Why Social Democracy Failed in Turkey ?
WHY SOCIAL DEMOCRACY FAILED IN TURKEY?
Mert Can Uzunoğlu -
20160209058
Contemporary Issues in Turkish
Politics – PSIR301
Why Social Democracy Failed in Turkey?
Abstract
This
study aims to answer the question of “why social democracy failed in Turkey?”,
with an objective perspective. It starts with scientific definition of social
democracy and historical evolution of social democracy in the world as a
political ideology. Then continues with the emergence of social democratic
ideology in Turkish politics in the late 1960s. While explaining the emergence
of social democracy in Turkey, this study mentions different views of İsmet
İnönü and Bülent Ecevit who were two former leaders of CHP that became
influential for deciding CHP’s new position on the political spectrum. After
that, the study continues with the impacts of 1980 military intervention,
closure of CHP and the formation of new left-wing and social democratic
political parties. In addition to that, the performance of social democratic
parties in the elections, is also mentioned in this paper. Lastly, the paper
ends with explaining reasons for the failure of social democracy in Turkey, and
separetes these reasons into two titles, as; internal and external reasons. In
order to explain all these issues, with an objective method, articles of
different researchers, archives, interviews, and official websites were used.
Definition and Historical Evolution of Social Democracy
As
a political ideology, social democracy emerged in the second half of the 20th
century. Basically, social democracy based on three principles, as; justice,
solidarity and freedom. Justice principle refers that, in front of law, all
individuals are equal, and individuals cannot be discriminated for their
beliefs, ethnicity, gender or family roots. Moreover, same opportunities are
given to every individual in a society. According to solidarity principle, in a
society, individuals are willing to cooperate and help each other, and that
strong connection among individuals, is the base which holds a society together[1]. For freedom principle,
individuals should have the right for deciding how they want to live, without
any arbitrary intervention of state or other individuals in the society. In
addition to that, the civil rights and freedoms of individuals should be
protected and guaranteed. According to Andrew Heywood, a political scientist, the
features of social democracy can be defined under four titles. Firstly, social
democracy does not refuse liberal and democratic principles and underlines
that, political transformation should be realized in a peaceful way, without
violating the constitution. Secondly, the nation-state should be the regulative
authority in social and economic life, but only within the boundaries of state
and without violating constitution (no arbitrary rule). Thirdly, capitalism has
the reliable means for generating wealth, however in moral sense, it is
defective for the distribution of wealth. The reason is its inclination towards
inequality and poverty. Lastly, the problems that evolved as a result of
capitalist system, can be overcame with the economic and social intervention of
state. Social democracy has welfare state mentality, in contrary to strict
market economy that supported by capitalism and welfare can be provided by
state. Therefore, in social democracies, there is social state mentality.
However, it should be understood that social democracy does not support
complete intervention or state ownership in social and economic life but
supports regulative role of state[2]. The last point
that should be known for social democracy is, its difference from socialism. Rather
than being close to socialism, social democracy emerged as the moderate version
of capitalism. According to definitions of many well-known dictionaries,
Britannica and Cambridge, social democracy defined as a political ideology that
supports non-violent transition from strict capitalism to socialism[3]. It can be said that, social
democracy has similar ideological roots with Marxist principles, but in
contrast to totalitarian understanding of communism or state-based
understanding of socialism, social democracy draws state as the distributor of
welfare through society and regulatory power of economy[4].
Social democracy, firstly emerged in
Germany with Social Democratic Party of Germany, in the second half of 20th
century. At the beginning, social democratic movements started with the actions
of worker unions and it provided a moderate rhetoric to Marxist understanding
that supported rule of law, representative democracy and dismissal of negative
consequences of capitalism. However, after the Second World War, social
democracy divided itself from Marxist ideology in a certain way. In that
period, social democrats aimed to find a political reform that could transform capitalism
to a relatively moderate type of socialism and the most influential figure for
social democrats was John Maynard Keynes. Normally he was a modern liberal,
however his policies created a link between capitalism and socialism and
especially with the failure of classical liberal policies with the 1929 Economic
Crisis, Keynesian economic understanding became popular and these policies
shaped the ideals of social democrats. One of the most significant reason of
that transition movement was, preventing expansion of communism under the
leadership of Soviet Union. Because, as a result of negative consequences of
capitalism (1929 Great Depression), and the rise of Soviet Union as a powerful
state, communism started to be seen impressive for some states. For preventing
expansion of communism, social democracy emerged as a moderate way between
capitalism and socialism[5]. Lastly, social democracy
started to be named as “third way”[6]. Therefore, social
democracy became the combination of individualistic right-wing ideas and social
principles of left-wing ideas. The framework for the Third Way was provided by
Anthony Giddens, as; fixing damaged solidarities, accepting the centrality
of social politics, providing a welfare state and embracing dialogic democracy[7].
