu bakõş açõsõ devrimleri anlamada genel bir yaklaşõm sunan ve “siyaset”, “siyaset dili” ve “sembolik siyaset”i bir çözümleme birimi olarak öne çõkaran metodolojinin bir parçasõ olarak geliştirilmiştir. Türkiye devlet seçkini, dünya ekonomi krizi ve Serbest Fõrka hadisesi tecrübesini müteakiben ciddi bir ideolojik kriz ile karşõ karşõya kaldõklarõnda, Ülkü eliti Fransõz solidarizmini bir ideolojik alternatif olarak sunmuşlardõr. Solidarizm dini ahlakõn yerini alacak laik, rasyonel ve toplumsal temellere sahip bir ahlak anlayõşõnõ yerleştirmenin bir aracõ olarak yorumlanmakla beraber Türk toplumunu “demokrasi”nin ihtiyaçlarõna cevap verecek bir düzeye hazõrlayacak yeni bir siyasal gramer olarak algõlanmõştõr. Dahasõ, solidarizm laiklik ile demokrasi arasõndaki gerilimin giderilme aracõ olarak sunulmuştur. Bu teze göre, solidarizm, bu gerilimin aşõlmasõnõn aracõ olmaktan çok demokrasinin halkõn demokratik yetkinliklerinin kazandõğõna dair milli iradenin “hakiki” temsilcilerinin onay verecekleri belirsiz bir vakte kadar ertelenmesini haklõlaştõran ideolojik bir gerekçe sunmasõ.açõsõndan önemlidir. Ülkü’nün solidarizmi demokrasiyi belirli bir laik ahlak telakkisine koşullu olarak formüle ederek bu ahlak anlayõşõnõ demokrasinin olmazsa olmaz bir unsuru olarak benimsemiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Ülkü, solidarizm, laiklik, laik ahlak, demokrasi, Türk devrimi, Kemalizm -iv- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several people have made significant contributions to the completion of this dissertation. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Ümit Cizre, whose detailed comments and corrections occasioned much substantive enrichment and innumerable stylistic improvements. At Harvard University, Prof. Cemal Kafadar offered valuable suggestions and encouragement at several stages of this study. I will never forget my Harvard days, and the wonderful scholars, whose academic contributions and supports were of great value: Prof. Hakan Kõrõmlõ, Prof. Feroz Ahmad, Himmet Taşkömür, Hikmet Yaman, Ali Yaycõoğlu, Cengiz Şişman, Rahim Acar, Hüseyin Yõlmaz, Muhammed Ali Yõldõrõm and Prof. Nur Yalman. Furthermore, I am especially indebted to Prof. Cemil Aydõn, of the Ohio State University, for his incalculable generosity and his academic, moral and material support. I am also grateful to Prof. Juliane Hammer, of Elon University, for providing worthwhile academic and logistic assistance. Research for this study was partly supported by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University and the Leslie Humanities Institute, Dartmouth Collage, which provided a splendid gift of time and the ideal setting for academic study. I would like to thank to Prof. Kevin Reinhart and Prof. Dennis Washburn, of Dartmouth College, for their useful suggestions for my study. I would also like to thank Prof. Şerif Mardin, Prof. Gauri Viswanathan, Prof. Peter van der Veer, Prof. Marc Baer, Prof. Jim Dorsey, Prof. Barbara Reeves-Ellington and Prof. Selim Deringil for their kind suggestions and refinements. In my country, I am happy for the opportunity to express my gratitude to the many persons who proffered encouragement and assistance: Prof. İbrahim Dalmõş, Prof Halil İnalcõk, Prof. Bülent Arõ, Prof. Yusuf Ziya Özcan, Murat Öztürk, Ebru Çoban, Prof. Tanel Demirel, Prof. Cemalettin Taşkõran, Prof. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Prof. Mehmet Yõlmaz, Prof. Yõlmaz Çolak, Prof. Alim Yõlmaz, Aziz Tuncer, Refik Yaslõkaya, Prof. Metin Toprak, Prof. Özer Sencar, Ömer Lekesiz, Prof. İsmail Coşkun, Prof. Nur Bilge Criss, and Murat Çemrek. Finally I want to thank my wife, Fatma Nur, and my daughters, Merve Rana and Zeynep Eda, for their great patience and enormous moral support. -v- TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iii OZ .........................................................................................................................