Elections in Russia, 2018: Managed Democracy? 00:08 Mar 23 0 comments
A note on the Declaration of Independence adopted October 27 by the Catalan parliament 15:47 Oct 30 0 comments
Catalonia: Independence Declared after Rajoy Refuses Last-Minute Deal 15:46 Oct 30 0 comments
Catalonia’s Paradox 16:55 Oct 11 0 comments
In Defence of Democratic Rights in Catalonia 16:18 Sep 22 0 commentsmore >>
Recent articles by Ender Yılmaz & José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
Recent Articles about Greece / Turkey / Cyprus Miscellaneous
Για την επίσκ... Sep 08 17
Turkey: Modernization, Authoritarianism and Political Islam
greece / turkey / cyprus | miscellaneous | opinion / analysis Friday June 22, 2007 08:26 by Ender Yılmaz & José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
The following article is to appear soon in "Red & Black Revolution" no.13 (magazine of the WSM, Ireland). It examines the recent evolution of Turkish society, after the 1980 coup, and how it expresses in the current conflict between the military and the Islamist parties that is nothing but the conflict within sectors of the bourgeoisie for hegemony.
Almost ten years after the post-modern coup of 1997, in which the coalition government of Islamist Welfare Party (WP also known as Refah) and right-wing True Path Party (DYP) were forced to step down and later banned, another move by the powerful Turkish military came as a reminder of the role they keep in politics. Following the nomination of Abdullah Gül as president by Prime Minister Erdoğan in April, there was a parliamentary boycott organised by the secularist opposition of the White Turks, lead by the RPP (Republican People’s Party). Although there were past decisions supporting the case of the government, the Council of State favoured the opposition, but not before the military issued a warning on April 27th, resurrecting fears of military intervention and renewed repression that have plagued the last century of Turkish public life -signalling that the political might of the army is well and strong.
The Kemalist State and Industrialisation
Turkey was one of the first countries to develop an Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) economic model in the ‘30s. The Kemalists were meant to create a native bourgeoisie out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, after its defeat in the First Great War. It represented a particularly authoritarian and militaristic drive to modernization, lead by Mustafa Kemal, later given the surname Atatürk. He was the leading general of the armed resistance against the British-sponsored Greek occupation of Western Turkey in the 1920s and founded the RPP which became the single ruler party of the country between 1923 and 1950. Though initially having a liberal free market orientation, after the 1929 crisis, an ISI model that attempted to eradicate the reliance on imported goods was put in place for this modernizing endeavour. They protected some new born industries, to industrialize the country, to make self-sufficient and to modernize it, in one word. They attempted to turn Turkey from a Sultanate into a modern western Republic.
Not only it stimulated a native Sunni Muslim and Turkish bourgeoisie; it subjected religion to State authorities. The idea, was not only to create a modernizing essence (a national bourgeoisie), but also an “appearance” of it through forced secularism.
After the Second World War both US directives and internal opposition form the large landowners forced RPP to accept a multiparty system. In the first free elections after three decades RPP was defeated by the Democratic Party (DP). Thus, in the ‘50s the focus of growth shifted from industry to agriculture, but industrial capitalists re-gained their previous role after the military coup of 1960. The banned DP continued as Justice Party (JP) and with the support from the large rural population it became a major party in the parliament during the following two decades. Because it was only with the backing of the army that they could win the 1961 elections, the RPP tried to change its image into a more popular alternative. In the late ‘60s it declared itself “left of the centre” and with slogans like “land belong to those who cultivate it, water to those who use it” the RPP became government many times in the ‘70s. In 1973, the industrialists formed TÜSIAD which became a major actor especially in the propaganda campaign against ISI policies in late ‘70s.
The ISI model was largely successful, but though self-sufficient to a great extent, Turkey still needed badly both oil and new technologies/machinery from foreign markets. The two oil crises in the ‘70s ended the stable and low energy prices regime which was one of the bases of global US hegemony and deepened the crisis in Turkey. A huge problem was that its industry, though in a position to cope with the internal demand, was not able to compete in the foreign markets. This lead to the main source of the crisis: the inability to obtain foreign currency (dollars) that was critical in order to obtain both oil and technology.
