Social Democracy in Turkey: Global Questions, Local Answers

ABSTRACT

This article assesses the prospects of social democracy in Turkey in light of two prominent debates regarding social democracy: the challenge of populism and the proper balance between a politics of redistribution and a politics of recognition. By focusing on the Republican People’s Party (CHP), it shows that the main problem the party faces is to find ways of addressing the issues of recognition and redistribution. Success in addressing these issues would provide an effective alternative to the populist agenda of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and build channels for participatory democracy and institutions of accountability. We argue that social democracy, with its legacy of democratic rule and institutions, can serve as a significant anchoring point in such an effort. We point out, however, why current social, institutional, political, and cultural factors make the CHP’s task of pursuing a social democratic agenda in Turkey particularly difficult.

KEYWORDS:

• social democracy
• Turkey
• Republican People’s Party (CHP)
• competitive authoritarianism
• populism

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the insightful comments of Kürşat Çınar, Berk Esen, and Gökhan Şensönmez, and of the editors and anonymous reviewers of The European Legacy on previous drafts of this article. Ali Acikgoz’s contribution to this article is based on his dissertation research at Bilkent University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

^1. Manwaring and Holloway, “A New Wave,” 2.

^2. della Porta, “Progressive Social Movements.”

^3. Walby, “Social Theory and COVID,” 193; see also, Manwaring and Holloway, “A New Wave.”

^4. Jolly et al., “Chapel Hill Expert Survey”; Chapel Hill Expert Survey 2019. See also Ayata and Güneş Ayata, “The Center-Left Parties.”

^5. Turan, “Old Soldiers Never Die”; Belge, “Nationalism, Democracy.”

^6. Manwaring and Kennedy, “Why the Left Loses,” 5; Sandbrook, Edelman, Heller, and Teichman, Social Democracy, 12–19.

^7. Manwaring and Holloway, “A New Wave,” 4.

^8. Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing.”

^9. Levitsky and Way, “Elections Without Democracy.”

^10. Laclau, On Populist Reason; Mouffe, For A Left Populism.

^11. Roberts, “Is Social Democracy Possible.”

^12. On the defining features of populism, see Barr, “Populists, Outsiders and Anti-Establishment”; Filc, The Political Right; Gidron and Bonikowski, “Varieties of Populism”; Mudde, “The Populist Zeitgeist”; Mudde and Kaltwasser, “Studying Populism in Comparative Perspective”; Weyland, “Neopopulism and Neoliberalism.”

^13. Weyland, “Neopopulism and Neoliberalism.”

^14. de la Torre, “Is Left Populism the Radical Democratic Answer”; Müller, What Is Populism?

^15. Arato, “Political Theology and Populism”; Cohen, “What’s Wrong with the Normative Theory.”

^16. Kioupkiolis, “Podemos,” 111.

^17. On PODEMOS and populism and authoritarianism, see Booth and Baert, The Dark Side. On left populism and competitive authoritarianism, see Weyland, “Populism and Authoritarianism.”

^18. Eley, Forging Democracy; Therborn, “Twilight of Swedish Social Democracy.”

^19. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference.

^20. Kitschelt, The Transformation of European Democracy, 285.

^21. Smith, That Is Not Who We Are.

^22. Manwaring and Holloway, “A New Wave,” 16.

^23. Cuperus, “Social Democracy”; Berman and Snegovaya, “Populism and the Decline”; Berman and Kundnani, “The Cost of Convergence.”

^24. Berman and Snegovaya, “Populism and the Decline.”

^25. Dostal, “The Crisis of German Social Democracy,” 239; Berman, “Europe.”

^26. Berman “The Specter Haunting Europe,” 75.

^27. Hobsbawm, “Identity Politics.”

^28. Fraser, “Social Justice.” For a critique and rejoinder of Fraser’s discussion of recognition and redistribution, see European Journal of Political Theory 6, no. 3 (2007). On the discussion of the left and identity politics, see also the special issue, Historical Materialism 26, no. 2 (2018).

^29. Reed and Chowkwanyun, “Race, Class, Crisis,” 169.

^30. Fraser “Rethinking Recognition,” 108.

^31. Fraser, “Social Justice” (discussion Paper), 10.

^32. Kili, 1960–1975 Döneminde Cumhuriyet, 440–41.

^33. Ecevit, Ortanın Solu, 84; Mardin, “Center-Periphery Relations.” Ecevit’s articulation of the center periphery cleavage in 1966 predated Şerif Mardin’s famous article in 1973 by several years.

^34. Roberts, “Is Social Democracy Possible.”

^35. Roberts, “Populism, Political Mobilizations,” 144.

^36. For Ecevit’s perspective on social democracy in the 1960s and 1970s, see, for example, Ecevit, Ortanın Solu; Ecevit, Bu Düzen Değişmelidir; Ecevit, “1 Şubat 1974”; Ecevit, “28 Haziran 1977”; Ecevit, “12 Ocak 1978”; Tachau, “Bülent Ecevit.”

^37. Ecevit, Ortanın Solu, 20.

^38. Güneş Ayata, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, 89.

^39. Tachau, “Bülent Ecevit,” 117.