When we look at the political environment in the world, social democracy is not
that influential. In general, social democratic political parties stays as
opposition parties. The most influential place for social democratic parties is
Northern Europe, like Sweden[8]. However, even in Northern
Europe, the support for social democratic parties started to decrease, for
example; Social Democratic Party of Norway lost the last elections against
conservatives[9].
Emergence of Social Democracy in Turkey and Performance of Political
Parties
As
a political ideology, social democracy emerged in the second half of 20th
century. Starting from Germany, this ideology started to become influential in
Europe. When we look at Turkish case, Turkey met with social democracy, as an
ideology of a party, in the second half of 1960s. The founding party of Turkish
Republic, Republican People’s Party (CHP) declared its new position as “left of
center”. Since the foundation of CHP, the party had no clear ideology, apart
from Atatürk’s six principles, as; laicism, etatism, republicanism, populism,
nationalism, reformism. Rather than declaring an ideology, CHP only acted as
the protector of the reforms of republic and secularism. The party standed in the center and until the
second half of 1960s, CHP has never changed its position. Within the party,
first signals of social democratic mentaliy were seen in 1959 party congress.
In the congress, as a response to the Democratic Party’s authoritarian
behavior, CHP announced “the Declaration of First Goals”[10]. With that declaration,
CHP demanded for social and democratic rights. For example; right to strike for
workers, right to form a union, equality in front of law, freedom of speech and
so on. However, a year later from the party congress, Turkey faced with its
first military intervention in 1960, against the Democratic Party government. The
interesting point is, the National Unity Committee, that was formed by military
officers after the intervention, used the goals that CHP demanded, while making
the 1961 Constitution. The 1961 Constitution and its affects on political
environment were the reason of CHP’s transition to “left of center”. Because,
the 1961 Constitution provided more liberal environment for Turkish society and
in addition to social and democratic rights that gained by Turkish people, the
constitution provided a chance for people, from every segments of society and
different ideologies, to form their political parties. In that era, there were
several right-wing parties, such as; Justice Party (AP), New Turkey Party (YTP)
and Republican Peasants’ Nation Party (CKMP)[11]. It was difficult for CHP
to get the votes of right-wing groups. When we look at the left-wing, Turkish
Workers’ Party (TİP) was formed, and this party emerged as an alternative
option for working groups, low and medium level income citizens and youth, with
its anti-imperial, anti-capitalist policies[12]. Morevoer, TİP re-interpreted
two principles of Atatürk; etatism and populism. Therefore, in the party
program of TİP, there were direct references to Kemalist reforms[13]. The emergence of TİP
alerted CHP, because with its party program, TİP was able to reach the voters
that CHP aimed to reach[14]. Apart from that, rise of
extreme leftist ideas in the world, and spread of Marxist ideals, especially
between young generation, also alerted CHP to adopt “left of center” position.
Because this new position of CHP could create a moderate leftist ideology and
took the attention of young generation from extreme leftist ideologies through
moderate type of it. The new position of CHP, firstly, was declared by İsmet
İnönü while his interview with Abdi İpekçi. İnönü stated that, “ As a
political structure, CHP is an etatist political party and thanks to that
structure, it stands on the left-side of political spectrum.[15]”
In that point, the question is why İnönü and CHP waited until 1965, to declare
the position of party? According to Hikmet Bila, there are four different
reasons of that decision. Firstly, in that period, the social and economic
demands of low-income groups heavily increased. Secondly, as a result of the
party program and policy alterntives of TİP, the party started to get support
from working class and low-income groups. Thirdly, CHP grassroots demanded for
transition in policies of party (one of them was Bülent Ecevit that replaced
İnönü in 1972). Lastly, especially after Johnson Letter, there was a huge
distrust to the United States, and that distrust couraged CHP to shift its
position through left[16].
However, the new position of CHP gained its ideological base, when Bülent
Ecevit was elected as the new leader of CHP in 1972.
