Historical Narrative: Why Turkey Is Authoritarian, by Halil Karaveli

Unlike many nations within the past century, who had drastically different political structures, Turkey is one that stayed pretty true to one side save for a short exception. This is not to say that the climate didn't undergo constant changes; quite the opposite. Turkey has had quite a handful of coups, bouncing between different capitalist modes around Islam and secularism. But note the constant there; capitalist modes. Halil Karaveli describes the nation as the point where east and west meet, with these religious and anti-religious sentiments being used to disguise the interests of one ruling class. In his book Why Turkey Is Authoritarian: From Atatürk To Erdoğan, this very statement gets looked at in deep detail, discussing events all the way back to the Ottoman rule prior to what would become the Republic Of Turkey, and the Eurasian nation's continual maintenance of the capitalist system. Despite being a member of NATO since 1952, it's a nation that gets less discussion than deserved amongst leftist circles, and the details in this book paint similar issues that I see in the United States, under different umbrellas. While this book works somewhat sequentially, I find it one that deals with more broad issues on a common front very well, and for this reason, we're going to break down its contents down chapter by chapter.

A Violent History

Rather self-explanatory, what's first talked about is the recurring theme of violence that's been used to maintain power, a feat very natural to right wing domination. As recent as 2015, one hundred left-wing peace activists were blown up in the capital of Ankara, consisting of Turks and Kurds. The cause was a military threat on Kurdish citizens in the southeast region, destroying their towns in the process. Only months earlier, thirty socialists were killed in a suicide bombing known as The Ankara Massacre. In 2013, even U.S. President Obama, despite being a liberal centrist, severed his ties with Erdoğan thanks to the crushing of Gezi (a political alliance of left-leaning parties) protests.

But it goes back far deeper than this. In 1969, leftist demonstrators were slain by fascists in Beyazıt Square, İstanbul. This would show a trend of the right wing government defending killings carried out by fascists, rather than punishing them. In 1977, on International Labor Day, forty people were assassinated. Only a year following, hundreds of Alevis (an underprivileged sect of Islam) would be the victims of a mass killing, which rooted back as far as Ottoman rule.

To understand where these patterns start, we have to look back to the final couple Ottoman years in 1914. As the book says, in this time period, the empire consisted of modern-day Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Its fall would result in the British and French squandering to gathering territories. Mustafa Kemal, later renamed Atatürk (Father Turk), would play a more important role at this point, as he had a successful record in the first World War. He would go on to lead a resistance movement, and take charge aside an insurrection against Ottoman policy, having Bolshevik Russia as an ally. It may sound like an odd combination, but Lenin and Kemal had a common enemy: The British Empire and western imperialism. Kemal was far more nationalist than he was a socialist, but this was enough for the two to work side by side. The Treaty Of Moscow was singed in 1921 between Ankara and Moscow.

Knowing this, it becomes easy to understand why early Turkish parties had odd blends of leftists and liberals. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), or the "Young Turks" would establish itself out of that exact combination, meaning it consisted of conflicting ideologies. Unfortunately, with the nationalist identity holding too much weight, it would also play a role in the Armenian Massacre from 1915-1917, causing the death of about a million Armenians. To this day, the Turkish government rejects this as an act of genocide.

Mustapha Suphi, a party member that adopted the Bolshevik way of thinking, lead the Turkish Communist Party. But it wouldn't be long before Kemal would dispose of him and his party leadership. After being denied entry into Erzurum, the largest city in that region of Turkey, they were instead shipped to Trabzon, off the coast of the Black Sea. They were being told that they'd be sent back to Russia, but were instead killed and dumped in the Black Sea in January of 1921. This saw the beginning of the pattern, being the first mass killing in what is now considered Turkey.

Kemalist "Left"

One of the easiest ways to permeate leftist circles is to disguise right-wing ideology with leftist colors, which peaked its head in the prior section. Kemal gained full control of Anatolia, the westmost region in Asia that makes up much of Turkey's land. This is where the first step towards a secularist government began, amidst the Grand National Turkish Assembly finishing off the final sultanate. Popular or official, if it was religion, he attacked it. Dissolving religious courts and laws would unify a public secular education system, which could be seen as a progressive move. But reforms were enacted through rampant brutality, which worked in the form of a cultural revolution without an actual social revolution.