^40. Güneş Ayata, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, 160–61, 164.

^41. Güneş-Ayata, “The Republican People’s Party,” 106.

^42. An Athens-backed coup on July 15, 1974, and the fear of genocide against the Turkish Cypriots, prompted Ankara’s military intervention. It was Ecevit who declared the operation, which was successful and gained him the nickname “conqueror of Cyprus.”

^43. Emre, “The Role of Academics,” 114.

^44. Ibid. For the future implications of Ecevit’s personalism, see Kiniklioğlu, “Bülent Ecevit.”

^45. Şençekiçer, “Sosyopolitik (28)”; CHP, Radikal Sevgi Kitabı. CHP’s Campaign Director Başsoy stated that CHP’s slogans in the 2019 campaign were first used by Ecevit and his team in the 1970s. CHP’s intra-organization training book for the elections, “Book of Radical Love,” quoted an old CHP slogan from the 1977 campaign on its cover: “Love My Sister/Brother” [Sev kardeşim].

^46. Weyland, “Neopopulism and Neoliberalism”; Weyland, “Populism and Authoritarianism.”

^47. “Son Anket Açıklandı.” İmamoğlu and Yavaş are the mayors of İstanbul and Ankara, respectively. They competed on an unlevel playing field in the 2019 local elections against AKP candidates. Polls show that in a presidential election either candidate would win against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

^48. Konda, Konda 23 Haziran 2019; Başsoy, Hepimiz Aynı Belediye Otobüsündeyiz.

^49. Azzellini and Sitrin, They Can’t Represent Us.

^50. Fung and Wright, “Thinking about Empowered Participatory Governance.”

^51. Roberts, “Populism, Political Mobilizations,” 143.

^52. Mendonça and Ercan, “Deliberation and Protest.”

^53. Ugur-Cinar and Gunduz-Arabaci, “Deliberating in Difficult Times”; Ergenç and Çelik, “Urban Neighbourhood Forums.”

^54. IBB Bilgi İşlem Daire Başkanlığı, “Katılımcı Proje Platformu.”

^55. ABB, “Mansur Yavaş Başkent’te Dijital.”

^56. IBB Muhtarlıklar ve Gıda Daire Başkanlığı, “Haberler—Muhtarlıklar Müdürlüğü.”

^57. See https://istanbulkentkonseyi.org.tr/ibb-istanbulun-ilk-katilimci-butcesini-hazirliyor/, https://ankarakentkonseyi.org.tr, https://www.izmirkentkonseyi.org.tr/tr/Anasayfa/Index.

^58. Ayan, “Authoritarian Party Structures.”

^59. Cinar, “A Comparative Analysis.”

^60. Türk, “A Glance at the Constitutive Elements.”

^61. Kitschelt, The Transformation of European Democracy; Eley, Forging Democracy; Therborn, “Twilight of Swedish Social Democracy.”

^62. Emre, Emergence of Social Democracy in Turkey, 22–29; Kakizaki, “The Republican People’s Party.”

^63. Yavuz, “The Politics of Fear,” 202.

^64. Ibid., 207.

^65. Aytaç and Elçi, “Populism in Turkey,” 90–91.

^66. Koçal, “‘Çevre’den ‘Merkez’e Yönelim Bağlamında,” 98; Bakiner, “A Key to Turkish Politics,” 9–10. Kiriş, “From the Single Party.”

^67. Erdoğan, “Demokratik soldan Devrimci Yol’a.”

^68. See Ecevit, Ortanın Solu; Ecevit, Bu Düzen Değişmelidir; Ecevit, Atatürk ve Devrimcilik.

^69. Aydın and Taşkın, 1960’tan Günümüze Türkiye Tarihi, 482.

^70. Grigoriadis and Öniş, “Europe and the Impasse”; Uysal, “Continuity and Rupture”; Aydın and Taşkın, 1960’tan Günümüze Türkiye Tarihi, 291.

^71. Özcan was dispatched to CHP’s disciplinary bodies for expulsion on 14.06.2022.

^72. Köylü, “Muhalefet ‘Güçlendirilmiş Parlamenter Sistem.” On the unintended consequences of the changes made to the 2018 electoral laws that brought the opposition together, see Evci and Kaminski, “Shot in the Foot.”

^73. “Czech Election.”

^74. Strezelecki, “Tusk Urges Opposition.”

^75. Wuthrich and Ingleby, “The Pushback Against Populism.”

^76. Yavuzyılmaz, “When Local Becomes General,” 630. For analyses of İmamoğlu depolarizing and inclusive strategies during the electoral campaign, see Demiralp and Balta, “Defeating Populists”; Taşkın, “The 2019 Provincial Elections.”

^77. Esen and Gumuscu, “Killing Competitive Authoritarianism Softly”; McCoy and Somer, “Toward a Theory.”

^78. “Ankara ve İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyelerinin”; “İBB’den ‘Askıda Fatura’ kampanyası”; Among the most significant was “Askıda Fatura,” started by İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, in which citizens would pay the bills of those who are not able to do so. Soon after other CHP municipalities followed suit. For the Izmir municipality, see, for example, Soyer, “Sosyal Demokrasi 4.0.” For Eskisehir, see “Hayvancılıkta ‘Eskişehir Modeli’.”

