Democratic Party of Turkey - Essay Example

Democrat Party of Turkey Introduction The Democrat Party or the Demokrat Parti was a political party which occupied a right wing position in Turkey; it was also considered Turkey’s third opposition group following the Liberal Republican Party and the National Development Party1. This political party was set into political power via popular mandate, however within ten years, it was deposed through a military coup. This paper will explain this turn of events, evaluating the fact that the party was able to retain its popularity throughout its favored and disfavored time. This paper shall first provide a background for the Party, and then provide an assessment of the events which led to its deposition. A discussion on its impact and popularity will also be presented. Body The Demokat Parti was established in 1946 in opposition and response to the dominance of the Republic People’s Party2. The Republic People’s Party was founded by the Turkish Republic and stayed in power through to 1950. The first leaders of the Republic People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) were highly regarded by the people before they later broke away from the party to form the Demokrat Parti (DP)3. Due to the similar founding leadership for both parties, the political leaders established similar ideologies, mostly those established in Kemalism. As such, the Demokrat Parti was prevented from diversifying from the practice of the CHP or the Republic People’s Party. Nevertheless, it was eventually able to secure significant differences in its principles and platform4. Despite its attempts at differentiating itself from the CHP, the Demokrat Parti was still functioning within the confines of the CHP and it was also prompted to stay within the confines of the 1927 Constitution5. As a result, the Demokrat Parti found it extremely difficult to secure its own identity outside the control of the Republican People’s Party. The two parties nevertheless had their differences. The Republican People’s Party was founded on statism while the Demokrat Parti was more focused on protecting state industries which helped secure the Turkish Republic following the First World War6. The Demokrat Parti did not oppose the Republican People’s Party’s westernization goals, however they also did not seek such westernization with much interest or vigor7. It was also not as secular as the Republican People’s Party, but it supported populism as it was able to secure the support from the Turkey intelligentsia8. The results of the Second World War had a significant impact on the rise of the Demokrat Parti. As the rule of fascism was condemned, the Axis Powers were also defeated and their Prime Minister soon understood that if he did not allow opposition against the ruling party, Turkey would suffer much turmoil9. The one-party politics was no longer socially and politically supported in modern states10. As the Second World War was drawing to a close, Inonu formally declared that the government was welcoming the establishment of opposition parties in order to secure the country’s democratic goals and ideals11. The fact that the economy of the country has been suffering serious downturns effectively pushed the government towards making more allowances or openings for oppositionists. As a result of the various failures of the Republic People Party, the Demokrat Parti was able to secure an overwhelming victory over the ruling Republic People’s Party in 1950. It was also able to secure majority of the seats in their National Assembly12. Such victory was a surprise to the people, including the members of the Demokrat Parti. The leader of the party, Adnan Menderes was installed as Prime Minister and his installation marked the start of a competitive political scenario in the country. The Party soon secured a different brand of political elites. The shift was seen in terms of the members of the military with military status and bureaucratic foundations to those who had more economic foundations and higher support from the provinces13. This trend and practice was persistent even with threats of a CHP takeover. Turkey joined the NATO in the early 1950s in order to ensure its survival against Soviet rule. Their Prime Minister and the Demokrat Parti took an active interest in discussions involving national security. Such focus however detracted from discussions on bigger domestic issues including their economy14. Despite waning support from the people, they still won the 1954 elections and Menderes stayed their Prime Minister. However, as their economic conditions continued to deteriorate, the people’s support started to waiver. The policies which were being imposed by the Demokrat Parti led to significant economic issues including high inflation rates, high prices of commodities, and inadequate economic and social development15. Moreover, the ruling party also started to manifest an authoritarian political style. In the years which would follow the Demokrat Parti was persistently suppressing the opposition, even oppositionists within their party as well as oppositionists from other parties. They also tried to control and suppress the media16. Soon enough, due to the persistent issues which the party was facing along with its growing unpopularity, it was deposed by a military group which called themselves the National Unity Committee. This party was under the leadership of General Cemal Gursel17. This group was concerned about the erosion of Turkish democratic principles and they were also significantly concerned about the public dissatisfaction with the party and with the Prime Minister. Despite the fact that this party has long been dissolved, it remains a popular party in Turkey, mostly because its initial foundations and ideals reflected the innermost and basic desires of the people. Admittedly, it was the people who were running the party who soon sought their personal and corrupt goals18. As a result, they destroyed the party and what it stood for. In an attempt