Ecevit played an active role in
Turkish politics, as a leader of CHP, until 1980 military intervention. According
to İnönü, CHP had always been in the left of center, but it was mentioned in
1965. Therefore, he claimed that, CHP still held its founding, 40 years old
principles, without any radical shift. However, Ecevit and his supporters
wanted a real transition in CHP, and provided an ideological base for CHP’s new
position. Ecevit defined the ideology of “left of center” as; “people who
wishes to help kids that cannot have an opportunity to get education, and
people who have sense for ending injustice and inqueality among citizens, are
real social democrats.” Moreover, he also stated that, “our heart stays
in the left side of our body.” Therefore, it can be accepted that, under
the leadership of Ecevit, CHP’s ideology shifted to social democracy[17]. When we look at the
change in votes of CHP, with the adoption of new position, in 1965 general
elections, the party got %28.7 of votes and became the second party after
Demirel’s Justice Party. In 1969 general elections, CHP’ votes decreased to
27.3 and again became the second party after Justice Party. However, both in
1965 and 1969 elections, “left of center” position of CHP had no ideological
base. With the leadership of Ecevit, CHP gained an ideological base as a social
democratic party and in 1973 general elections, the party got %33.3 of votes
and became the leading party, however without having enough seats to form
government. In 1977 general elections, CHP increased its votes to %41.8, the
highest in the history of CHP, but again could not get enough seats. In 1978,
CHP became a member of the Socialist International, and with this membership,
CHP declared its new political ideology in the international arena. Under the
leadership of Ecevit, as a social democratic party, CHP got the highest votes
of its history, however it is difficult to say CHP was successful. Because, the
party could not form a government itself, there were lots of coalition
governments. Moreover, as results of these coalitions, there were economic
problems, civil conflicts, embargos, and at the end, Turkey faced with its
second military intervention in 1980.
After the intervention, the military
decided to close all political parties and in addition to that, the most
influential politicians of 1960s and 1970s, such as; Ecevit, Demirel, Türkeş,
Erbakan, were arrested and were banned from politics[18]. One of the most
significant reasons of the military intervention was polarization among
citizens and related to that, growing civil violence. According to military,
radicalization of political parties caused that, therefore National Security
Council decided to form a two-party system, as; one center-left party and one
center-right party. On the left side of political spectrum, the Populist Party
was formed by Necdet Calp who was former principal clerk of İsmet İnönü. This
party can be accepted as the continuation of CHP, because the Populist Party
(HP) had similar party program with CHP, and the position of party was
mentioned in party program, as a social democratic party[19]. In 1983 general
elections, the party got %30.5 of votes and became the second party after the
Motherland Party (ANAP). After the Populist Party, the Social Democratic Party
(SODEP) was formed, on the left side of political spectrum, and in 1985, the
Populist Party and the Social Democratic Party were united, under the name of
the Social Democratic Populist Party (SHP). However, social democratic wing of
Turkish political spectrum was still divided, because in 1985, the Democratic
Left Party (DSP) was formed by Rahşan Ecevit, who is the wife of former prime
minister and leader of CHP, Bülent Ecevit[20]. Interestingly, when DSP
was formed, the party defined social democracy as a Marxist-origin ideology,
and named itself as “democratic left”. The leftist parties participated the
1987 general elections as divided, and SHP got %24.8 and DSP got %8.5 of votes.
In 1992, the first political party that represents social democracy, CHP, was
re-opened and turned back to political life. The main goal of CHP was reuniting
social democratic left-wing parties under the rood of CHP and related to that
goal, SHP and CHP were united, under the name of CHP in 1995. When we look at
the performance of CHP, after the unification, in 1995 general elections, the
party only got %10.7 of votes. On the other hand, DSP got %14.6 of votes. Therefore,
the total performance of left-wing parties was %25.3[21]. In the 1999 general
elections, CHP got %8.7 (no seats) and DSP got %22.2 of votes. It means that,
one of the social democratic parties, first time in its history, got no seats
in the parliament. However, DSP became the leading party in elections and
formed government with ANAP and MHP. The 1999 general elections were the last
elections that won by a left-wing or social democratic party. Starting with the
2002 general elections, CHP has became the only political party that represents
social democratic ideology in the parliament. However, CHP has always been the
opposition party, has never won the elections.