This led the government to borrow heavily, what caused major imbalances and a big debt crisis. This crisis, that expressed itself violently at the end of the ‘70s, with the clashes of the left with right-wing nationalists, found an authoritarian “solution” in the coup of 1980. Differently to the previous two military coups (1960 and 1971), this coup was a particularly brutal attempt to uproot for good the revolutionary left in the country, which had pushed massive workers struggles and resistances during the period from 1961-1980, under the banner of the revolutionary trade union DISK, and saw a left-leaning intelligentsia and a radical students’ movement emerge in the ‘70s; while at the same time, it made a number of structural changes in the ISI economic model.
In a vein similar to the one of Pinochet’s Chile, the authoritarian framework of the State was useful in order to carry on a number of unpopular changes that would have impossible to be carried in a democratic context. And once the changes were carried on, the physical elimination of leftist militants made sure that there would be no one, in the near future, in a capacity to challenge the new order from a revolutionary point of view. But not only the putschists used the authoritarian framework of the State for its own ends: they exacerbated its authoritarian features, by means of a new Constitution (approved in 1982) and a new institutional figure called the National Security Council (NSC).
The 1980 Coup: The Turkish State as a Counter-Insurgency State
In Latin America, as well, the NSC has been in place in many states since the counter-revolutionary period of the ‘70s. It is not mere coincidence that in Turkey we see the same figure emerging after the military intervention. The crucial position of Turkey as a strategic ally of US imperialism and the NATO in the face of an explosive and politically unstable Middle East makes the NSC be no coincidence but a logic response from the Army and a monopolist bourgeoisie that is unable to have a hegemonic position even with the other sectors of the bourgeoisie (non-monopolist, petty bourgeoisie, etc.). There are many parallels between the Turkish State created during the coup and the counter-insurgency state prevalent in Latin America, explicitly designed to suppress revolutionary or even reformist movements and ideologically based on the National Security Doctrine. Therefore, we will resort to the Latin American theoretician Ruy Mauro Marini description of the counter-insurgency State, not to try to forcefully look for similarities and differences, but to look for useful categories that allow us to better understand the Turkish political system from a revolutionary point of view. His structural description of this kind of States –beyond the particular political facade that they can present- is useful for the Turkish case:
“The counter-insurgency State (...) presents a hypertrophy of the Executive power (...) in relation to all others (...) with the existence of two central decision making bodies within the Executive. On the one hand, the military body, constituted by the Staff of the Armed Forces (...); the National Security Council, the supreme decision making body, where the representatives of the army entwine with the direct delegates of Capital; and the intelligence services that inform, orient and prepare the decision making process. On the other hand, we have the economic body, represented by the economic ministries, as well as by the State owned companies of credit, production and services, which have their key positions filled by civilian and military technocrats. Thus, the National Security Council becomes the space for the encounter of the two bodies, where they entwine one another, and becomes itself the top, the vital organ of the Counter-Insurgency State.”
It therefore represents a space where both the Monopolist capitalists and the Army share power. But it also represents, as Marini states, a peculiar form of bourgeois State that has four powers instead of the classic three (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) being the fourth one the National Security Council, which guarantees the Armed Forces the ultimate say in politics, an authoritarian “moderating” role in a political context plagued of internal contradictions.
As described by Keyder for the Turkish case, “within the NSC, military chiefs of staff met with top cabinet members and dictated the politics to be followed. The NSC was endowed with a permanent secretariat and staff, designed to pool all intelligence and to develop policy to be implemented by the relevant bureaucracy, often bypassing the politically appointed ministers (...) Virtually everything, from foreign and military policy to the structure of civil and political rights, from secondary school curricula to energy policy, was eventually decided in the monthly meetings of the NSC, invariably along the lines formulated by its secretariat”
The counter-insurgency State does not exist only under conditions of military dictatorship, but exists as well under democratic wrappings. In the Turkish case, it clearly survived the putschist junta, thanks to the 1982 Constitution, and is present in today’s democracy –being the main characteristics of the “democratic” counter-insurgency state the prevalence of this Fourth Power (the NSC), the restricted character of democracy (usually, this restrictions expressing themselves in the very electoral procedures too) and the existence of a number of laws of exception and a broadly interpreted anti-terrorist law.
All these authoritarian features of the State were further exacerbated with the Kurdish conflict, in the period spanning from 1984 to 1999. And with both an increasing conflict between rival factions of the bourgeoisie and a renewed wave of PKK attacks in the south east since 2003, it is quite likely that, notwithstanding some liberalization, at least some of these features will be maintained in the long term and even reinforced at times when needed.