The biggest key ingredient for that was missing. Class conflict hardly existed amongst citizens, due to the Ottoman Empire not permitting a powerful landowning class to take fruition. Thus, Atatürk saw no need to suppress any popular uprisings of a working class that didn't exist. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy operated differently; they targeted left movements and people groups through brainwashing amidst economic crises, while Atatürk won a following simply by fighting off foreign enemies. Strikes didn't appear until a smaller working class was able to emerge in İstanbul. The industrialization of peasants into a working class would eventually see the actual suppression of international waves of strikes, revealing how Atatürk had bourgeoise radicalism in mind to persecute the left. Now the banned Communist Party of Turkey saw some real potential, proving to be vital when all of its leaders were killed.

From 1923 to 1950, the state would remain a one-party dictatorship without any free elections. In 1925, party general Şefik Hüsnü took charge in secret, who saw little conditioning for mass popular uprising. Unlike in China, the peasantry mostly owned their land, and the underdeveloped industry kept the working class weak. Though Kemalist Turkey still had its common enemy with Bolshevik Russia during the Sixth Congress of Communist International, the Turkish "left" still sided with Atatürk, despite earlier repressions. But it wouldn't take long for others to wise up.

By the 1930s, Hüsnü started to disprove of the state, calling it a "violent oppressive terror regime." Atatürk showed no love for Hitler or Mussolini, but their admiration of him speaks volumes. They valued his national purity-adjacent ideas, and praised his way of nationalizing society beside mass killings and deportations. The Anatolian War resulted in the cleansing of Greek-Orthodox peoples and prevented surviving Armenians to return following that massacre. But the Kemalist "left" still justified these acts in the guise of anti-imperialism, showing the faulty foundations. Prior to his death in 1938, Atatürk mended relations with the west, hosting Frederick D. Roosevelt and King Edward VIII in İstanbul. Some leftist supporters did not favor this, but Turkey ended up joining NATO as a result in 1952.

Distrust and isolation by the masses and an attempt to go against NATO was what saw the demise of the traditional leftists within the CUP. Kemalist "leftists" saw the state as the solution working beside "enlightenment" away from religious superstition, borrowing some ideas from a planned economy. But it was still in the interest of a ruling class, which eventually bred a liberal left in the 1960s. The Kemalists remained loyal to nationalist authoritarian measures as a tool for right wing control, while the liberals arose as a capitalist counterforce to the nationalist state's authoritarianism. Thus, tensions between two different right wing classes wore "leftist" colors to appeal to the masses in their own interests. Furthermore, a labor party leader named Mehmet Ali Aybar took issue with Kemalism and Marxism, claiming that the latter did not apply to Turkey. His view of class struggles was that it rose from the military-civilian bureaucracy. The Turkish right was able to hide behind the façade of conflict between the silent Muslim majority and the westernizing state elite. Class interests of the right were distorted and hidden, causing the liberal "left" to overlook authoritarian records of the right's past, to the point that they even made excuses for it.

Roots To Grow Capitalism

To understand capitalism's rise, we must first look back at the aforementioned Ottoman structure that prevented a rising landlord class. This is what Marx and Engels referred to as Asiatic modes of production, alongside China and Persia. As capitalism grew in the west, small pockets of Christian bourgeoise existed within the Empire's regions, which put Muslims at a disadvantage, seeing that so few of them were employed. So instead of a rising working class, Muslim identity emphasis took root over working class unity (which also gave way to Balkan and Slavic nationalism).

Enter Sultan Abdülhamid II in 1876, who declared a constitutional monarchy to see Christians, Jews, and Muslims as equals. The purpose to create a unity front was meant to crush the threatening revolt in the Balkans. If they could give the impression to Great Britain that their empire was a liberal monarchy, there was a far heavier chance of gaining support. Not even a decade later, the chances of a Turkish revolution arose with Mithat Pasha, a democratic reformer that got kicked out of parliament and was later executed. His larger following meant the need for repressive measures by 1895, and the first Armenian massacre was carried out in Anatolia and Constantinople.