The Reasons of the Failure of Social Democracy in Turkey
When
we look at the performance of social democratic parties in Turkey, it can be
seen that, social democratic parties have never been able to form government,
without coalitions. Although social democracy reached its peak in 1970s, under
the leadership of Ecevit’s CHP (with a clear ideological base), especially
after the 1980 military intervention, the influence of social democratic
parties tended to decrease. There are several internal reasons about the
decline of social democracy, such as; the role of military after the post-1980
period, fragmentation of left-wing parties, and the failure of left-wing parties
for explaining the meaning of social democracy to people and their internal
conflicts within the party. Apart from internal reasons, there are also
external reasons that explains the reasons of the failure of social democracy.
Because, especially in the post-1980 period, social democratic parties were
declining even in the birthplace of social democracy, Europe[22]. When we look at the
current political environment in Europe, right-wing political parties are
increasing their power and even populist parties are getting more stronger than
social democrats. For example; in countries like, Hungary, Poland, Austria,
Slovakia, Latvia, Finland and Bulgaria, right-wing populist parties are the
ruling party or a coalition partner. Even in Germany, since the Second World
War, an extreme right-wing political party, “Alternative for Deutschland” has
seats in the parliament[23]. Two main reasons that
explains the decline of social democracy are, the affects of globalization and new
neo-liberal structure in the world[24].
Internal Factors
The first internal reason that can
be mentioned for explaining failure of social democracy, is the role of
military, especially after the post-1980 period. Since the foundation of
Turkish Republic, the military acted as the guardian of the principles of Atatürk
and especially secularism. However, after the 1980 military intervention, the
military introduced “Turkish Islamic Synthesis”[25]. Because, there was a
growing violence between left-wing and right-wing groups and these violent
activities resulted with extreme polarization. This fact was one of the reasons
of 1980 military intervention, and as a solution, the military searched for a
tool to unite people. This tool was religion and connected to that,
nationalism. Related to that, the military introduced religious education in
primary schools, the power of Directorate of Religious Affairs was increased,
and these policies of the military were resulted with the rise of political
islam[26]. Therefore, it can be
understood that, these policies of military were for the benefit of right-wing
parties, in contrast to social democratic parties. Apart from that, with the
1982 Constitution, the role of trade unions were weakened, like DİSK, and
leaders of trade unions were arrested. It was a problem, because for social
democracies, trade unions have a significant role in a society for protecting
the rights of working class, however with the intervention, trade unions lost that
ability[27] and the 1982
Constitution, cut the link between social democratic parties and trade unions. Lastly,
starting from 1980s, ethnic conflicts emerged within the country. Especially
two terrorist organizations, ASALA (Armenian) and PKK (Kurdish) increased their
violent activities within the country and as a result of that, “ethnic
identity” element involved into Turkish polictics. In that context, left-wing ideologies started
to be seen as discriminative, and in contrats to these ideologies, islamist and
nationalist ideologies gained importance and also supported by the military[28].
Second internal reason is the
fragmentation of social democratic parties. Before 1980 military intervention,
social democracy was represented only by CHP, and especially under the
leadership of Ecevit, the party won 1973 and 1977 general elections. However,
with the 1980 military intervention, CHP was closed down and Ecevit was banned
from political life. After the intervention, the Populist Party (HP) and the
Social Democratic Party (SODEP) were formed, but the National Security Council
did not let SODEP to participate into the 1983 elections. As a result of that,
HP particapted these elections as the only left-wing party and got %30.4 of
votes. In 1985, HP and SODEP was united under the roof of Social Democratic
Populist Party (SHP) to represent social democratic principles from a single
political party[29].
However, also in 1985, Rahşan Ecevit who is the wife of former leader of CHP,
formed the Democratic Left Party and left-wing votes divided into two parties.
It means that, leftist parties lost power against right-wing parties, as a
result of that division. In 1992, CHP was re-established and Baykal was elected
as its leader. In addition to that, by 1992, left-wing votes were divivded into
three political parties. In general, when we look at the performance of
political parties, during the republican period, right-wing parties are much
more successful than left-wing parties. The majority of people vote for
right-wing parties, and if a left-wing party wants to be a leading party, there
should be an unification on the left side of political spectrum[30]. However, in 1992, there
were three different left-wing political parties that almost had same ideology.