Neoliberalism and the New Blocks in the Ruling Classes
With the 1980 coup, deep changes took place in Turkish society, not only at the level of the State. The military junta closed all political parties and all unions except the state union Türk-Iş. There was a massive wave of economic neo-liberalization that would have been impossible to be carried if it wasn’t through manu militari, under the exceptionally repressive circumstances of military rule. So without any hassle from the labour movement, the State started a drastic set of measures to liberalize the economic model, which included privatizations, downsizing of the public sector, flexible employment and deregulation of the economy. The predictable results of such measures were the devaluation and stagnation of real wages, a forcefully reduced share of wages in the national income, the dismantling of some industries with the consequent impact over employment figures and the destruction of the labour force behind trade unions.
Three parties participated in the first elections after the coup, in 1983: Motherland Party (ANAP), pro-army Nationalist Democracy Party (NDP) and social-democratic Populist Party (PP). Contrary to the expectations of the military junta, NDP was defeated by ANAP and later dissolved itself. After a series of transformations and name changes PP became the current RPP.
The ISI model was replaced by IMF-dictated fiscal austerity measures and Export Oriented Industrialization (EOI). The new economic regime was not quite successful, despite the fact that it managed to solve one of the biggest barriers against a stable capital accumulation: organised working class resistance. Even the modest growth levels in the ‘80s could only be achieved at the expense of a growing foreign debt. In contrast to the modest gains of the Istanbul industrialists, the Anatolian small petty and not so petty bourgeoisie benefited enormously from the EOI. The so-called Anatolian Tigers developed industrial zones in Anatolia exploiting the lack of unions and their strong Islamic community ties. They had little state support and were alien to the life of the traditional elites i.e. the state bureaucracy and TÜSIAD. On the political arena they formed in 1983 the Islamist Welfare Party (WP) following the tradition of two parties in the late ‘60s and ‘70s, but not only succeeded in gathering together the Anatolian bourgeoisie, but also to increasingly mobilize popular support behind them (Right-wing parties like the DP in the ‘50s, had strong support among the significant rural population. The immigrants in the cities continued to support these parties due to patronage networks provided by them. The RPP and the left managed to gain the support of small peasants and urban immigrants in the ‘70s, but this was over by the ‘80 coup. The vacuum in the cities was filled by Islamic NGO’s in the ‘80s culminating with the rise of Refah).
The Turkish banking system was plagued by structural problems and corruption during the ‘90s and this caused the financial crises of 1991, 1994, 1998 and the most severe of them between 2000 and 2001. The living conditions of the working class was terribly worsened in the ‘80s, until a wave of protests in 1989, mainly by public sector workers, caused important increases in real wages and sowed the seeds of the current public sector unions. This caused an increase in government spending, on top of the cost of the anti-PKK war, which the government thought could be financed through foreign capital flows. Behind these crises, however, was the liberalization of the Capital Account in 1989 i.e. eliminating the barriers against financial in and outflows, while Turkey had a very weak legal and administrative framework to regulate the banking system and lacked macroeconomic stability. The Turkish financial capital made huge profit through this ill system. They bought debt from the State and granted loans at ridiculous real interest rates, sometimes of even 20%.
The Anatolian bourgeoisie organised itself in MÜSIAD in the ‘90s and backed the uneasy WP-DYP coalition government in 1996-97. Contrary to the outward orientation of the Anatolian bourgeoisie, this government had an inward orientation and tried to increase the cooperation with Middle Eastern states. This coalition was marked by the scandal behind the famous car accident in Susurluk, where a former Deputy Chief of Istanbul Police and the leader of the fascist Nationalist Action Party’s (NAP) violent youth organization died; a DYP’s MP who was also the leader of a Kurdish tribe and a large group of anti-PKK village guards in Northern Kurdistan was injured. This exposed the connections between the security forces, politicians and organised crime.
The exclusion of WP from government is denoted as a post-modern coup. It was done through a regular NSC meeting on 28 February 1997 and the army used a popular campaign to mobilize people against the government, which they accused of trying to subvert the secular order. In reality, this was nothing more than another chapter in the inter-bourgeois conflict for hegemony. With Refah (WP) banned, the WP tradition then formed another party, Fazilet, which was also banned in 2001, emerging immediately later, two parties out of this: the hard-liners of Saadet and the moderates of AKP who are the current governing party and have a little less than two thirds of the MPs.