Sultan Abdülhamid II

While a Christian bourgeoisie class was arising, Abdülhamid II sought to create an educated middle class of Islamic people to compete against the growing capitalist class. 1909 would prove this to be far too late in the making, as the Young Turks had taken formation and overthrown him. By 1913, their front called for a boycott on Greek and Armenian stores to grow their own wealth, which was heavily aided by the first World War. Indeed, the Ottoman Empire may have fallen after the Great War, but this class succeeded in emerging as the ruling class, paving the way for what would be come Turkey.

All that remained was a seizure of feudal assets to grow the capitalist class's wealth. One example was the cotton gins and fields found in Cilicia bordering Syria, which were remnants of the booming economy during the American Civil War. Atatürk himself moved into a stolen Armenian mansion in Angora (now Ankara). The Armenian genocide was seen as a justified act due to the previous Balkan War that caused millions of Muslim deaths. Another named Hacı Ömer started as a peasant, but with access to looted property quickly worked into the capitalist class. By the standards of the 1920s and 1930s in Turkey, liberal radicalism was progressive in the way it answered to the current needs. But as always, it shortly turned to bourgeoisie conservatism. Religious influence and business liberalism worked side by side by the 1940s. So to put it shortly, legal reforms from Kemalism followed capitalist foundation that got its roots from genocide.

Right Wing Tactics and Social Democracy

Of course, you couldn't maintain power like this without convincing enough people that it was the right move. How else could Hitler have played the cards he played? There's a reason he admired Atatürk, as stated earlier. For starters, no free elections took place until May of 1950, when the Republican People's Party of Atatürk were beaten by the Democratic Party founded four years earlier. This was nothing short of applying traditional values to the already existing capitalist machine. The right saw this as a victory, while the Kemalist "left" saw it as religious reaction. Liberal "leftists" saw it as revolution, Turkish "left" saw it as counterrevolution.

This was a time period of unrest between all of the capitalist ruling parties, and each saw the other as unfit for maintaining bourgeoisie power while appealing to one group or another for support. The state simply turned towards religion in the 1950s to combat socialist scares, so no regime change happened, just a different flavor of the same thing. The head of the Democratic Party was Celal Bayar, a rich landowner and banker. Wartime saw businesses thrive while peasantry suffered under heavy taxation and poverty. Urban folks wouldn't turn against this for about a decade, when the Menderes coup was carried out in 1960. This was only possible because of the right's destabilization through political turmoil and constant contradiction. But Menderes shot himself in the foot by alienating capitalists and allowing a clash between them and agrarian economics.

Only a year later, Alparslan Türkeş carried out another coup that returned things to the secularist Atatürk way of thinking. A constitution was now written to give the military rights to intervene in all politics. The entire decade was a boiling pot for class consciousness in the industrial economy. The Conservative Justice Party came to fruition in 1965, expanding religious education and furthering divide between right wing leadership that gathered heavier followings as this all went on.

As western nations saw a slight surge in social democratic leaders, such as John F. Kennedy, Turkey would also take a swing this direction, the only time they were ever even remotely left. Bülent Ecevit was the prime minister in question's name, securing a victory in striking and collective bargain rights in 1963. Any gains won by him would be removed by the right wing military junta in 1980. This collapse paved the road that allowed for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to inherit power and benefits.

Bülent Ecevit

Ecevit took a lot of issue with pretentious elites that wore a "progressive" skin, many who felt the need to "enlighten" peasants to their lifestyles. It should be evident by now that this was a rampant trend in Turkey for the prior fifty years. Instead of meddling within the ruling class, Ecevit won support through door-to-door work, and talking to workers directly to gain followers. The left wing of the Republican People's Party managed to secure power entirely by 1972, allowing for his victories.

Radicals didn't trust Ecevit entirely until he voiced a call for an antifascist rally in Taksim Square in 1976. Standing up to right wing violence was a way to unite actual leftist groups, and while he wasn't a Marxist, he went a long way to challenge capitalist power. The private sector was no longer allowed to dominate the economy, and mines were nationalized while foreign capital became regulated.

