Civil Society in the Early Republican Turkey and Multi-Party Period (1923- (1923-1980)

The new Republic that was founded in 1923 was heavily influenced by the modernization efforts initiated in the Ottoman Empire and left little space for the development of civil society in Turkey (Grigoriadis 2009: 44). Modernization efforts tried to diminish the influence of Islam dogmas that were perceived as a source of backwardness and synthesized the Western and Islamic traditions. The vision of Ziya Gökalp (1876-1924) in particular, a leading philosopher from the Ottoman period, was the most influential among the new elite as he argued for merging Western civilization with Turkish culture. His political-social theory titled “Turkish-Islamist-Westernist Modernizm” summed up his “social ideal” as follows: “We are of the Turkish nation (millet), of the Islamic religious community (ümmet), of Western civilization (medeniyet)” (Parla 1985:25). He made a distinction between the culture and civilization. For Gökalp, Turks should borrow Western civilization but maintain their culture. This means that he proposed keeping peculiarities of Turkish tradition and values of Turkish society while following innovations of the Western world in terms of institutions and development. For some, this presents the source of the

“paradox” (Ketola 2013:60), which in turn created a “two-tier” civil society, the development of civil society.

The founder of the modern Turkish Republic and first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was inspired by Gökalp’s ideas and followed a dynamic reform agenda on the basis of Gökalp’s vision. For instance, the highest political authority, the Caliphate, was abolished and powers of the Caliphate were transferred to the new parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

The secular elite was at the center of the Westernization project and dominated the reform process. In following Gokalp’s ideas through reforms, individual interest was subordinated at the expense of collective interest and the power was accumulated at the center, which in turn created a strong functioning state.

In the 1930s, six key principles of Kemalism were introduced and codified in the Republican constitution. The six principles of Kemalism are Republicanism (representative democracy, and rule of law), secularism (separation of religious and political institutions), populism (elite working for the interest and on behalf of the society), etatism (state centered economic development), nationalism (based on citizenship rather than ethnic orientation), and reformism (introduction of new and dynamic institutions of governance) (Yeğen 2001: 57). The principles of Kemalism were so important they were taught to all citizens in the schools, and therefore, left no other alternative views to develop in the public sphere. Kemalism played a key role in shaping the relationship between civil society and the state.

Even though the reforms emphasized sovereignty of the people and marked an important break from the Ottoman Empire, as Özçetin et al. (2014:5) explain,“ the young Republic inherited the political reflex of the Ottoman tradition” (emphasis added). From the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the Turkish state was the dominant and assertive force not only in political and economic life but also in associational life (Keyman and İçduygu 2003: 223; TÜSEV 2006: 36). The strong state tradition that was furthered by Kemalism prevented the development of vibrant civil society and created a weak model of civil society that mainly depended on state institutions. This strong Kemalist tradition also imposed a “particular model of Turkishness” (Seckinelgin 2004:174) and certain types of organizations flourished that supported those principles. As in the Ottoman period, the hegemonic status of the state was uncontested where the state emphasized that the primary concern in state-society relations is the protection of the state interest and unity.

In terms of a legal-institutional framework, the freedom of association was formally recognized in the 1924 Constitution, but in practice the state controlled the civic sphere and limited any activity that would challenge its interests. For example, Article 70 and Article 79 (Alkan 1998) highlighted freedom of association:

Inviolability of person; freedom of conscience, of thought, of speech, of press, freedom of travel and of contact, freedom of labor; freedom of private property; of

assembly, of association; freedom of incorporation, are among the natural rights of Turks. (Article 70)¹⁴

Limitations upon freedom of contract, labour, property, assembly, association and incorporation shall be determined by law. (Article 79)¹⁵

Yet, the 1938 Law of Associations introduced serious limitations on the formation of associations. For example, the law contained a description on high treason and Article 9 added a comprehensive list of the prohibitions and forbidden associations (Alkan 1998: 56-57). Likewise, Article 28¹⁶ of the 1938 Law of Associations restrained the development of an independent financial-administrative infrastructure by introducing heavy restrictions and arbitrary financial control by the government.

Compared to the post-Ottoman period, division in civil society was further deteriorated. In this era, civil society was mainly divided along two lines. On the one hand, there were Kemalist civil society actors, which were based on the official state policy and coopted by the state. These organizations in turn supported the state’s policies and empowered its hegemonic position. On the other hand, there were non-Kemalist organizations that were based on different views of civil society. The state in turn supported those civil society organizations that had a Kemalist and secular orientation and left no room for the other types of organizations that were based on different conceptions of civil society. Therefore, we see the development of a homogenous civil society and the dominance of Kemalist organizations in the public sphere. During this period, the development of civil society was shaped under strict state control. The various organizations that were outside the state ideology, such as tarikats and opposition political parties, were banned and the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi- CHP) took over the functions of the Ottoman state bureaucracy and enjoyed power until 1946 (Mardin 1973: 304-305). State-controlled civil society organizations such as chambers of commerce, professional associations, and trade unions as corporatist models dominated the political landscape (Grigoriadis 2009: 45). Therefore, the political reflex of the state remained unchanged and there

14 The Ottoman Constitution. Available at: http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1876constitution.htm Accessed on: [1 October 2015]. Translator is unknown.

15The Ottoman Constitution. Available at: http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1876constitution.htm Accessed on: [1 October 2015]. Translator is unknown.

16The Ottoman Constitution. Available at: http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1876constitution.htm Accessed on: [1 October 2015]. Translator is unknown.

was a pattern of continuity both in the state structure and in civil society organizations.