This division negatively affected the performance of left-wing parties, and
especially in 1994 local elections, left-wing parties lost important
metropolitan cities, like Ankara and Istanbul to the Welfare Party (RP). After
these elections, especially CHP and SHP started negotiations to unite left-wing
parties, ans as a result of that, in 1995, CHP and SHP united under the roof of
CHP. However, DSP refused to participate this unification and leftist parties
participated into 1995 general elections as two different parties[31]. In 1995 general
elections, although there was a unification between CHP and SHP, CHP only got
the %10.7 of votes. On the other hand, DSP got the %14.6 of votes and showed
better performance than CHP. DSP won the 1999 elections, but could not get
enough votes to form a government[32]. Interesting point is, in
its history, for the first time CHP could not pass the electoral threshold and
could not get any seats in the parliament. Therefore, political fragmentation
of left-wing parties, resulted with division of leftist votes and social
democratic parties could not find an opportunity to be a leading party.
Third reason is about the failure of
social democratic parties (especially CHP) of Turkey for imposing the meaning
of social democracy and lack of clear political programmes. In the second half
of 1960s, İnönü declared CHP’s position as the left of center, and then with
Ecevit, the party transformed that position to an ideology and became a social
democratic party. However, still within CHP, there is an ideological
fleixibility[33].
According to Tarhan Erdem, who was the secretary-general of the party in 2000, “everybody
in CHP says that, they are social democrats, bur it is just a shell.” Therefore,
even within the members of CHP, the meaning of social democracy is not clear
yet. Moreover, CHP has never developed an identifiable position for some
topics. For example; the party idenfies itself as a social democratic party,
but they have no clear economic programme related to social democracy. Also,
the party has never developed alternative policies for Turkey’s EU membership. Therefore,
the members of party have only criticized policies of right-wing parties, but
never developed a new vision[34]. To sum up, we can say
that, the party could not adopt itself to the current political life and could
not liberate itself from being the founding party of republic. As a result of
these all reasons, social democracy cannot be influential in Turkish political
life[35].
External Factors
The
external factors that caused failure of social democracy, are globalization and
related to globalization, new neo-liberal structure in the world politics. With
the emergence of globalization, social democratic parties have started to lose
support all around the world. Social democratic parties were very influential
after the 1929 economic crisis. With the failure of classical liberal economy,
especially social democrats that using Keynesian economic policies, came into
power in several countries. However, by the 1980s, connected to rise of
globalization, social democracies started to lose power. Because, as a result
of globalization, nation states started to decline and lose their capabilities.
There is a positive correlation between nation state and leftist ideology. In
addition to that, leftist ideals also started to decline[36]. As a response, in 1990s,
social democrats developed the “Third Way”. With the “Third Way”, social
democrats tried to create a link between standard social democratic principles
and the liberal principles that relatively more popular on that era, and for
example; in the United Kingdom, Tony Blair[37] became and his Workers
Party, got successful results from the elections. When we look at the
principles of social democracy, it supports regulative involvement of state
into economy, however with the foundation of new neo-liberal structure, the
role of state is declined. For neo-liberalism, the role of state in social and
economic life, should be minimal and state should not intervene into economic
activities, even should not for regulating it. However, as a result of
neoliberal policies, income and wealth disparities emerged and the gap between
rich and poor people become deeper. Therefore, Apart
from that, one of the most important ideals of social democrats is protecting
rights of working class, but with globalization, trade unions lost their
bargaining power. Because, now transnational companies are able to find cheap
worker from wherever they want. Also, one of the negative affects of
globalization is erosion of social rights[38]. Social democracy was
founded on three principles; justice, solidarity and freedom, but with the
erosion of social rights, those principles cannot exist. When social democracy
lost its influence with the rise of globalization, as a respond, groups like
migrants, owners of small enterprises and workers started to vote for
conservative, nationalists and populist parties[39]. When we look at the
current political map of world, right-wing populist parties are constantly
getting more support from citizens. Even in most of the European countries, the
center of democracy (!), the leading parties are right-wing populists, rather
than social democrats. Therefore, globalization and new neoliberal structure of
world weakened the principles of social democracy, and even anti-globalization
minded voters are supporting protectionist conservative and nationalist
ideologies rather than social democratic ones[40].
Conclusion
As
a political ideology, social democracy emerged in the second half of 20th
century. Social democracy has three core principles as; justice, solidarity and
freedom. The principle of justice refers equality of all people in front of
law, independent from their belief, gender or ethnicity. For solidarity, individuals
are willing to cooperate and help each other, and that strong connection among
individuals, is the base which holds a society together. Lastly, the principle
of freedom refers that individuals should have the right for deciding how they
want to live, without any arbitrary intervention of state or other individuals
in the society, and these rights of individuals should be guaranteed. As a
political ideology, social democracy does not refuse liberal and democratic
principles and underlines that political transformation can be realized in a
peaceful way. Social democracy has similar ideological roots with Marxist
principles, however rathet than supporting, totalitarian understanding of
communism, or state-centric economic understanding of socialism, social
democracy places state as a regulative authority in economy. When there is an
economic problem, state can intervene and with using several policies; such as;
monetary and fiscal policies, but state cannot control all economic activities.
