![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The parliamentary politics of Turkey's one-party regime (1925–1946) has been described as a ‘unanimous democracy’, particularly on account of the absence of a voting opposition. Many scholars consider the Law for Providing Land to Farmers of 1945 as the first instance of parliamentary opposition in the one-party legislature. The current article challenges this widespread view and argues that property rights on land tended to provoke backlashes even before 1945. It examines the making of the deportation, land distribution and settlement laws of the 1920s and 1930s, all of which sanctioned intervention into property relations on land in the form of the expropriation of landowners. Going beyond an exclusive focus on voting patterns, this article traces parliamentary resistance by examining how government bills changed as they proceeded through both the reviewing committees and the general assembly. It links the birth of a full-fledged parliamentary opposition in 1945 to the previous waves of discontent and shows that property rights on land was a constant fissure in the early Republic's unanimous democracy.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
Notes
1 A. Demirel, Birinci Meclis’te Muhalefet: İkinci Grup [Opposition in the First Parliament: The Second Group] (Istanbul: İletişim, 1994); E.J. Zürcher, Political Opposition in the Early Turkish Republic: The Progressive Republican Party, 1924–1925 (Leiden: Brill, 1991); W.F. Weiker, Political Tutelage and Democracy in Turkey: The Free Party and Its Aftermath (Leiden: Brill, 1973); M. Tunçay, T.C.’nde Tek-Parti Yönetimi’nin Kurulması (1923–1931) [The Establishment of Single-Party Rule in the Turkish Republic (1923–1931)] (Istanbul: Cem, 1992).
2 F.W. Frey, The Turkish Political Elite (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965).
3 A. Demirel’s Tek Partinin İktidarı: Türkiye’de Seçimler ve Siyaset (1923–1946) [The Rule of the Single Party: Elections and Politics in Turkey (1923–1946)] (Istanbul: İletişim, 2013) is also worthy of note. Demirel’s book updates Frey’s study using new sources and includes a discussion of election processes and the major political developments for each assembly.
4 Ibid., p.361.
5 Ibid., p.369 n.10.
6 M. Demirel, ‘Oybirlikli Demokrasi Açısından 1920–1945 arasında TBMM’deki Oylamalar’ [Votes in the TGNA between 1920–1945 from the Perspective of Unanimous Democracy], in M.Ö. Alkan, T. Bora and M. Koraltürk (eds), Mete Tunçay’a Armağan (Istanbul: İletişim, 2007), pp.725–50. In the early Republican parliament, votes were cast openly either by show of hands or by roll call. As Demirel writes, voting by roll call was used much less frequently than raising of hands. An analysis of roll call voting is nonetheless important because with roll calls, it is possible to know how individual MPs voted.
7 The practice of nominating independent deputies on the RPP ticket started in 1931. A so-called Independent Group was established by the RPP administration in 1939. The practice survived until the end of the one-party regime.
8 Demirel, ‘TBMM’deki Oylamalar’, pp.726–7.
9 Ibid., pp.728–38.
10 See ibid., pp.740–50 for the full list of votes that did not result in unanimity.
11 Tunçay, Tek-Parti Yönetimi’nin Kurulması, pp.304–22.
12 M. Tunçay, Preface to Y. Demirel and O.Z. Konur (eds), CHP Grup Toplantısı Tutanakları, 1923–1924 [Minutes of RPP Caucus Meetings, 1923–1924] (Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2002), p.8. All translations are by the author unless otherwise stated.
13 Demirel, ‘TBMM’deki Oylamalar’, p.738.
14 e.g. A. Demirel, ‘Tek Parti Döneminde Seçimler ve Milletvekillerinin Profili’ [Elections and the Profile of Deputies during the Single-Party Era], in Tek Partinin Yükselişi (Istanbul: İletişim, 2012), pp.163–96; C. Koçak, ‘Parliament Membership during the Single-Party System in Turkey (1925–1945)’, European Journal of Turkish Studies Vol.3 (2005), §30.