New Millennium, New Intra-Elite conflicts
The devastation caused by the 2000 and 2001 economic crises had a similar impact on politics, and the November 2002 elections gave the AKP more than the absolute majority in the parliament. This hadn’t happened since the DP victory in the ‘50s. The parties of the previous coalition government got only 13% of votes.
The AKP government took a pronounced neoliberal turn and made several privatizations. This also created a huge foreign capital flow into Turkey, which financed the increasing Current Account Deficit i.e. the net difference between exports and imports. The inflation was reduced to below 10% and since 2002 Turkey grew 7,5 % annually. On the other side, unemployment is worsening, showing that the growth was due to an increasing exploitation of the employed labour force rather than by absorbing the unemployed. The future of the economy, however, virtually depends on the perceptions and mood of the global financial forces and any bad sign can provoke a crisis similar to the Asian one of 1997-98.
Over the last four years, four blocks in the rulings classes became visible: The army, TÜSIAD, MÜSIAD and the Fethullahist TUSKON. Fethullah Gulen left the traditional Nurist movement and created a new empire under his rule, consisting of corporations, high schools, universities, etc. In 1999 the assets owned by this empire in Turkey were estimated in $25 billion. Gulen had good relationships with the centre-right governments, has a strong pro-US line and in recent years his associates formed their own business organisation called TUSKON. In 1999 he was accused of trying to infiltrate the state apparatus at every level (army, police and bureaucracy) and left Turkey after that. Gulen lives in the USA but still has a great deal of influence, with the Fethullahists probably having an active role in the last frictions between AKP and the army.
Except for MÜSIAD, all three have very close ties to US imperialism and that’s its main difference with TUSKON, sharing otherwise a common political history. The army and TÜSIAD share a common cultural background and history, being the traditional ruling block for many years. All business groups, though, are critical of the role of the army and favour a more parliament-oriented bourgeois politics. Especially TÜSIAD is in the foreground of pro-EU reforms, but we should remark that TÜSIAD is controlled by few family holdings. Therefore, their criticisms against the political role of the army may not be shared by most of its members.
The occupation of Iraq by the US crushed the political balance in Turkey. The army did not organise a campaign in favour of Turkish participation and thanks to the traditional anti-US Islamism of many of the AKP MPs, the parliament did not approve the use of Turkish soil for an attack. The anti-war movement failed to attract the masses, who felt a strong opposition to the war, into the demonstrations, but the biggest failure was to remain silent about the war in Turkish Kurdistan in order not to upset the average person. Today, a de facto Kurdish state is established in northern Iraq and the PKK ended its 4 year-long ceasefire in 2004 which began after the imprisonment of its leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999.
After the November 2004 negotiations with EU, the army began a “psychological” campaign in spring 2005. Today we can say that the main aim was to channel the anti-US feelings among the Turkish population against the moderate Islamist government and against any attempt to solve the Kurdish Question peacefully. The first provocation was made in the Kurdish Newroz celebrations, on March 21st, 2005. The following day, newspapers reported that Kurdish children attempted to burn the Turkish flag. The children claimed that a man with a black suit gave them the flag, but this was never investigated. This was followed by lynching attempts against leafleting leftists who are accused of chanting pro-PKK slogans or waving the PKK flag. We cannot list all events of this provocation campaign here, but they include bombs against Kurdish civilians in Diyarbakır, the murder of a priest in Trabzon and missionaries in Malatya and the suppression of Kurdish protests against the use of chemical weapons against PKK guerrillas in Diyarbakır, which resulted in over 15 deaths.
Meanwhile, there were police operations which further uncovered the relations between the mafia and the State; the so-called “deep State” in Turkey has a very long past. In 2006 the local Kurdish populace in Shemdinli in the south-eastern corner of Turkey captured members of the Turkish counter-guerrilla force who threw a hand bomb to a library. The head of the army, Büyükanıt, said about one the officers: “I know him. He is a good boy.” Their trial remains a dead end like many other state-related mafia trials.
Another major event in this campaign of provocation was the assassination of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, member of the “libertarian socialist” Freedom and Solidarity Party (FSP). Probably due to the Fethullahists inside of the police, the murderer and minor planners were quickly captured and their relations with the counter-guerrilla networks were somewhat revealed. This did not lead to confronting the army, because as a part of the ruling classes, the Fethullahist elites do not dare an open confrontation. One gang of the ruling class is fighting against another using the body of Hrant Dink.