Therefore, social democracy can be defined as the moderate type of capitalism. Social
democracy, firstly emerged in Germany with Social Democratic Party of Germany,
in the second half of 20th century. At the beginning, social democratic movements
started with the actions of worker unions and it provided a moderate rhetoric
to Marxist understanding that supported rule of law, representative democracy
and dismissal of negative consequences of capitalism. After the Second World
War, social democracy divided itself from Marxist principles and tried to
transform capitalism through moderate type of socialism. Especially, the aim of
that transformation was preventing expansion of communism. Lastly, social
democracy was re-interpreted and called as “third way”, and with “third way”, social
democracy became the combination of individualistic right-wing ideas and social
principles of left-wing ideas. In Turkey, social democracy, as a party
ideology, was born with CHP. It was adopted by CHP under the leadership of
İsmet İnönü, however without any ideological base. Under the leadership of
Bülent Ecevit, an ideological base was provided to social democracy and with
its new ideology, CHP won 1973 and 1977 general elections. The party was closed
down with the 1980 military intervention. After the intervention, the legacy of
CHP was continued with the Populist Party and SODEP. In 1985, the Populist
Party and SODEP were united under the name of the Social Democratic Populist
Party. Moreover, in the same year, the Democratic Left Party was founded by
Rahşan Ecevit. The difference between these two parties was, the Social
Democratic Populist Party was representing social democracy and that party was
the continuation of CHP’s legacy. However, the Democratic Left Party stated
that, the party was not a social democratic party that support Marxist
principles and defined the ideology of party as ; democratic left. Although while
participating the general elections as two left-wing parties, that had similar
ideologies, the performance of left-wing parties was not successful, in 1992,
CHP was re-opened and the left side of political spectrum. As a result of the
weak performance of left-wing parties, in 1995, SHP and CHP decided to be
unified under the roof of CHP. However, social democratic parties have never
became successful enough to form a government alone. The reasons for the
failure of social democratic parties of Turkey, can be examined under two
different factors as; internal factors and external factors. For internal
factors, firstly, the role of military can be mentioned. For ending civil
conflicts between left-wing and right-wing groups in a long-term, the military
decided to adopt Turkish-Islamic Synthesis. The adoption of that synthesis was
for the benefit of right-wing parties, especially religiously oriented ones and
connected to that, resulted with the weakening of social democratic parties. Apart
from that, with the 1982 constitution, the role of trade unions were weakened
and the link between social democratic parties and these unions were cut. Secondly,
the political fragmentation of social democratic parties was resulted with weak
elections results. CHP, SHP and DSP participated elections without any
cooperation and coalition and it produced negative results for social
democratic parties. Last internal reasons is about the failure of social
democratic parties (especially CHP) of Turkey for imposing the meaning of
social democracy and lack of clear political programmes. Because, even within
the party, there were deputies who had no idea about the principles of social
democracy and it was seemed like, CHP only adopted social democratic ideology
for not to lose leftist votes, more general, for political purposes. Moreover,
the party did not provide economic and social policies in relation to the
principles of social democratic ideology. When we look at the external factors,
globalization and the emergence of new neoliberal economic structure, caused
the failure of social democracy. As a result of globalization, nation states
started to decline and lose their capabilities. There is a positive correlation
between nation state and leftist ideology. In addition to that, leftist ideals
also started to decline. When social democracy lost its influence with the rise
of globalization, as a respond, groups like migrants, owners of small
enterprises and workers started to vote for conservative, nationalists and
populist parties. Therefore, as a result of all these internal and external
factors, the social democratic parties of Turkey have never been that
successful as right-wing parties, and social democratic parties were failed to
impose the meaning of social democracy in a correct way. In the current
political situation in Turkey, CHP is representing social democratic ideology,
however still same problems exist within the party for imposing social
democracy.
MERT
CAN UZUNOĞLU
20160209058
Bibliography
Derya
Kömürcü, (2010), Türkiye’de Sosyal Demokrasi Arayışı: SODEP ve SHP Deneyimleri,
Agora Kitaplığı.
