CHAPTER TWO: DEFINITION AND PROCESS OF DEMOCRATIZATION IN TURKEY
2.1 Democratization Process in Turkish Political History .1 The Tanzimat Reform Era
2.1.3 Transition to Multi-Party System 1945-1950
Within a few years of the end of the Second World War, Turkey’s political system, economic policies, and foreign relations underwent a fundamental change. In this section, I will examine the factors behind the change and the way it came about.
The political atmosphere of the country did not become milder during the period of Ismet Inönü, who became the President after Atatürk. On the contrary, the regime became more rigid. The government was turned into a party government, and Ismet Inönü, who was the permanent leader of the party and President, was glorified as the symbol of the nation and state. As a result of 99 these applications, reactions against CHP started to surface in a gradually increasing manner.
Problems caused by the Second World War undermined the single-party system and changed ideas and opinions. During this period, problems were
Presidency of Republican People's Party, CHP, Extraordinary Meeting, 26.12.1938, Statute 97
Amendment Proposal, Ankara, 1938.
Cemil Koçak, National Chief Period in Turkey (1938-1945), Yurt Publication, Ankara, 1986, p. 369.
98
Karpat, ibid., p. 69.
99
attributed solely to the single-party system, and idea that an opposition mechanism is needed urgently was favored strongly. 100
Turkish Republic's transition from a single-party system to a multiple-party political model is a problematic subject. This is a disputable subject with 101 conflicting arguments like CHP regarded multi-party regime as the ideal for political development and maturation, or level of socio-political development achieved by Turkey paved the ground for a democratic revolution by gradually undermining CHP's bureaucratic tyranny government despite their reluctance to take these steps. These arguments are highly correlated with the political 102 attitudes of today.
In political science literature, models of democratization are described by three terms; reform, coercion, and reconciliation (agreement). In the case of Turkey, it can be suggested that the power reforms the system, and legalized opposition makes compromises when it takes over the power. In addition to 103 this, it can be said that the process, which started in 1945 and ended in 1950, had a completely civil character, which did not grant any authorities to Turkish Armed Force by any means.
It is seen that CHP drew itself away from the power in a manner that no single-party government did in the political history of 20th century. It is widely accepted in political science literature that single-party model in Turkey is different from fascist and communist one-party system, in that it is a guardianship party. CHP never had authoritarian legitimacy doctrine, always presented legitimacy as an ideal, and 'revolution will be completed with democracy' had always been a part of the official discourse. In this case, the single-party administration's evolving into a competitive multi-party regime is
Rıfkı Salim Burçak, Transition to Democracy in Turkey 1945-1950, Ankara, 1979, p. 33-34.
100
Ertan, ibid., p. 6-7.
101
Sedat Yaralı, Cumhuriyet’in İlk Yıllarında Demokratikleşme Çabaları, Available at: http://
102
turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/ATATURK/arastirmalar/yarali.pdf, s. 225.
Ergun Özbudun, Contemporary Turkish Politics: Challenges To Democratic Consolidation, (London;
103
Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), p. 18.
not against its nature. On the contrary, it is in accordance with its political trajectory. 104
According to Hakkı Devrim:
“By the end of the Second World War, Ismet Inönü’s government had become deeply unpopular, even hated by the large majority of the Turkish population for a variety of reasons. The regime had never been popular with the masses. The small farmers in the countryside, who still made up about 80 percent of the total population, had not seen any great improvement in their standard of living, health, education, or communications. If we take something like electrification as a measure of modernization, we note that as late as 1953, the total number of villages that had been linked up to the electric grid was ten; just 0.025 percent of Turkey’s 40.000 villages.” 105
The figures quoted by Hakkı Devrim are quite striking. Now, the necessity of change is inevitable. The transition from a single-party regime to a multi-party system was caused only by the above-mentioned internal factors besides the external factors. Erik J. Zürcher explained these external forces as follows:
“In a very general sense, the defeat of the Axis Powers in the Second World War was in itself a victory for democratic values. The United States of America, a pluralist, capitalist democracy, emerged from the war as the dominant world power and its example could not fail to impress many in Turkey, just as it did in countries all over the world. In April 1945, Turkey took part as a founding member in
Rıdvan Akın, “Türkiye’de Çok Partili Siyasal Hayata Geçiş ve Demokrat Parti İktidarı (1945-1950)”, 104
Available at: https://www.tarihtarih.com/?Syf=26&Syz=354662&/T%C3%BCrkiyede-%C3%87ok-Partili-Siyasal- Hayata-Ge%C3%A7i%C5%9F-ve-Demokrat-Parti-%C4%B0ktidar%C4%B1-(1945-1960)-/-Dr.-R%C4%B1dvan-Ak%C4%B1n-.
