the legal, political and sociological roots of tutelary regime in single-party period

420 Pages·2012·2.26 MB·Turkish

by  Hatem Ete

THE LEGAL, POLITICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF
TUTELARY REGIME IN SINGLE-PARTY PERIOD

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

HATEM ETE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

JULY 2012
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık
Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science/Arts / Doctor of Philosophy.

Prof. Dr. Ayşe Saktanber
Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of
Science/Arts/Doctor of Philosophy.

Assoc. Prof. Ceylan Tokluoğlu
Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. İhsan Dağı (METU,SOC) ______________________
Assoc. Prof. Ceylan Tokluoğlu (METU,SOC) ______________________
Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen (İST. ŞEHİR U.,SOC) ______________________
Assist. Prof. Çağatay Topal (METU,SOC) ______________________
Assist. Prof. Ahmet Murat Aytaç (ANK. U., POLS) ______________________

ii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name: Hatem Ete
Signature:

iii
The research for this dissertation was partially supported by the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey, TUBITAK.

iv
ABSTRACT
THE LEGAL, POLITICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF TUTELARY
REGIME IN SINGLE-PARTY PERIOD

Ete, Hatem
Ph.D. Department of Sociology
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ceylan Tokluoğlu
July, 2012, 404 pages

This dissertation examines the political regime during the single party rule in Turkey
between the years of 1923-1950 in relation to the concept of tutelage. The main
argument supported in this work is that tutelary tendencies, contrary to the
assumptions of Kemalist historicization, do not serve as segue to democracy, but
rather make consolidation of democracy difficult, even impossible. In support, this
dissertation provides a close examination of the Kemalist nation building process
beginning from the Ottoman modernization process extending to the demographic
engineering projects of the Republic.
The examination reveals that tutelary tendencies are a reflection of the savior mission
undertaken by the elite during the Ottoman-Republican modernization process. The
political elite, in their mission to save and build the nation, not only ignored the
political and social fabric of the time, but they insisted on radical interventions to the
demographic fabric of the society in order to transform it to the nation they
envisioned. During the execution of the nation-building project increasingly more
authoritarian measures were legitimized by declared target of democracy. The social
resistance to the radical interventions was suppressed by more authoritarian measures
that were perceived as the cost of achieving democracy.
The elite perceived themselves uniquely fit for deciding what is in the best interest of
the people. Whether the aim of democratization was reached or not was also decided
by the tutelary elite. Not wanting to let go of the power, they continuously invented
v
new prerequisites to democracy. This cycle resulted in the persistence of the
authoritarian regime. In the final analysis, this dissertation reveals that the tutelary
tendencies of the avant-garde elite are the biggest obstacle on the path to democracy.
Keywords: Tutelage, Avant-garde elite, nation-building process.

vi
ÖZ
TEK PARTİ DÖNEMİ VESAYET REJİMİNİN YASAL, SİYASAL VE
SOSYOLOJİK KÖKLERİ

Ete, Hatem
Doktora, Sosyoloji Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Ceylan Tokluoğlu
Temmuz, 2012, 404 sayfa

Bu çalışma, 1923-1950 yılları arasında Türkiye‘de hüküm süren tek parti
iktidarının siyasal rejimini vesayet kavramı çerçevesinde ele almaktadır.
Çalışma, vesayetçi eğilimlerin, Kemalist tarih yazımının varsaydığının aksine,
demokratik rejime geçişi kolaylaştırmak yerine zorlaştırdığını hatta zaman
zaman imkânsızlaştırdığını savunmaktadır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, vesayet
eğiliminin elitlerin Osmanlı-Cumhuriyet modernleşme sürecinde edindikleri
kurtarıcılık misyonunun bir yansıması olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.
Elinizdeki çalışmada, vesayetçiliğin demokratik rejime geçişi kolaylaştırdığı
iddiasını sınamak üzere Kemalist ulus inşa sürecine bakılmıştır. Hayata
geçirilmek istenen ulus inşa sürecinin dönemin toplumsal dokusunu hesaba
katmaması, dahası mevcut toplumsal dokuya radikal müdahaleler öngörmesi,
projenin toplumsal dirençle karşılaşmasına yol açmış, öncü kadrolar, direnci
bastırmak için rejimi otoriterleştirmişlerdir. Öncü kadrolar, toplum için
öngördükleri hedefe varmak için otoriter bir rejime ihtiyaç duymuşlardır.
Otoriter rejim, bu hedefler için gerekli ve meşru görülmüştür. Böylece, ulus inşa
süreci otoriter rejime gerekçe kılınmış, rejimin demokratikleşmesi bu sürecin
tamamlanması koşuluna bağlanmıştır.
Kemalist seçkinler, toplum adına ‗doğru‘ ve ‗gerekli‘ olanın ne olduğuna karar
verme hakkını kendilerinde görmüşlerdir. Hedefe varılıp varılmadığı veya
vii
koşulların geçersiz hale gelip gelmediği kararının, öncü kadroların tekelinde
olması, vesayetçiliğin demokratik öngörüsünün gerçekleşmemesine, otoriter
rejimin kalıcılığını sürdürmesine yol açmıştır. Öncü kadrolar, iktidarı ellerinde
tutmak ve alternatif kadrolarla paylaşmamak için sürekli yeni misyonlar edinmiş
ve demokratik geçişi bu misyonların başarılması koşuluna bağlamışlardır. Bu
döngü, demokratik rejimin geciktirilmesine ve otoriter rejimin süreklileşmesine
yol açmıştır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, öncü kadroların vesayetçi eğilimlerinin
demokratik siyasetin önündeki en güçlü engel olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: vesayet, öncü kadrolar, ulus-inşa süreci.

viii
To My Parents
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A work like this is never the product of a single author. In the course of writing
this dissertation, I accrued many intellectual and personal debts that I would like
to acknowledge here with deep gratitude. The journey that resulted in this work
extended over two continents and several years. While it is impossible to fit all
those who passed through my life and contributed to this project in various ways,
I would like to name a few whose generous intellectual support and
encouragement made this dissertation possible.
I am grateful for the guidance of my thesis advisor Mesut Yeğen. I benefited
enourmously from his thoughtful and inspiring insights. I would like to thank
Ceylan Tokluoğlu, who has accepted to be the thesis advisor after Mesut Yeğen
left METU. I also would like to thank the members of my committee İhsan Dağı,
Ahmet Murat Aytaç, and Çağatay Topal for their assistance and critical
feedback in the final stages of this project.
I would like to thank TUBITAK for providing the grant that made the year I
spent at Columbia University for research possible. The intellectual framework
of this dissertation was first shaped during that year. I would like to thank Kadir,
Mehmet, Bayram, Cenk, Salim and Nur for their friendship and the intellectual
discussions that have inspired me at critical moments. In addition to the time
spent at Columbia, Nur has also given me support during the final stages of this
dissertation while at SETA. I would like to thank my research assistants Eda,
Doğan, Galip and Sami for the assistance they provided. I owe special thanks to
my colleagues Taha, Bekir, Yılmaz, Talip, Selin, Cemallettin, Barbaros, Hamza,
Nuh, Yunus and Hüseyin for the encouragement and motivation they have given
me in order to complete this project.
Writing a dissertation, perhaps more than any intellectual support, needs a
strong family. I would like to thank my parents and my brother Müstecap for
making it impossible with their persistent questions visiting them without
finishing my dissertation. Finally, this work would not have been possible
x