The left managed to react quickly and mobilized 5 to 15 thousand people in the day of the assassination. The FSP depoliticized his funeral by banning slogans, similarly to their silence about the war in Kurdish provinces during the anti-war events, and even the mass media advertised the funeral. Despite being on a Tuesday, more than 100 thousand people walked behind the banner “We all are Hrant Dink! We all are Armenians!”. The slogan became a major trump in the hands of Turkish nationalists who used it to “highlight” the non-Turkishness of the participants.
Towards the Parliamentary Elections
The army successfully managed to prevent the election of a non-Kemalist president for now and used for this purpose NGOs and its website -ANAP and DYP MPs did not participate in the presidential election on the 29th of April after an e-declaration of the army warning against anti-secularist and anti-nationalist currents, meaning obviously the AKP. Most of the people in the Republic meetings of April 29th were not in favour of a military coup, but they perceive the army itself as the sole ultimate guardian of Turkish democracy.
Meanwhile, the centre-right has been unable to form an opposition block to the AKP, having failed an attempt to merge ANAP and the DYP, now called DP, as the ‘50s party. This means that most of the bourgeois block will end up eventually supporting the AKP in the end anyway.
Today the main theme of bourgeois politics is if the army should make a military operation to the PKK bases in Northern Iraq: in early April Büyükanıt spoke in favour of it. Since then the Turkish army has been amassing troops in the South-East border with Iraq, tough the Prime Minister says that there is no written petition for any extra-border military operation. The US does not favour a Turkish operation nor do the Kurdish elites in Iraq i.e. Talabani, the president of Iraq, and Barzani, the president of Iraqi Kurdistan, because this could threaten the unique peace found in Northern Iraq.
Mehmet Agar, the leader of the DYP (now DP) and an ex-counter-guerrilla chief who proudly declared in the past that he guided “a thousand operations against the PKK”, became a proponent of a peaceful solution. He declared that they will call the PKK “to make politics on the plains rather than fighting on the mountains” and proposed a common market system consisting of Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Georgia. This received a big negative reaction, although some bourgeois journalists partially backed him. The change in his mind is also attributed to his relations with the Fethullahist capitalists who, because of their links with the US, see the strategic importance of good relations with the Kurdistan given the events in Iraq –they need an alliance between Israel, Turkey and the Kurds to hold a grip over the volatile region. Anyway, because of the coming elections, he wouldn’t dare to speak too much on this issue.
AKP leader Erdoğan also began to use strong words against the PKK and ignore the Kurdish Question, for the army could use it as a tactic to lower the vote of AKP. The PKK officially ended its ceasefire in June 2004 and a bombing killing 6 civilians in the centre of Ankara created a strong reaction among the Turks. PKK leadership in Iraq and also the legal wing of the Kurdish nationalist movement, DTP (Democratic Society Party) denounced it, but it was probably done by one of them, who exploded it in the wrong time -probably it was aimed at Büyükanıt. The leadership in Europe did not denounce it and said that we should look at the socio-political reasons behind it. On the 12th of June 2007, the PKK announced a new ceasefire just after the Erdoğan’s called an informal “security summit” to discuss tactics against PKK.
The NSC meeting on the 20th of June may be a determining event on the Kurdish problem, changing the balance of events or maintaining the status quo, but a consensus may not be reached and the frictions will continue as before. The previous NSC meeting did not produce a consensus about the presidential elections and the elections became a major source of conflict.
The DTP is entering the elections together with independent candidates to jump over the 10% required nationally to be in parliament. While the AKP and RPP in the parliament passed new legislations to reduce the number of independent MPs, the Kurds will quite likely have to informally ally with AKP in the new parliament, which favours a political solution to the Kurdish conflict instead of a purely military one. The PKK’s new ceasefire was also partially aimed to debase the criticisms against AKP concerning national security. Meanwhile the Kurdish nationalist movement is competing also with Islamist currents among the Kurds, which are supposedly linked to the Fethullahists.