Europe and the West as an important symbol continued to dominate the political spectrum. Like the Tanzimat period, the conscious Westernization process of the Kemalist elite was inspired by the Western European polity notions (Kuzmanovic 2012: 15). Europe and the West as a model were especially important with regard to the development of civil society. One illustration was a Kemalist Women’s organization, the Turkish Women’s Union (Türk Kadınlar Birliği-TKB). In this context, European/ Western women were a model for the organization. For example, representative of the organization said that the “modern woman in the West has been an important model since the establishment of the organization.” (Interview TKB 2011). She added that although TKB made connections with the women in the East, they rejected invitations to participate in the activities during this period, because European women were a model for Turkish women and they did not want to be resembled to Eastern women (Interview TKB 2011).

In the early Republican period, international connections were also restricted and shaped under the auspices of the state control. The legal framework limited establishment of associations that had international connections. For example, Article 10 of the 1938 Law of Associations stated that foreign associations outside the country could not open branches in Turkey (Alkan 1998: 57). Furthermore, Article 10 prohibited establishing international connections with foreign associations. In some sense, the second paragraph of Article 10 eased the restrictive framework and stated that international associations could be established if there was national interest in cooperation, yet the decision was made by the Council of Ministers. However, the Council of Ministers had the sole authority to decide on the establishment or closure of the associations. Furthermore, some organizations took part in the international conventions. For instance, in 1926 under the leadership of a leading feminist, Nezihe Muhiddin, TKB became a member of the International Women’s Union.

Transition to the multi-party period (1946-1960)

In 1950, the Democrat Party (Demokrat Partisi- DP) won the elections and politicians represented by the DP tried to challenge the dominant role of the state elite with a loose form of secularism. As Mardin (1973) argues, for the first time, political power established the link with the periphery where their vote was coming from the rural peasantry.

Only for a short period of time, the DP leaned towards more liberal reform compared to the CHP, and broadened the spectrum of popular participation by integrating the periphery of Turkish society (Grigoriadis 2009: 29). In particular, the 1946 Law of Association relatively liberalized the political environment and eased the restrictions on the establishment and operation of the associations. This led to a boom in the number of associations and labor unions. During this time, a number of associations multiplied approximately eight times to exceed 17,000 (Özbudun 2000:129). For the first time in Turkish political history, in 1952, the first labor federation, the Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (Türkiye İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu- TÜRK-İŞ) was established and had civil society activism and a non-political stance. However, like its predecessor, the DP oppressed civil society organizations that had a critical view of its policies. For example, the DP repeatedly prevented TÜRK-İŞ to become a member of the International Trade Union Confederation (Özçetin et al. 2014: 7) and thus restricted establishing external connections. Furthermore, the press was oppressed by restrictive legislation. More importantly, during this period, top-down and a suspicious approach by governmental authorities limited broader political participation. For example, the Law of Associations was amended in 1952 to enable courts to outlaw activities of associations and protect the properties of associations even before they were ordered to be dissolved (Zihnioğlu 2013: 104). This in turn created a weak civil society, which resembled the early Kemalist period. In this respect, while the organizations that supported government policies were enabled, organizations with oppositional voices were disabled and oppressed.

The DP won again in the 1954 and 1957 elections, but the downfall of the party started with the unpopularity of Adnan Menderes, the prime minister. Similar to the CHP before the DP, Menderes and the DP started to function like an authoritarian party and assumed that the government constituted the state (Ketola 2013: 64).

Following on the deterioration of economic performance and the worsening of the

relationship between the government and the opposition, on 27 May 1960, the military stepped in. The 1960 military coup led the execution of DP politicians and the arrest of political activists. Nonetheless, the 1961 Constitution provided a legal framework for the development of civil society and enhancement of rights. For instance, it assured the right to establish associations (Article 29) and the right to congregate and march in demonstrations with prior permission from the authorities (Article 28) (Özbudun 2000). The 1961 constitution also increased the autonomy of universities. For example, civil rights were promoted and students were given the freedom to organize their own associations at the universities. It also gave social rights to trade unions such as rights to free unionization, to strike and of collective bargaining (Özbudun 2000: 129). In sum, political activities such as the activities of new parties, trade unions, and religious groups had more freedoms and individual human rights were protected compared to previous constitutions (Grigoriadis 2009:

29).

However, the political environment was not stable and there were coalition governments between the CHP and the Justice Party (Adalet Partisi- AP). In 1965, the AP won the elections with a clear majority but soon struggled with the new Right- Left politics in Turkey (Sunar and Sayarı 1986). The extreme polarization and ideological division of society along a left-right continuum characterized this period.

The new Right-Left politics influenced the development of civil society during this period. During these years, the Revolutionary Labor Unions Confederation of Turkey (Türkiye Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu- DİSK) established and followed a more independent and socialist action in its activities (Blind 2007). The DİSK affiliated with the leftist circles. However, when the fighting between right and left groups deteriorated and destabilized the county, a second military coup took place on 12 March 1971. The 1961 constitution was amended and severely limited the political freedoms on behalf of the state integrity and unity. Zihnioğlu (2013: 107) states that,

“the changes covered basically every political and social institution in Turkey, including the trade unions, the press, universities, the Council of State and the Parliament”.

After the second military coup, the military and secularist elite considered civil society as a threat to the country’s stability. Therefore, the civil society arena was limited and any activities that were outside the state policy were not tolerated.

Between 1971 and 1980 Turkey was politically unstable with clumsy governments. By the end of the 1970s, the political situation worsened, there was violence between militant leftist and state-tolerated rightist groups and the government could not control the situation (Karpat 1988: 145-146).

At the end, for the third time, the army responded with a coup and took over political power on 12 September 1980. As the following section shows, the new Constitution that was approved in 1982 brought severe limitations on human rights and liberties and banned all political activities. Furthermore, the changes in the Law on Associations further restricted and limited the space of civil society (Kubicek 2001: 36).