15 In all fairness, scholars do admit that parliamentary group meetings of the RPP might well have been different. They speculate that real deliberations over policies took place at parliamentary group meetings. For example, see Frey, Turkish Political Elite, p.302; Weiker, Political Tutelage, p.164; Tunçay, Preface, p.8 and Koçak, ‘Parliament Membership’, §33. The problem is that it has proven difficult to locate the minutes of RPP group meetings. To this day, only a very small number of RPP group sessions have been unearthed and published. Y. Demirel and O.Z. Konur collected the minutes of eleven groups meeting from 1923 and 1924 in a book, and later, Y. Demirel published the minutes of a single session dated 1926. See Y. Demirel and O.Z. Konur (eds), CHP Grup Toplantısı Tutanakları, 1923-1924 (Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2002) and Y. Demirel, ‘Bir Belge: Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi’nin Başbakanlık Cumhuriyet Arşivinde Bulunan Tek Toplantı Tutanağı’[An Archival Document: The Only Existing Minutes of Republican People’s Party Caucus Meetings in the Prime Ministry’s Republican Archives], in M.Ö. Alkan, T. Bora and M. Koraltürk (eds), Mete Tunçay’a Armağan, (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2007).
16 Law No.491, Teşkilâtı Esasiye Kanunu [Law of Fundamental Organization], enacted: 20 April 1340 [1924]. Translated by E.M. Earle, ‘The New Constitution of Turkey’, Political Science Quarterly Vol.40 (1925), p.97.
17 F. Aytaç, ‘Kamulaştırma ve Uygulamada Karşılaşılan Sorunlar’ [Expropriation and the Problems Encountered in its Application], Amme İdaresi Dergisi Vol.20 (1987), pp.48–50. Also see ‘Kamulaştırma kanunu layihasına dair Gerekçe’ [Explanatory Memorandum of the Expropriation bill] in the parliamentary minutes of the GNA: Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Zabıt Ceridesi (hereafter TBMMZC), 28 Aug. 1956, p.1.
18 A. Kudat, ‘Prensip Bakımından Kamulaştırma Mevzuatımız’ [Our Legislation on Expropriation from a Principles Perspective], Ankara Barosu Dergisi Vol.51 (1948), p.7–10.
19 M. Yeğen, ‘Şark Islahat Planı: Cumhuriyet’in Rehberi’ [The Reform Plan for the East: The Republic’s Guidebook], in Son Kürt İsyanı (Istanbul: İletişim, 2011), p.169.
20 For the full text of the plan, see M. Bayrak, Kürtlere Vurulan Kelepçe: Şark Islahat Planı [Kurds in Manacles: The Reform Plan for the East] (Ankara: Özge, 2013), pp.125–32.
21 Law No.1097, Bazı Eşhasın Şark Menatıkından Garp Vilayetlerine Nakillerine Dair Kanun [Law Regarding the Deportation of Certain People from the Eastern Regions to the Western Provinces], Official Gazette [Resmi Gazete] No.624 (4 July 1927). Following the outbreak of the rebellion, martial law was declared in almost every major eastern province apart from those in northeastern Anatolia. Bayazıt (modern day Doğubeyazıt), which lies near the border with Iran, was among the latter. Bayazıt was a province in the 1920s; after the Kurdish rebellion of 1930, however, it was made a district of Ağrı. Bayazıt was included in the law presumably because of the Ağrı rebellion, which was already under way in 1926.
22 TBMMZC, 18 June 1927, p.155.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., p.156.
25 Ibid., pp.156–7.
26 Ibid., pp.154–5, 157–9.
27 Kazım Özalp was a high commander and a fixture in the parliament from 1920 on. He served as the speaker of the GNA from 1924 to 1935.
28 O. Okyar and M. Seyitdanlıoğlu, Atatürk, Okyar ve Çok Partili Türkiye: Fethi Okyar’ın Anıları [Atatürk, Okyar and Multi-Party Turkey: The Memoirs of Fethi Okyar] (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2006), pp.104–5.