Hakkı Devrim, Encyclopedia of Turkey 1923-1973, Vol. 2, Kaynak Publication, Istanbul, 1974, p.
105 583.
the San Francisco conference and, in signing the UN charter, committed itself to democratic ideals. There were, however, more immediate reasons why the Turkish government felt compelled to move closer to the West, especially to the USA.” 106
Just as Erik J. Zürcher suggested, after the World War II, a defeat of totalitarian regimes, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, caused the rise of democratization movement across the world; a factor that drove political and economic liberation in Turkey, and forced the administrators of Turkey to reform the regime. What is more, the winning side of the war were Western countries, which adopted democracy.
These are the external factors, which caused Turkey to embrace the multi-party system. Apart from these, it is certain that there are internal factors.
Economic reasons could be listed among the most important factors. Just as 107 an example, although Turkey did not enter the Second World War, it was affected by all the negative developments caused by the war; military spending during the war-damaged national economy considerably. During the war year, citizens went through expensive living conditions, poverty, and various abuses.
In a country, which did not enter the war, the expansive living conditions, which were not observed in countries which went into the war, caused an increasing dissatisfaction with the CHP government. This led to a search for a new 108 system, a new party.
Social reasons could be added to internal factors, which paved the ground for the adoption of the multi-party system. For instance, peasants were the section of the society, which was affected by social problems most. In 1945, 83% of the total population was living in villages. Single-party power's 109
Zürcher, ibid., 2013, p. 208.
106
Devrim, ibid., p. 583.
107
Ercan Haytoğlu, “Türkiye’de Demokratikleşme Süreci ve 1945’te Çok Partili Siyasi Hayata Geçişin 108
Nedenleri (1908-1945)”, Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, Issue: 3, 1997, p. 51 Karpat, ibid., p. 91.
109
pressure on the peasantry increased, and peasants started to go through an indescribable lack of liberty period. During this period, the peasants, master of the nation, were complaining about gendarmerie, tax collectors, and agricultural product taxes. Ercan Haytoğlu's example on this subject is quite dramatic:
"Those who could not pay road tax of six lira were forced to work on the roads and mines for days, and peasants were not able to meet their urgent needs due to the oppression of economic structure.” 110
Ismet Inönü, who was aware of all this, worked with CHP before 1946 elections and delivered speeches in Eskisehir, Aksehir, Erzincan, Kars, Trabzon community centers and other regions from May until July intended for familiarizing the public with the democratic environment, which would be brought by the transition from direct suffrage system to the multi-party system. 111
With the establishment of DP in 1946, a new period started in the political history of Turkey. I avoided details on this subject in this section, since DP will be discussed in the next section in more detail. However, in Turkish history, the first election, which was based on direct suffrage, open ballot, secret canvass and simple majority principles, was held on 21st July 1946. 1946 election is 112 very important since it was the first attempt for multi-party system after two unsuccessful experiments. In this election, which was the first the multi-party system experiment of Republic history, although elections were controversial, CHP won 397 seats, DP won 61 seats, and independent candidates won 7 seats in the parliament. 113
Haytoğlu, ibid., p. 51.
110
Mustafa Albayrak, Democrat Party in Turkish Political Life (1946-1960), Phoenix Publication, 111
Ankara, 2004, p. 33.
Mustafa Albayrak, “Türkiye’de Demokrasiye Geçiş Yılları ve Demokratikleşme Sürecinin İlk On 112
Yılı”, Ankara Bar Association Journal, Issue: 1, 2014, p. 299.
TUIK, 2012, p. 4, 8, 25.
113