Erik
Zürcher, (2004), Turkey: A Modern History, 3rd Edition, I.B Tauris.
Yunus
Emre, (2013), The Emergence of Social Democracy in Turkey: The Left and the
Transformation of the Republican People’s Party, I.B Tauris&Co Ltd.
Thomas
Kastning, (March 2013), Basics on Social Democracy, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
(Ghana).
Andrew
Heywood, (2013), Politics, Red Globe Press; 5th Edition.
Michael
Newman, (2005), Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, The United Kingdom,
Oxford Press.
Anthony
Giddens, (1998), The Third Way: Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press, the
United Kingdom.
Fatih
Tuğluoğlu, (2017), CHP’s 14th Congress and the Declaration of First
Goals, Ankara University : Atatürk Yolu Magazine, Vol. 60.
Altuğ
Koç, (2017), The Emergence of “Left of Cnter” Rhetoric and 1965 General
Elections, Kırklareli University: Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences Magazine, vol: 6.
Artun
Ünsal, (2008), From Hope Through Loneliness: TİP (1961-1971), Istanbul: 2nd
Edition. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Press.
İlter
Turan, (2009), Old Soldiers Never Die: The Republican People’s Party of Turkey,
vol: 11, no: 3-4. South European Society&Politics.
İsmet
İnönü, Abdi İpekçi, (1965), Kalkınma Muhafazakar Tedbirler Gerçekleşmez, July
29th: Milliyet.
Hikmet
Bila, (2008), CHP 1919-2009, Doğan Press, First Edition.
Ayşe
Güneş Ayata, (2010), The Republican People’s Party, September 8th, Turkish
Studies, vol: 3, no: 1
Begüm
Burak, (2011), The Role of the Military in Turkish Politics: To Guard Whom From
What?, European Journal of Economic and Political Studies.
Feroz
Ahmad, (2008), Politics and Political Parties in Republican Turkey, Cambridge
University Press.
Erol
Tuncer, (2011), From Left of Center Towards Democratic-Left and Social
Democracy, TESAV. January 19th .
Sheri
Berman, (2019), Populism is a Symptom Rather than a Cause: The Decline of the
Center-left and the Rise of Threats to Liberal Democracy. Columbia University.
Banu
Elgür, (2010), Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey, Cambridge University
Press, 1st Edition, April 12th .
Ziya
Öniş, (1997), The Political Economy of Islamic Resurgance in Turkey: the rise
of the Welfare Party in perspective. Third World Quarterly, vol: 18, no: 4
Ersin
Kalaycıoğlu, (2007), The Evolution and Legislature System of Turkish Political
Regime, Aktüel Press, 3rd Edition.
Şevket
Süreyya Aydemir, (2000), İkinci Adam, Cilt: 3, Remzi Kitabevi.
Fuat Keyman, (2005), Milliyetçi ve Ulusalcı Sol. Radikal.
December 12th.
Mete
Kaan Kaynar, (2007), Political Parties of the Republican Period (1923-2006),
Ankara. Imge Press.
Mete
Kaan Kaynar (2018), Mainstream Turkish Leftist Parties After 1980 Coup D’Etat:
Similarities and Diversities. October 1st, vol: 4.
Sina
Akşin, (2008), Türkiye Tarihi, 5th Edition: Bugünkü Türkiye
1980-2003. Istanbul. Cem Press.
Ozan Örmeci, (2012), The
CHP’s Ideological Crisis: Both Diffident and Different, December 23rd.
Reflections Turkey, A Platform of Op-Ed Commentaries on Turkish Affairs.
Ümit Sakallıoğlu, (1999),
From Military Exercise to Action, Birikim Magazine.
Andrew Leigh, (2003), The
Rise and Fall of the Third Way, vol: 75, no: 2.
Paul Sweeney, (2018), The
Collapse of European Social Democracy, Part: 1, October 8th.
Giacomo Benedetto, Simon
Hix, (2019), The Rise and Fall of Social Democracy (1918-2017). July 1st.
Adam Przeworski, (1986),
Capitalism and social democracy, Cmabridge University Press.
Ben Clift, Social
Democracy and Globalization: The Cases of France and the UK, Cambridge
University Press.
[3] The Editiors
of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Definition of social democracy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy
[6] Mellbye
A. 2003. A brief history of the third way. The Guardian, 10th of February.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/10/labour.uk1
[8] Wike R. Poushter J. Silver L. Devlin K. Fetterolf J.