29 Ş.S. Aydemir, İkinci Adam [The Second Man], Vol.1 (Istanbul: Remzi, 1966), p.314; Tunçay, Tek-Parti Yönetimi’nin Kurulması, p.141 n.20; U.Ü. Üngör, The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p.145.
30 Crucial in this respect was Article 639 of the Turkish Civil Code of 1926, which dealt with the resolution of ownership disputes over lands not registered in title deeds. According to this article, a person could lay claim to a portion of land if he could prove that it had been in his effective possession continuously and without dispute for twenty years. The same rule still held even when the registered owner of the land in question was unknown or had been missing or deceased for at least twenty years. See Law No.743, Türk Kanunu Medenisi [Turkish Civil Code], Official Gazette No.339 (4 April 1926).
31 TBMMZC, 2 June 1929, pp.1–2.
32 Ibid., pp.257–8.
33 Law No.1505, Şark Manatıkı Dahilinde Mühtaç Zürraa Tevzi Edilecek Araziye Dair Kanun [Law Regarding the Land to be Distributed to Farmers in Need within the Eastern Regions], Official Gazette No.1213 (11 June 1929).
34 The Esbabı Mucibe documents (later called Gerekçe) are appended to the end of the relevant parliamentary minutes of the GNA but paged separately.
35 TBMMZC, 2 June 1929, p.1. The redistribution of land following the enactment of Law No.1097 should be evaluated against the backdrop of the Reform Plan for the East. Amongst the devices the plan had proposed for Turkification was the settlement of 500,000 muhacirs in Kurdish provinces in ten years (Bayrak, Şark Islahat Planı, p.37; Yeğen, ‘Şark Islahat Planı’, pp.170–1).
36 Law No.1164, Umumî Müfettişlik Teşkiline Dair Kanun [Law on the Establishment of General Inspectorates], Official Gazette No.634 (16 July 1927).
37 Bayrak, Şark Islahat Planı, p.36; Yeğen, ‘Şark Islahat Planı’, p.170.
38 Muğla is a coastal province in southwestern Turkey. Konya is in central Anatolia. Both were outside the First General Inspectorate.
39 The Council of State (Şurayı Devlet or Devlet Şurası) is the court of appeal in administrative matters. It was founded by Ottoman statesmen in 1886 after the model of French Conseil d’Etat. Having become defunct with the demise of the Empire, it was reinstated in 1925.
40 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.1. At the time of this controversy, the Constitutional Court was not yet in existence. When legal disputes necessitated the interpretation of laws, they were referred to parliament.
41 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.1.
42 My archival research has so far unearthed eighteen such decrees covering thirty-three provinces, all outside the First General Inspectorate. However, it is possible that more decrees exist.
43 These documents are found in Bakanlar Kurulu Kararları Kataloğu [Catalogue of the Decisions of the Council of Ministers] and Başbakanlık Muamelât Genel Müdürlüğü Evrakı Kataloğu [Catalogue of the General Directorate of Prime Ministry’s Transactions]. A detailed analysis of these documents is part of an ongoing project being prepared for publication.
44 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.1.
45 Ibid., pp.2, 139–40.
46 Refik Şevket İnce held a degree in law. He entered parliament for the first time in 1920 as a deputy to Saruhan. He was a spokesperson for Mustafa Kemal’s Defense of Rights Group in the GNA. He served as Justice Minister in the third cabinet council of the May 1921–July 1922 period of the First Assembly. He was elected again to parliament as a deputy for Manisa in 1931, 1935, and 1939 and was a member of the Justice Committee from 1931 to 1935. He was quite active in parliament, taking the floor 182 times, which made him the second most frequent speaker in the Fourth Assembly. In 1945, he became one of the founding members of the Democrat Party. He not only had a seat in parliament as a Democrat Party deputy in 1950, he also briefly occupied ministerial positions and was deputy chairperson of the party’s group. F. Çoker, Türk Parlamento Tarihi: TBMM IV. Dönem (1931–1935) [Turkish Parliamentary History: The Fourth Term of TGNA (1931–1935)], Vol.1 (Ankara: TBMM Basımevi, 1996), p.426.
47 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, pp.137–9.
