A COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO NATIONAL PROTECTION LAW (1940-1956) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY ÖMER ERDEMR IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY DECEMBER 2004 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof.Dr.Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Prof. Dr. Seçil Karal Akgün Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Prof. Dr. Seçil Karal Akgün Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Seçil Karal Akgün (METU, HIST) Assist. Prof. Dr. Nesim eker (METU, HIST) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeen (METU, SOC) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name: Ömer Erdemir Signature : iii ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO NATIONAL PROTECTION LAW (1940- 1956) Erdemir, Ömer M.A, Department of History Supervisor: Prof.Dr. Seçil Karal Akgün December 2004, 130 pages This thesis introduces a comparative history of National Protection Law of 1940 and 1956. It analyzes the two applications of the law, first, by the Republican People’s Party governments during World War II, and second, by the Democratic Party Government during the years between 1956 and 1960 in view of the general economic policies followed during both periods. It argues, in reference to the ideological struggle over Turkish economic development during the twentieth century, that the enactments and applications of the first and second National Protection Law address the authoritarian characteristics of both the Republican People’s Party and the Democratic Party. It further argues, the enactment and application of National Protection Law by the Democratic Party government contradicted with the party’s economic principles whereas the Republican governments had already been on the interventionist path that they inherited from the previous decade of etatism. In addition, the thesis reveals that the first National Protection Law was more widely applied than the second. In both cases, the application of National Protection Law failed to solve economic problems and aroused a public discontent which brought about political losses for its executors. Keywords: National Protection Law, World War II, Republican People’s Party, Democratic Party, Etatism. iv ÖZ MLL KORUNMA KANUNUNA KARILATIRMALI BR YAKLAIM (1940- 1956) Erdemir, Ömer Master, Tarih Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Seçil Karal AKGÜN Aralık 2004, 130 sayfa Elinizdeki tez 1940 ve 1956 yıllarında çıkarılan Milli Korunma Kanunu’nun karılatırmalı tarihini anlatıyor. Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi hükümetlerinin 2. Dünya Savaı dönemindeki ve Demokrat Parti hükümetinin 1956-1960 yılları arasındaki dönemde bu kanunu uygulamalarını, dönemlerin genel ekonomi politikaları açısından deerlendirmeyi amaçlıyor. Yirminci yüzyılda Türkiye’nin ekonomik gelimesine odaklanan ideolojik mücadele balamında birinci ve ikinci Milli Korunma Kanunlarının çıkarılmasının ve uygulanmasının hem Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi hem de Demokrat Partinin müdahaleci eilimlerini ortaya çıkardıını iddia ediyor. Ayrıca, Demokrat Parti’nin bu kanunu çıkarıp uygulamasının partinin ekonomik prensipleriyle çelitiini, buna karılık Halk Partisi hükümetlerinin devletçilik yıllarından gelen müdahaleci eilimlere sahip olmalarının kanunun uygulanmasında bir çeliki oluturmadıı savunuluyor. Buna ek olarak, Halk Partisi hükümetlerinin Demokrat Parti hükümeti gibi populist olmamalarının kanunun daha geni olarak uygulanmasına olanak verdii ifade ediliyor. Her iki durumda da, Milli Korunma Kanunu ekonomik sorunları çözme hususunda yetersiz kalmı ve uygulayıcılarına siyasi olarak pahalıya malolmutur. Anahtar Kelimeler: Milli Korunma Kanunu, kinci Dünya Savaı, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, Demokrat Parti, Devletçilik. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are numerous contributors to the appearance of this thesis, some of who gregariously deserve the note of mention. My most cordial veneration addresses Professor Seçil Karal Akgün. Without her erudite and invaluable assistance, it would be beyond my reach to conduct the primary and vital research let alone explicate it. I even sometimes think how auspicious it is to work under her constructive supervision. Next, Nesim eker, a faculty member at METU History Department, helped me both graduate and pursue advanced studies by his articulate warmth approaching. I express my sincere gratitude to him attaching all his positive reinforcements let this thesis show up at last. I am also indebted to Mesut Yeen to an utmost extent. His response became positive to comment on my thesis and I had bookish feedback wonderful enough to let me ratiocinate it for further analysis. My undergraduate experiences let me learn from and exploit the ideas and perspectives of a few professors there. Uygur Kocabaolu, Mehdi lhan, and Aykut Kansu count only three to begin with. In their name, many thanks go to all those that schooled academic and intellectual formation worth to improve. Last, I remember the greatest motivation from my family, my colleagues and friends, especially “beloved Mustafa” Kulu to whom my convivial thanks go, Serkan Ünal, Barı Özyurt, efik Ekmen, brahim Atabey, Esen Baara, Feritah Dalgın, Derya Avcı, Özgür irin, and Erdem Gölolu. I always appreciate their encouraging me toward this thesis. Furthermore, I am really grateful to Nejat Uçak, Ahmet Baykal, and Süleyman Tıra from the Ergazi Primary School for having contributed in various ways to the thesis. I thank them all. And addendum to acknowledgement, I may not know to express my debt of approbation for Lee, i.e. Emrah ahin. Concurrently teaching and pursuing a doctorate of philosophy at Bilkent University History Department, his cerebral attributions, linguistic back-up, interpretation of my current master work as an augury of rising “a brand-new scholar at work,” and cherubic identity as a role model junior scholar always inspired in me to keep up with the hard work. Very many thanks, Emrah. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM.........................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................iv ÖZ ............................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................vi TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................... x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 1.1. An Analysis of Turkish Economic Performance From the Establishment of the Republic Toward World War II (1923-1939)................3 1.1.1. Turkey In Depression And Recovery Attempts: the Adoption of Etatism.........................................................................................................6 1.2. Road to National Economic Protection Through Government Intervention: Reconsidering Turkish Economic Experience 1940s to 1960s. ...........................................................................................14 2. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES AND ENACTMENT PROCESSES OF THE NATIONAL PROTECTION LAW (1940-1956)............19 2.1. Economic Policy of the Refik Saydam Government (1940-1942) ................19 2.2. The Legislation Process And Parliamentary Discussions On the Law ..........22 2.3. Main Characteristics of National Protection Law .........................................26 2.3.1. Some Other Characteristics of National Protection Law........................31 2.4. Amendments on National Protection Law....................................................33 2.5. The Economic Policy of the ükrü Saraçolu Government (1942-1946).....33 vii 2.6. The Economic Policy of the Democratic Party Government.........................35 2.6.1. Years of Rapid Development................................................................36 2.6.2. Economy In Recession..........................................................................41 2.7. Reenactment of National Protection Law by the Democratic Party Government.................................................................................................43 2.7.1 Main Characteristics of the Law ...........................................................45 2.8. An Interpretation of the Reasons Behind the Enactments of the Law ...........46 3. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATIONS OF NATIONAL PROTECTION LAW.....................................................................50 3.1. The Application of National Protection Law by the Refik Saydam Government.................................................................................................50 3.1.1. Measures Regarding Industrial Production............................................51