Right Revenge and Islamist Rise

It's unfortunate that leftist victories only played a small role in Turkey's history. With so many right wing groups within the borders, it was only a matter of time before ruling class opposition stepped in. Islamic Nationalists and the Nationalist Front formed, and began attacking his supporters and their homes, even taking to measures of hurling rocks at him on the campaign bus. The fascist group known as the Grey Wolves emerged, and worked its way into the state machinery by establishing close contacts within the military. Alparslan Türkeş was the leader of this group, who was responsible for the death of thousands of leftists between 1975 and 1980.

It also doesn't help that the nation's geopolitical position would cause any left movements to snag the attention of the United States. Carter's general secretary Warren Christopher met with Ecevit in 1979, which alerted Washington that he had to go. They arranged for the Turkish military to overthrow him in order to restore their interests and cancel democracy. This was kicked into action in 1980 when Kenan Evren assumed power via coup, granted by Washington. Through this neoliberal revolution, the public sector was slashed, and a reformation package was issued by the IMF and the World Bank. It also saw the return of religious influence pairing with a liberal government, a seemingly endless trend.

Ranks of Islamists in government through this period was how Recep Tayyip Erdoğan managed to work his way up. He took over as prime minister within the movement under Necmettin Erbaken following yet another coup. Universities bred grounds for right wing student associations, ensuring these ideals stuck with younger generations. The bourgeoisie class began to unite under globalization and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Religious government practices to combat socialism appealed heavily to the west in the past, but the anti-communist threat that held Turkey's ties close went away. Relations were breaking, and were only made worse when Turkey didn't allow the United States to invade Iraq through them in 2003. The U.S. wouldn't forgive this, just as they wouldn't forgive Ecevit not allowing them to spy on the Soviets. The prior coups in the past always answered to the bourgeoisie, but when these conditions called for another one against Erdoğan, there was no U.S. endorsement. This was the second condition that always helped maintain right wing power, and since Erdoğan's interest didn't challenge the U.S. bourgeoisie's, a 2016 attempted coup against him failed.

My Conclusions

Karaveli closes things off with an overall point that refers back to an earlier trend in Turkish history. He notes that cultural identity (Turks vs. Kurds, or Islam vs. secular) always took priority over class identity, which prevented leftists from challenging the authoritarian right wing. This alone is what I find most important, and backs that Why Turkey Is Authoritarian is a very important read for leftists in the west. American leftism has faced a similar issue all throughout history, almost like a playbook. The capitalist class does what it can to divide the working class by presenting different interests to buy into, turning the workers against each other. This is done with racism, sexism, and similarly, religious appealing. Turkey has a very different history from the United States, which caused differences in their class struggles, but the tactics are the same. Much like the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States, Islamic, Liberal, and Secularist parties operated to divide the population into serving their needs. The Kemalist "left" only got that tag because of its origins in fighting off western imperialism, and keeping the Kemalists under a right wing umbrella through their rise proved to be very easy.

One key difference is the fact that the U.S. and stronger western powers played a role in keeping the right in power in Turkey. As soon as the slightest hint of a leftist threat emerged, Washington did everything it could to rid the land of that influence. Weaponizing violent right wingers and military connections made this entirely too easy. Turkey's geopolitical position also played a heavy role in the U.S. influence. Being the NATO country right on the Soviet border, it became imperative that the United States kept their ruling class interests in line with the west.

As the book outlines, the Ottoman history also made Turkey differ from western powers in its prevention of large capitalist owning classes and landlords for so long. Karaveli mentions the fascination Marx and Engels had of these regions, and the Asiatic modes of production. It's an important note that gets overlooked, showing the problems that can arise within leftist circles in nations encompassed by an empire. The history of violence existed within the Ottoman borders, and they carried over to the first capitalist uprising, which set the stage for everything.

Opportunism played a large role in Turkish authoritarianism as well. Lenin outlines the dangers of this in some of his works, and it shows how this can be fatal through Turkey's history. As I stated already, Kemalists aligned themselves as leftists by fighting imperial powers. As soon as they gained the upper hand, they disposed of all communist leaders and severed the already weak left before they even had a chance to rise. This pattern of violence remained the main weapon to stopping leftist movements, and still continues today.

While Turkey may have little to do with Socialism on paper, it's a really good country to study the history from and dissect exactly why they've remained right wing, and how the authoritarian measures were used to yield to the capitalist class. Even when it had a chance at the left, it was met with aggression from the nationalist groups inside the country, and imperialist ones outside.