48 See note 43 above.
49 The Ministry of Health and Social Assistance took over settlement affairs in November 1935. This was the reason for the ministry’s involvement in the controversy over Law No.1505. See Law No.2849, İskân İşlerinin Sıhhat ve İçtimaî Muavenet Vekilliğine Devrine ve Ayrı bir Bütçe ile İdare Olunmasına dair Kanun [Law Regarding the Transfer of Settlement Affairs to the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance and their Management with a Separate Budget], Official Gazette No.3162 (21 Nov. 1935).
50 BCA 030.10.0.0/22.125.9.
51 TBMMZC, 17 June 1940, pp.3–4.
52 Ibid., pp.107–10.
53 I have conducted extensive research but found no parliamentary minutes or archival records to prove that the draft resolution in question was put on the parliamentary agenda after the first deliberations ended in stalemate. In fact, it is impossible to state whether the Justice Committee examined the resolution.
54 See note 43 above.
55 TBMMZC, 7 June 1934, p.4.
56 İskan Kanunu [The Settlement Law], Law No.2510, Official Gazette: 21 July 1934 No.2733, enacted 14 July 1934.
57 TBMMZC, 7 June 1934, pp.3, 6–7.
58 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.15.
59 See Oya Silier, Türkiye’de Tarımsal Yapının Gelişimi (1923–1938) [The Development of the Structure of Agriculture in Turkey (1923–1938)] (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 1981), pp.74–5.
60 İsmail Beşikçi writes that RPP MP Emin Sazak appropriated the lands of the Sazılar village. İ. Beşikçi, Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası’nın Tüzüğü (1927) ve Kürt Sorunu [The Regulations of the Republican People’s Party (1927) and the Kurdish Question] (Ankara: Yurt, 1991), pp.230–1. This is quite probable since it is recorded in the minutes that when Kaya mentioned the case of Sazılar village, he said: ‘In whose name is [Sazılar land] registered? Let us ask Emin Bey.’
61 By Gök Abat Bay, Kaya probably means Gökova on the southwestern Aegean coast since there is no other bay with a similar name. Yet, there is some confusion regarding this case, which seems to have started with the publication in 1934 of İ.H. Tökin’s Türkiye Köy İktisadiyatı [Turkey’s Village Economics] (Istanbul: İletişim, 1990). In this book on relations of production in Turkish villages, Tökin misquotes Kaya’s speech and writes ‘Gedikabat’ instead of Gök Abat (pp.196–7). Decades later, two influential books repeated Tökin’s mistake: S. Aksoy’s 100 Soruda Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi [The Land Issue in Turkey in 100 Questions] (Istanbul: Gerçek, 1969), p.57 and Silier’s Türkiye’de Tarımsal Yapının Gelişimi, pp.75–6. Confusion continues to this day as younger scholars refer to Aksoy or Silier’s book instead of the parliamentary minutes.
62 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.155.
63 Ibid., pp.19–20, 154.
64 Ibid., pp.40–41.
65 A lawyer by profession, Raif Karadeniz was a first-time parliamentarian in 1934. He was re-elected four consecutive times and served in the GNA until 1950 as an RPP representative for his native town of Trabzon. He also held ministerial posts.
66 Faik Kaltakkıran represented Edirne, his native town, in the Ottoman parliament for a decade. He was among those who founded the Defense of Rights association in Thrace in 1918. He joined the assembly in Ankara following his return from exile in Malta and was elected parliamentary deputy speaker of the First Assembly. He held his seat in the parliament as the Edirne MP until 1943.
67 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, pp.153–5.
68 The report of the Provisional Committee indeed stops short in this regard and even misrepresents the disagreement. This is how it reports what happened: the Justice Committee came to ‘accept that the two articles were necessary’ but deemed it more proper if they were included in the ‘land law that the government said was under way’. This is to say that the Justice Committee did not oppose Articles 49 and 50 in principle. This account is in contrast to Karadeniz’s verbal statement.
69 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.20.