to revive the party, various political leaders sought to relaunch the party in 1992. During what is considered the party’s 5th Grand Conference, various members relaunched the party. It was under the leadership of Hayrettin Erkmen and also Aydin Menderes, the son of Adnan Menderes19. Menderes was also voted in as the leader of the party in 1994, however, after he was crippled in a road accident, he gave up the leadership. This party was very much removed from mainstream governance and political activities and it did not even take part in the 2002 elections20. The party has generally chosen a more obscure position in politics, but still advocating for the principles of the group which have been a part of its formulation from the very start. The turn of events in Turkey in relation to the Demokrat Parti manifests the chaotic post-WWII politics in Turkey. It also signifies the relevant impact of the military in their government activities21. It has been recognized well in Turkey that the army had a significant role in establishing the republic and was also responsible in directing it towards western goals. Their actions made them a political symbol of political unity and a tool for preserving their statehood. The government in general has been significantly oriented towards securing national unity amidst various points of dissension, including sectarianism and separatist Kurdish nationalism; however, their military has been focused on not seeking any bipartisan positions22. The Turkish military has shown that it has the freedom to find allies and change allies based on its image being above social and party politics. Due to such perception, the military saw it fit to interfere with what they saw as the corrupt and unfair policies of the Demokrat Parti. They believed that they are there to protect the society from different threats, including political threats23. The importance of defeating and overcoming such threats has been ingrained well into these military personnel. They saw Menderes’ reign as too authoritative and as the military was not given much credence by the Demokrat Parti, the former found another trigger in its attack on the party24. In order to highlight the importance of the Party, they allowed the salary of the officers of the military to be delayed and to be reduced amidst the rising inflation. The military takeover was significantly supported by the Turks as they believed that the Demokrat Parti had perverted the democratic processes. The Turkish military sought to dismiss their need to stay in power25. After a few months, they eventually returned control of the government to civilian leaders. Their motive in relinquishing military control was based on the fact that they wanted also to secure more permanent roles for the top leaders in government. More often than not, the military pressure also eventually secured top positions in government for members of the military26. Due to the significant power of the military in Turkey, the Demokrat Parti eventually paid the price for their casual regard for the power and the influence of the military. The initial victory of the Demokrat Parti was based on various elements27. During the term of the Republican Party, they sought to secure public education and to modernize the universities. As a result, military careers became less relevant. Moreover, military officers coming from the elite decreased. These smaller groups of officers would later establish the foundations of the Demokrat Parti28. However, the relationship between the Demokrat Parti and their oppositionists eventually deteriorated with the oppositionists now wanting to reinstall the one-party system. The military was now at a quandary. Their sympathy however was very much with the oppositionists, not so much the Demokrat Parti. When they were ordered by the ruling Demokrat Parti to control and manage the resistance and oppositionists, they then decided to turn against the government instead and depose the party from office29. The coup arose mostly because of the government and the Demokrat Parti’s failure to manage democratic procedures in the country. The coup was also under the leadership of a newly retired senior general. Although the military junta leaders had hopes of establishing a military controlled leadership in Turkey, the more senior leaders of the military favored a guardianship of the Turkey leadership, one where they can seek to preserve and protect the status quo. In the end, the senior officers were very much nationalistic and progressive. For which reason, they sought the trial and conviction of the Demokrat Parti’s leaders in a desire to clean up the government30. The Demokrat Parti at some point in Turkey’s history was seen as a means for the country to secure a more democratic form of government, veering towards the authoritarian one-party system. As the party proved to be unable to carry out its more favorable goals, it was soon driven out of office by the people assisted by a military junta31. These turn of events indicates the power and the influence of the military in Turkey. This power traces back to various points in their history where the military has always played a significant role not just in securing peace and order but also in managing political tension. At different points of their history even before and after the 1960 military coup, there were various incidents where the military intervened in order to protect the people, as well as to secure political stability32. Inasmuch as their interference managed to secure and restore status quo in Turkey, their demonstration of power is still very much under the banner of authoritarianism. Where western standards would be applied in assessing the situation, the military actions would actually be considered a violation of democratic processes, especially as the decisions of government must be lodged with the people33. However, as far as Turkey is concerned, their military has been considered a constant presence in their politics, regardless of who has been