Castillo A. Huang C. 2019. European
Public Opinion Three Decades After The Fall Of Communism. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-parties/
[9]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41234901
[10] Tugluoglu F.
Spring 2017. CHP’S 14th Congress and the Declaration of First Goals. Ankara
University: Atatürk Yolu Maganize. p. 275-300
[11] Koç A. 2017. The
Emergence of “Left of Center” Rhetoric and 1965 General Elections.
Kırklareli University. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Magazine. vol: 6. p. 37-46
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/344258
[13] Turkish
Workers’ Party Declaration. 1969. Istanbul: Çınar Press. https://acikerisim.tbmm.gov.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11543/640/197600373_1969.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[14] Turan İ. Old
Soldiers Never Die: The Republican People’s Party of Turkey. vol. 11,
no.3-4, South European Society&Politics, p. 560-561
[18] Burak B. 2011.
The Role of the Military in Turkish Politics: To Guard Whom and From What?,European
Journal of Economic and Political Studies.
[19] The Populist
Party Declaration. 1983. Ankara: Küçükesat. Populist Party Press.
https://acikerisim.tbmm.gov.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11543/600/199201397_1983.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[20] Ahmad F.
(2008). Politics and Political Parties in Republican Turkey. Cambridge
University Press. p. 209-211. http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/resfall16_17/Hist300_EDaloglu/Week8_9_10_11.pdf
[21] Tuncer E.
2011. From Left of Center Towards Democratic-Left and Social Democracy.
TESAV.
http://www.tesav.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/30.-ortaninsolundandemokratiksolavesosyaldemokrasiye.pdf
[22] BBC News.
November 2019. Europe and right-wing nationalism: A contry by country guide.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006
[23] Berman S.
2019. Populism is a Symptom Rather
than a Cause: The Decline of the Center-left and the Rise of Threats to Liberal
Democracy. https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/populism_is_a_symptom_rather_than_a_cause_stanford_global_populisms_conference.pdf
[24] Sosnowska A. M, Canzani A., Cıngı A., Nieves C., Kallset K., Rodriguez
G., Bouvet L., Engels J., Diamond P. 2010. International Politics and
Society: The Future of Social Democracy. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Türkei. p.
26-32.
[26] Öniş Z. 1997. The
Political Economy of Islamic Resurgance in Turkey: the rise of the Welfare
Party in perspective. Third World Quarterly. vol. 18. no. 4. p. 743-765
[27] Kalaycıoğlu E.
2007. The Evolution and Legislature System of Turkish Political Regime.
Aktüel Press. Third Edition. p. 331-345
[29] Kaynar, M K.
2007. Political Parties of the Republican Period (1923-2006). Ankara.
Imge Press. p. 72-77
[30] Kaynar M K. Ak
G. 2018. Mainstream Turkish Leftist Parties After 1980 Coup D’Etat:
Similarities and Diversities. October 1st. Vol. 4. p. 365-376.
http://www.ideastudies.com/Makaleler/1551953864_1_4-9_ID119.%20Kaynar&Ak_365-375.pdf
[32] http://konda.com.tr/en/history/
[33] Örmeci O. 2012. The CHP’s Ideological Crisis: Both Diffident and Different.
December 23rd. Reflections Turkey: A Platform of Op-Ed Commentaries on Turkish
Affairs. http://www.reflectionsturkey.com/2012/12/the-chps-ideological-crisis-both-diffident-and-different/
[34] Sakallıoğlu Ü.
1999. Turkey in 1999: from military exercise to action. Birikim, no.
122, p. 16-22
[35] Ayata A G.
1992. The Republican People’s Party, in Political Parties in Turkey, B.
Rubin & M. Heper, Frank Cass, London.
[36]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/third-way
[37] Leigh
A. 2003. The Rise and Fall of the Third Way. vol. 75, no. 2, p.11-16. Australian
Institute of Policy and Science
[38] Öniş
Z. 1997. The Political Economy of Islamic Resurgance in Turkey: The rise of
the Welfare Party in perspective. Third World Quarterly, vol. 18, no.4, p.
744-746
[39] Sweeney P.
2018. The Collapse of European Social Democracy part:1. October 8th.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-collapse-of-european-social-democracy-part-1
[40] Benedotto G.
Hix S. Mastrorocco N. 2019. The Rise and Fall of Social Democracy (1918-2017).
July 1st. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/BHM_Rise_and_Fall_of_SD.pdf
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder