^-'■Г Г Dilemmas of the Turkish Left a Master's Thesis by Ben Ball Bilkent University June 1999 J D (Èoî) a I to My S Ister, L Iz
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
V-i ^-'■Г Г Dilemmas of the Turkish Left A Master's Thesis By Ben Ball BiLKENT University June 1999 J d (èOÎ) A i To My S ister, L iz Who knows that the Brigham Young Copper Mine in Utah IS THE LARGEST OPEN-PIT COPPER MINE IN THE WORLD I certify that I have read this thesis, and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Pohtical Science and Public- Admin istratic Prof. Dr. Ergun Ozbudurn (Supervisor) I certify that I have read this thesis, and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science and Public Administration. Prof. Dr. Metin Hepdr I certify that I have read this thesis, and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Pohtical Science and Public Administration. Prof. Dr. Norman Stone Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences Abstract “Sol” Searching: Dilemmas of the Turkish Left Ball, Ben M.A., Department of Pohtical Science and Public Administration Supervisor: Ergun Ozbudun June 1999 This thesis examines the Turkish left throughout the republican period (1923- 1999), with a specific focus on the period after 1965. The goal of the study is to examine why the left in Turkey has not obtained electoral success. The ultimate conclusion is that this is due not only to external factors (the right wing, foreign pressures, the Turkish electorate), but also to internal factors within the left wing itself, such as electoral strategy and ideological constraints. The study also examines the progress of extra-parliamentary groups such as militants, labor unions, and the media in an attempt to paint a more holistic picture of the many incarnations of the left in Turkey. Keywords: Turkish Left, Militants, Electoral Politics 111 özet Bir “Sol” Arayış: Türkiye’de Solun Açmazları Ben Balı Masters, Siyasal Bölümü Tez Yönetici: Ergim Özbudun Haziran 1999 Bu tez özellikle 1965 sonrası döneme değinerek Cumhuriyet Dönemi boyunca (1923-1999) Türk solunun gelişmimini inceliyor. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye'de solun neden seçimlerde başarılı olmadığını incelemektedir. Sonuç olarak, bunun sadece dış faktörlere (sağ partiler, dış ilişkiler, Türkiye'nin seçmenler) de bağlı olduğudur. Çalışma ayrıca Türkiye'deki solun çeşitli görünümlerini bütüncül bir resim oluşturma çabası ile, militanlar, sendikalar, ve basın gibi Parlamento dışı grupların gelişimini incelemektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Türk Solu, Militanlar IV Acknowledgments T hank Y ou To THE Commission for Educational E xchange Between the United S ta te s and T urkey (the F ulbright Commission) for granting me the funding to come to T urkey and the freedom to carry out my p r o ject. T hank Y ou To Professors Banu Helvacioglu, Ergun Özbudun, Norman S tone, and F uat Keyman, for reading previous drafts of this study T hank You To MY FRIENDS IN THE BiLKENT POLITICAL SCIENCE MASTER'S PROGRAM, FOR ALL OF THEIR SUPPORT AND HELP WITH SOME OF THE DETAILS, ESPECIALLY ON THE RADICAL GROUPS T hank Y ou T o MY FAMILY T hank Y ou To Nigel Boyle and Barbara "Boo” Wit t , for inspiring me to come to T urkey Table OF Contents Preliminaries l-VIII L ist of Charts and T ables VII L ist of Abbreviations VIII Chapter One T heoretical Foundations for a Study of the L eft 1-21 C hapter T wo A History of the T urkish L eft 22-132 Chapter T hree Extra-P arliamentary Groups 133-196 Chapter Four Conclusions 197-219 Bibliography 220-231 Appendix One 232 Appendix T wo 233-238 VI LIST OF Charts and Tables Table Page Table 2.1: 1965 Election Results by Region.....................................................................59 Table 2.2: 1965 Election Results by Development Group............................................... 60 Table 2.3: Gecekondu Statistics........................................................................................ 60 Table 2.4: 1969 Election Results by Development Group............................................... 69 Table 2.5: 1969 Election Results by Region.....................................................................70 Table 2.6: 1973 Election Results by Region.....................................................................79 Table 2.7: 1973 Election Results by Development Group...............................................80 Table 2.8: 1977 Election Results by Region.....................................................................85 Table 2.9: 1977 Election Results by Development Group...............................................85 Table 2.10: 1983 Election Results by Region...................................................................96 Table 2.11: 1983 Election Results by Development Group............................................. 