set into power. Their military has intervened about three times in their political activities. These interventions were apparently justified based on the need to reestablish or protect democracy and the political status quo34. These military interventions were based on state conditions which for a long while has been under the control of a regime whose foundations have been based on the military. Military and civilian relations for Turkey have been considered unique when compared with other societies and states. For Turks, the awareness has always been ever present in terms of the role of the military in their country35. Even with the direction of their politics geared towards democratic and less autocratic ideals, the military has always been considered one of the main movers of their country. Amidst the gradual loss of support for the Demokrat Parti, it was able to maintain its popularity, mostly because it was a party which was not as dominated and dictated by the military. When compared with the Republican People’s Party, the Demokrat Parti was less susceptible to the desires and dictates of the military. For which reason, they were able to gain support from the Turks who were favoring the economic and political development of the country and the decreased dominance of the military36. The Demokrat Parti was also able to maintain its popularity because the people were straining against the one-party regime which has long been in place in the country. The people favored the fact that the Demokrat Parti was responding to their demands for the liberalization of their country37. The Turks also believed that the one-party system was very repressive and in the aftermath of the Second World War, they were more inclined to support a multi-party system which the Demokrat Parti represented. The fact that the Republican People’s Party was very much under the wing of the military was also resented by the people38. As a result, even with the gradual turning of the Demokrat Parti towards undesirable directions, the party retained its popularity. The party in so many ways represented American influence with the western system supporting pluralism and the free market economy39. The entry of the multiparty system which saw the installation of the Demokrat Parti into power made Islam a major issue in Turkey and it prompted various parties to reassess their religious policies. Even the CHP was prompted to ease its militant secularism and to allow for concessions in terms of Islam sentiments40. The installation of the Demokrat Parti was able to speed up the process, especially as the people now realized that the Muslim population has been “alienated by state interference in religious life”41. Despite the various issues encountered by the Demokrat Parti, the party still retained its popularity because it epitomized values and concepts which the people were ready and willing to consider. Conclusion The Demokrat Parti was a short-lived party which was a product of the country’s readiness to consider a more democratic government process. The party was able to secure an alternative to the one-party system and the military-controlled policies of the Republican People’s Party. In its reign however, it came face-to-face with various political conflicts which it was unable to resolve satisfactorily. As a result, it was eventually driven out by a military coup. However, it remained a popular party as it represented Turkey’s desires for a more democratic system. It represented ideals which the people also wanted to secure. In the end, despite its short-lived regime, the party was able to break the centuries-long political trend in Turkey. It was able to secure change, and such change was very much part of the people’s desire. References Ahmad, F., 2003. Turkey: The quest for identity. London: Oneworld. Daglyer, U., 2001. Ziya Gokalp on modernity and Islam: the origins of an uneasy union in contemporary Turkey [online]. Available at: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/CCR/article/viewFile/13052/12913 [Accessed 13 January 2013]. Esposito, J., 2009. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. London: Oxford University Press. Hale, W. and Ozbudun, E., 2010. Islamism, Democracy and Liberalism in Turkey: The Case of the AKP. London: Taylor and Francis, London. Harris, G., 1965. The role of the military in Turkish politics. Middle East Journal, 19(1), p. 57. Leder, A., 1979. Party competition in Rural Turkey: Agent of change or defender of traditional rule?, Middle Eastern Studies, 15(1), pp. 82-105. Mooney, F., 1991. Military intervention, Kemalism, and politics in Turkey. Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island. Oxford Islamic Studies, 2011. Democratic Party (Turkey) [online]. Available at: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e519?_hi=19&_pos=3 [Accessed 12 January 2013]. Rubin, B. and Heper, M., 2002. Political parties in Turkey. London: Routledge. Sever, A., 1998. The Compliant Ally? Turkey and the West in the Middle East 1954-58. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(2), pp. 73-90. Tachau, F. and Good, M., 1973. The anatomy of political and social change: Turkish parties, Parliaments, and elections. Comparative Politics, 5(4), p. 551-573. Tachau, F. and Heper, M., 1983. The state, politics, and the military in Turkey. Comparative Politics, 16(1), pp. 18-20 Turan, I., 1986. The recruitment of cabinet ministers as a political process: Turkey, 1946-1979. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 18(4), p. 455-472. Woodhead, C., 1995. Perspectives on Suleyman,” in Suleyman The Magnificent and his Age: The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World ed. M. Kunt and C. Woodhead. London: Longman. Yesilbursa, B., 1999. Turkey’s Participation in the Middle East Command and its Admission to NATO, 1950-52. Middle Eastern Studies, 35 (4), p. 70. Yesilbursa, B., 2009. A general review of Turkey’s foreign affairs during the democrat party era. Alternative Politics, 1(2), pp. 145-150. Read More