The current anti-PKK discourse may cool down after the elections, but it may also get stronger. The RPP moved to the right by including famous right-wing candidates on its list. Meanwhile the ex-fascist NAP made a long journey from extreme right to the centre right in the last decade. A RPP-NAP coalition government could increase the repression. We should note that this requires little effort: The AKP government passed a very harsh “Anti-Terror Law”, the notorious 301st article, which punishes any behaviour against “Turkishness” and over the last days a new legislation enormously increased the rights of the police.
Perspectives for the Left
The left is powerless. In the last year every relatively big semi-legal left-wing organisation suffered from police operations. The left in the universities is minimized by investigations and fascist attacks. The left was not able to use the anti-war impetus as a springboard, because it lacks a program of struggle and oscillates between soft reformism and militant marginalized positions. Only few organisations managed to grow or at least keep their organisational structure. Their success is based on their programmatic strength and/or their militant insistence to create a base among the labouring masses. This success is also based on their anti-democratic centralist structure, but this will turn against them sooner or later (It has already become the source of a counter-productive sectarianism). Anarchist communists should be able to learn from the experience of every organisation whether it is Leninist or not, whether it is successful or not.
The left should be able to formulate its tactics on class lines both at the level of theory and slogans and at the level of practise. The majority of the left tried to use unifying slogans in the anti-war movement ostracizing the Kurdish question. In contrast to that, it emphasized solidarity with the minorities in the funeral of Hrant Dink. In the first instance the silence about Kurds paved the way for the manipulation of anti-US feelings by the army to target the Kurds. In the second case, putting forward a moral anti-nationalist position just helped the psychological operation of the army to increase Turkish nationalism.
Most leftist organisations pointed to the false dichotomy between the old-style republicans like the army and RPP, on the one side, and neoliberal democrats like the business blocks and AKP on the other side. Both sides favour the attacks against the working class through neoliberal economic measures and repressive anti-union and anti-left legislations. Likewise both have no real opposition to the role of US imperialism in the Middle East. While the parties who sided with the army in the last events were harshly criticized and virtually ostracized by the currents in the radical left, critical support to AKP liberals by reformists and the socialist parties allied with the Kurdish nationalist movement is not challenged. A futile anti-fascism is emerging among the ranks of the non-Kemalist left and this reduces it to a defence of liberal elites due to the lack of a class-centred understanding of anti-fascism. Due to this, it also ignores the fact that the foundations of more repressive measures in the future are established by the AKP government itself.
The secularist/Islamist debate provides a barrier for the prioritization of more important issues like unemployment and low purchasing power of the working masses. What it conceals is that both sides need each other. Therefore the Islamists in the state apparatuses cannot reveal all the links between the state and illegal organisations and the Kemalist elites cannot destroy the power of religious sects. The main victims of these intra-elite frictions are the women whose bodies have been the battleground for the debates between modernizer males for more than a century. Tolerance to and equality among religious beliefs can only be achieved by the liquidation of class privileges and statist hierarchies. Without a social revolution every bourgeois block will try to use any religion to compete with other blocks of the ruling classes and to fight against working class resistance. The left should not fall in any of these two bourgeois categories and has to participate in the current struggles and unite them on an anti-patriarchal and anti-elite basis.
The main practical problems are the lack of contact between the left and the working masses and its sectarianism. The left could have had a more correct position in these issues, but correct positions would not help much, if one does not have ways to bring them to the people. This can be achieved only by two ways: Firstly the left should have a pivotal role in struggle for minor, but achievable, reforms and understand that the most radical demand is not necessarily the most useful one. Only then we can attract people. Unionization struggles, extra-union associations to organise workers and community associations exist presently and they are important vehicles to reach this aim.
Secondly the cooperation among left-wing organisations should increase and it should come from below and aim for clear objectives. The present cooperation attempts are based on platforms of representatives of organisations. This cooperation structure proved to be very inefficient to do anything other than small press declarations. This structure not only excludes the people in the locality, but also the rank and file of the organisations from the decision making structures. No wonder that the state propaganda claiming that left-wing organisations are just using the innocent people is very successful to marginalize the left. Is it not the time to criticize ourselves rather than being only criticizing the state?
Ender Yılmaz & José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
June 18th, 2007
 Turkey’s army is the second biggest of NATO after the US Army.
 A similar paradox exist in some of the old Arab socialist-nationalist States like Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Algeria.
 What means “the father of the Turks”
 Economic Change in Twentieth Century Turkey: Is the Glass more than Half Full? Şevket Pamuk, Working Paper no.41, the American University of Paris. Presentation of January 22nd, 2007.