70 Ibid., p.156.
71 Ziya Gevher Etili graduated from law school. He began his Ankara career in 1921 in Hakimiyet-i Milliye, the official newspaper of the resistance movement, where he wrote a column. He became a parliamentarian in 1927 and represented Çanakkale for sixteen consecutive years until he lost in the elections of 1943.
72 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, p.155.
73 Another lawyer, Sait Azmi Feyzioğlu, had a seat in parliament as an RPP Kayseri deputy between 1931 and 1934 and between 1946 and 1950. He also served as the president of the Kayseri bar association. Emin Sazak was a wealthy farmer and tradesman from Eskişehir. He provided support to the National Forces very early on and joined the First Assembly as an MP for Eskişehir, holding this position for thirty consecutive years.
74 TBMMZC, 14 June 1934, pp.154, 159.
75 Ibid., p.157.
76 Ibid., pp.155–9.
77 Ibid., p.159.
78 Law No.3115, Teşkilâtı Esasiye Kanununun Bazı Maddelerinin Değiştirilmesine Dair Kanun [Law on the Amendment of Certain Articles of the Law of Fundamental Organization], Official Gazette No.3533 (13 Feb. 1937).
79 TBMMZC, 5 February 1937, p.1.
80 Ibid., p.61.
81 Ibid., p.72.
82 Halil Menteşe studied law in Istanbul and Paris. He was elected to the Ottoman parliament as a deputy for his hometown, Menteşe, in 1908, 1912, and 1914. He served in a number of top-level capacities such as the head of the Ottoman parliament, head of the Council of State, and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Menteşe found a place in the GNA as an independent Izmir deputy on the RPP ticket in 1931 and 1935. He was re-elected as a RPP deputy in 1939 and served until 1946.
83 TBMMZC, 5 February 1937, p.63.
84 Ibid.
85 Although it was debated as Article 8, the new expropriation rule became law as Article 7 of Law No.3115, because a previous article was deleted. For the results of the vote, see TBMMZC, 5 February 1937, pp.74, 81–4.
86 TBMMZC, 14 May 1945, p.63.
87 Law No.4753, Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu [Law for Providing Land to Farmers], Official Gazette No.6032 (15 June 1945).
88 K.H. Karpat, ‘Actors and Issues in Turkish Politics, 1950–1960: Prototypes and Stereotypes’, International Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol.17 (2011), p.118.
89 C. Koçak, Türkiye’de İki Partili Siyasi Sistemin Kuruluş Yılları (1945-1950): İkinci Parti [The Formative Years of the Two-Party Political System in Turkey (1945-1950): The Second Party], Volume 1 (Istanbul: İletişim, 2010), pp.170–1.
90 Ibid., p.210 n.218.
91 For short biographies of these politicians, see notes 46, 65, 71, 73 and 82.
92 For the occupational profile of single-party era deputies, see Demirel, Tek Partinin İktidarı and Frey, Turkish Political Elite, pp.78–84.
93 F. Dündar, Modern Türkiye’nin Şifresi: İttihat ve Terakki’nin Etnisite Mühendisliği (1913–1918) [Modern Turkey’s Cipher: Ethnic Engineering of the Union and Progress Party (1913–1918)] (Istanbul: İletişim, 2008), pp.188–91, 197–9, 216–9, 324–8.
94 O. Karahanoğulları, Türkiye’de İdari Yargı Tarihi [The History of Administrative Justice in Turkey] (Ankara: Turhan, 2017), pp.214–52.
95 Ibid., p.222.
96 See F. Ahmad, ‘The agrarian policy of the Young Turks 1908 – 1918’, in From Empire to the Republic: Essays on the Late Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi University, 2008), pp.65–72, 83–4.
97 Z. Toprak, Milli İktisat – Milli Burjuvazi [National Economy – National Bourgeoisie] (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1995), pp.83–4.
98 For the political programs accepted at the 1908 and 1909 Congresses, see T.Z. Tunaya, Türkiye’de Siyasi Partiler [Political Parties in Turkey], Volume 1 (Istanbul: İletişim, 2015), pp.98–100 and pp.114–6.