97 Table 2.12: 1987 Election Results by Region.................................................................104 Table 2.13: 1987 Election Results by Development Group............................................105 Table 2.14: 1991 Election Results by Region................................................................. I ll Table 2.15: 1991 Election Results by Development Group............................................112 Table 2.16: 1995 Election Results by Region.................................................................117 Table 2.17: 1995 Election Results by Development Group........................................... 117 Table 2.18: 1999 Election Results by Region.................................................................124 Table 2.19: 1999 Election Results by Development Group........................................... 125 Chart 2.1: Support for the Left by Region, 1965-1999................................................... 130 Chart 2.2: Support for the Left by Development Group, 1965-1999............................... 131 Chart 2.3: Support for the Left in Turkey's Three Largest Cities,1965-1999 .................132 Table 3.1: Radical Leftist Groups............................................................................194-196 Table 3.2: The Differences between PDA and ASD.......................................................151 Chart 3.1: A Genealogy of the Mainstream Turkish Left................................................ 192 Chart 3.2: A Genealogy of the Radical Turkish Left........................................................193 Vll L ist of Major Abbreviations Abbreviation Turkish Name English Name Parties ANAP Anavatan Partisi Motherland Party AP Adalet Partisi Justice Party CGP Cumhuriyet Güven Partisi Republican Reliance Party CHP Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi Republican People's Party DSP Demokratik Sol Partisi Democratic Left Party DYP Doğru Yol Pcirtisi True Path Party HP Halkçı Partisi People's Party ÖDP Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi Freedom and Solidarity Party MHP Milliyet Hareket Partisi Nationalist Movement Party SHP Sosyaldemokratik Halkçı Partisi Social-Democratic People's Party SODEP Sosyal Demokrat Partisi Social Democrat Party Tip Türkiye İşçi Partisi Turkish Labor Party TKP Türkiye Komünist Partisi Turkish Communist Party Organizations DİSK Devrimci İşçi Sendikal Kanunu Federation of Revolutionary Unions FKF Fikir Kulüpleri Federasyonu Federation of Thought Clubs Türk-İş Türk-İş Turkish Labor THKP-C Türkiye Halk Kurtuluş Parti-Cephe Turkish People's Liberation Party-Front Coneepts MDD Milli Demokratik Devrim National Democratic Revolution Abbreviations for the smaller parties ean be found in Table 3.1, page 194-196 Chapter One A Theoretical Basis for a Study of the Left T heory: Can We T alk About the "Le ft "? · Practice; A Definition of the "Le ft" F or T his Study The AP's ‘future minded' leaders gave us this: Ecevit wears a hat, Lenin wore a hat, Nazım Hikmet wore a hat. Therefore, Ecevit is a communist... " -Uğur Mumcu (Mumcu 1997, p. 143) The theme of the Turkish left may well be always the bridesmaid, never the bride”. In the modern era of Turkish politics, the left has been a perennial also-ran, a series of institutions and parties that seem destined to be forever exiled in political Siberia. In short, the left in the modern era has not met with much electoral success. This study seeks to answer the question of why this curious state of affairs, where one side (namely, the right) of the pohtical spectrum seemingly dominates the other, has been prevalent. The question seems at first rather simplistic. Either a cultural argument, or perhaps economic or foreign factors have been said to be responsible for this situation. Some of these reasons may be true, but when an even cursory examination of the Turkish political system and the left within it is made, it becomes apparent that the reason for the perpetual inferiority of the left in Turkish politics is actually a complex subject. It can be safely said, even in an introduction, that there is no singular reason for the situation of the left in Turkey. What this study will attempt to bring to hght is the mosaic of smaller causes and effects that have made the Turkish left as it is. Through this, the left will be seen as effected by the causes listed above, but also by its own efforts. This study will be concerned with the pohtical left in the modern history of Turkey, focusing spechically on the period 1965 to the present. There have been several studies on why the right has most often dominated Turkish pohtics. This study seeks the other side, why the left has not posed a genuine challenge. Following a general theoretical discussion of what the left can be defined as and the working definition