 During the Ottoman Empire generally the state had the supreme authority on land. Only in regions like Kurdistan and Lebanon we can see more feudalism-like social structures. The last tendencies toward feudalism beginning in the 18th century were defeated at the early 19th century with the help of British imperialism who favoured a weak Ottoman Empire instead of an entrepreneurial aristocracy. Therefore big landowners in the 20th century Turkey were capitalists rather than feudal lords except for Northern Kurdistan.
 Though they were greatly favoured by the economic model, they understood the limits of it in the long term much better than the State bureaucracy.
 Çağlar Keyder, “The Turkish Bell Jar”
 Keyder, op.cit.
 “La cuestión del fascismo en América Latina”, Cuadernos Políticos, México, Ediciones ERA, núm. 18, octubre-diciembre, 1978, pp. 21-29.
 Keyder, op.cit.
 In Turkey, there’s a requirement that any party to enter Parliament, needs at least 10% of the national votes. This was designed mainly to prevent the representation of radical minor parties, but after the rise of the Kurdish national liberation movement in 1984 it became an obstacle for Kurdish parties to make it to the Legislative body.”
 Keyder, op.cit. See as well, Pamuk, op.cit, pp.17-18
 Anatolia is a region in the centre of Turkey
 Both parties had been banned with the respective coups of 1971 and 1980.
 These protests were called “Spring Actions”.
 Pamuk, op.cit, pp.19-20.
 Truth Path Party, a right wing party.
 In November 1996.
 The Susurluk accident was followed by a popular campaign called “one minute darkness for permanent brightness”. The people were turning off their lights at 9 p.m. every day. When the army barracks also began to do the same, they recuperated the movement easily through the mass media.
 Justice and Development Party
 ANAP, MHP and the DSP.
 The only other party which had over the minimum legally required of 10%, was the RPP that was out of the coalition of government.
 Inflation rates averaged around 80% in the 1990s and nearly 50% in 2000.
 Said-i Nursi was a Kurdish Muslim scholar who tried to synthesize Western modernity and Islam which had been tried by generations of Ottoman intellectuals beginning from the 19th century. He withdrew from politics during the Kemalist rule which excluded any idea related to Islam from the political mainstream. He was a proponent of jihad through propaganda of ideas, but also a public supporter of anti-communism in the 50s during the reign of the DP.
 He has schools not only in Turkey but around the whole world and in the former State-Socialist countries they were probably aided by US interests.
 Though not of its leadership, that were keen to support the invasion in spite of strong public opposition. Check Cihan Tuğal “NATO’s Islamists” in the New Left Review 44, March-April 2007.
 AKP did not include these MPs in its candidate lists for the upcoming elections on the 22nd of July.
 “Psychological operation” is actually an official term. In 2003 a newspaper – Radikal which is the left liberal newspaper in the big Dogan media cartel who controls about 60 % of the press – published the notes of the NSC meetings. There is a secret Psychological Operation Bureau in the army
 Probably the two main historical sources of the “deep State” are the late Ottoman secret service which also organised the massacres against Armenians and Greeks at the demise of the empire and the anti-communist Gladio network of NATO which was revealed in European countries after the Cold War, but continues to be untouched in Turkey
 Called Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele, or JITEM.
 Non-Kemalist is a better definition than Islamist to emphasize the transformation of the AKP leadership.
 Recently a controversial e-declaration was made calling people to “show their mass reflexes against terrorism”.
 Recently there were rumors that the Turkish army had already invaded Northern Iraq; though later proved false, they were enough to send shivers all over the region.
 The US is also probably waging a covert war against Iran through the Iranian Wing of the PKK, called PEJAK.
 Though since 2003 there was a new wave of attacks.
 Another bomb attempt was recently discovered, probably, targeting the Minister of Defense.
 In the western provinces at first they were to support the independent candidates from the left, but this ended up in nothing.
 There was a 100,000 strong meeting in Diyarbakır protesting the publication of caricatures of the Islamic prophet in a Danish newspaper.
 Like the FSP
 A nation-wide survey from June 2006 concluded that these two has been the most important issues both in 2002 and in 2006. At the same time more than 65 % think that civil servants and university students can use headscarves, while only 9 % wants an Islamic state. Source: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2006/06/14/guncel/agun.html