^79. Levitsky and Way, “Elections Without Democracy.”

^80. Examples include the copying of CHP’s retirement pension plan; on Kılıçdaroğlu’s proposal, see “CHP’den emekliye iki maaş”; “Kılıçdaroğlu, Emeklilere Yılda İki.” On AKP policy declaration, see “Son dakika: Başbakan Yıldırım’dan,” and the acquisition of onions and potatoes from producers in need, and distribution to the poor. See CHP—Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, “Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, Aksaray’da”; CHP—Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, “CHP Grup Toplantısı”; Sözcü İstanbul, “Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan’ın talimatıyla alınan”; İstanbul İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü, “Ihtiyaç Sahibi Ailelerimize Ücretsiz.”

^81. Grossman, et al., Political Retweet Rings; Yavuzyılmaz, “When Local Becomes General,” 629; “Özhaseki”; “Son dakika: Cumhurbaşkanı Erdğan’dan.” Demonization of the CHP and IYIP’s “Nation Alliance” [Millet İttifakı] was carried out by wordplays on the word millet such as “alliance of abasement” [zillet ittifakı] and “alliance of malady” [illet ittifakı]. Another venue of demonization was the association of opposition mayoral candidates with terrorist organizations. Erdoğan also blamed Kılıçdaroğlu with Islamophobia and for being “together with terrorists.”

^82. Kılıçdaroğlu, “Kılıçdaroğlu Yazdı”; “Kılıçdaroğlu: Başörtüsü sorununu.”

^83. “CHP İstanbul İl Örgütü.”

^84. “Türkiye’nin ilk Roman kökenli.”

^85. See, for example, Çarkoğlu, “Political Preferences.”

^86. “CHP’nin trans adayına LGBTİ”; Sarıöz, “CHP’nin ilk trans yöneticisi.”

^87. “Kılıçdaroğlu LGBT’yi savundu.”

^88. “CHP Lideri Kılıçdaroğlu.”

^89. CHP – Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, “Ben ömrümde, ülkemizde nefreti.”

^90. “28 Şubat, başörtülüler, Roboski.”

^91. Ecevit, Bu Düzen Değişmelidir; Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit”; Kirisci and Winrow, Kürt Sorunu; Ugur Cinar, Collective Memory and National Membership.

^92. Efegil, “Analysis of the AKP,” 35.

^93. Ergil, “The Kurdish Question”; Sarigil and Karakoc, “Inter-ethnic (In)tolerance,” 197.

^94. “Muharrem İnce’den HDP”; “Muharrem İnce.” For example, Muharrem Ince openly criticized the CHP leadership for their “secretive alliance” with HDP and left the CHP and founded his own party barring those “who did not cut their ties with terrorism” from joining his new party.

^95. For a detailed analysis, see Emre, Cop, Aladağ, and Arslantaş, Haksızlıklar Ülkesinde Sosyal Demokrasi.

^96. Ugur Cinar, Collective Memory and National Membership, 14.

97 İstanbul Haber Ajansı, “İmamoğlu söz verdi”; “İSMEK’in Kürtçe kurslarına yoğun.” In another instance İmamoğlu openly opposed banning of a play in Kurdish by Governor of Istanbul. See “İmamoğlu’ndan Kürtçe oyunun yasaklanmasına.”

^98. CHP, İkinci Yüzyıla Çağrı Beyannamesi, 8, 11.

^99. T24 Haber Merkezi, “Rawest araştırma.”

^100. “Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu saldırıya uğradı.” For example, Kılıçdaroğlu received verbal attacks and survived an attempt of lynching by groups attending a funeral over CHP’s alleged connection with the PKK and HDP voiced by the government.

^101. George, “Case Studies and Theory.”

^102. Ugur Cinar, “Embedded Neopatrimonialism.”

^103. Eley, Forging Democracy, 7.

^104. Eley, Forging Democracy; Frega, “The Fourth Stage of Social Democracy.”

^105. Eley, Forging Democracy.

^106. Smith, That Is Not Who We Are.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Meral Ugur-Cinar

Meral Ugur-Cinar is Assistant Professor at Bilkent University, Turkey. She is the author of Collective Memory and National Membership: Identity and Citizenship Models in Turkey and Austria (Palgrave), and Memory, Patriarchy and Economy in Turkey: Narratives of Political Power (forthcoming, Edinburgh University Press), and of numerous articles on political institutions, political regimes, collective memory, social movements, and gender, published, among others, in Democratization, Political Studies, PS: Political Science & Politics, Political Quarterly, Memory Studies, Turkish Studies, Social Politics, Politics & Gender, and Gender, Work, and Organization.

Ali Acikgoz

Ali Acikgoz, PhD, is currently employed at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. His doctoral dissertation centered on the changes and the role of ideas in the Republican People’s Party (CHP), 1965–1973. His comparative studies of party politics and social democracy in Turkey have appeared, among others, in Turkish Studies, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, and Yurt ve Dünya, as well as in outlets such as Birikim and Daktilo1984.