Liberal thought and democracy in turkey

Abstract

Turkish Republican history has witnessed the subsequent formation of liberal circles and/or political parties. The circles and/or political parties concerned were either immediately dissolved due to their opposition to Republican principles or they came to terms with these principles, either by force or consent. This had de-liberalising effects on liberal identity. In the 1990s, an intellectual circle was formed and it adopted neo-liberalism as its basic frame of reference. The circle seems to promise a break with Republican encroachment on liberal identity. However, its referential theoretical framework is questionable in terms of democratic extensions. It is the aim of this article to provide a critical assessment of the relationship between Turkish liberal thought and democracy. In order to do so, liberal thought in Republican Turkey is analysed with a view to three themes: anti-e´tatism, individual and nation-state, and democracy.

Notes

A. Vincent, Modern Political Ideologies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 22–54.

Vincent, ibid., pp. 24–5

For methodological considerations on studying ideologies see M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 1–136.

Vincent, op. cit., ref. 1; J. Waldron, ‘Theoretical foundations of liberalism’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147) (April 1987), pp. 127–50; S. Hall, ‘Variants of Liberalism’, in Politics and Ideology, J. Donald and S. Hall (eds) (Philadephia: Open University Press, 1986), pp. 34–69.

Hall, ibid., p. 50.

R. Nisbet, The Making of Modern Society (UK: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986), p. 132.

A. A˘fetI˙nan, Medeni Bilgiler ve Mustafa Kemal'in El Yazıları (Civil Instructions and Mustafa Kemal's Manuscripts) (Ankara: Tu¨rk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988), p. 11.

A˘fetI˙nan, ibid., p. 27.

M. Heper, ‘Atatu¨rk’te Devlet Du¨s¸u¨ncesi' (The state as conceptualised by Atatu¨rk), in C¸ag˘das¸ Du¨s¸u¨ncenin Is¸ıg˘ında Atatu¨rk (Atatu¨rk in the Light of Contemporary Thought) (I˙stanbul: Eczacıbas¸ı Vakfı Yayınları, 1986), p. 238.

E´tatism as the official economic policy was included in the CHP programme in 1931. On the evolution of e´tatism see F. Birtek, ‘The rise and fall e´tatism in Turkey, 1932–1950, Review, VIII(3) (Winter 1985), pp. 407–38; K. Boratav, ‘Kemalist economic policies and e´tatism’, in Atatu¨rk, Founder of a Modern State, A. Kazancıgil and E. O¨zbudun (eds) (London: C. Hurst Company, 1981), pp. 187–90; K. Go¨ymen, ‘Stages of e´tatist development in Turkey: the interaction of single party politics and economic policy in the “e´tatist decade”, 1930–1939’, ODTU¨ Gelis¸me, 10 (Winter 1976), pp. 89–113.

T. Z. Tunaya, Tu¨rkiye’de Siyasi Partiler, 1859–1952 (Political Parties in Turkey, 1859–1952) (I˙stanbul: n.p., 1952), pp. 615–16.

Tunaya, ibid., pp. 616–20.

Tunaya, ibid., pp. 621–22; N. Yurdsever-Ates¸, Tu¨rkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin Kurulus¸u ve Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası (The Foundation of Turkish Republic and Progressive Republican Party) (I˙stanbul: Sarmal, 1994).

The state's tutelage was given expression in the colloquia and correspondence between Mustafa Kemal (Atatu¨rk) and Ali Fethi (Okyar), the founding chairman of the FRP, on the formation of the party; in the state financing that the party received in its formation, as well as in the selection of the founder of the party and party members by Mustafa Kemal himself. For a detailed history of FRP see A. Ag˘aog˘lu, Serbest Fırka Hatıraları (Memoirs of the Free Party) (I˙stanbul: I˙letis¸im, 1994), 3rd edn.

Article 5 of the party programme advocated the abolition of all state restrictions on private initiative and restriction of state involvement in the economy only to those spheres where private initiative was insufficient.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 14., pp. 105–22.

A. H. Bas¸ar, Atatu¨rk'le U¨c¸ Ay ve 1930'dan Sonra Tu¨rkiye (Three Months with Atatu¨rk and Turkey after 1930) (Ankara: A.I˙.T.I˙.A, 1981), pp. 27–36.

‘… liberalism is a system, which has been practised in the colonies! … However, we are not a colony, and will never be. Thinking of liberalism is denying the revolution.’ Mustafa Kemal (Atatu¨rk). Quoted in Bas¸ar, ibid., p. 30.

The most significant books of Ag˘aog˘lu are I˙sla˘miyyette Kadın (Women in Islam) (Tiflis, 1901), trans. Hasan Ali Ediz (Ankara: Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, 1985); Hilafet ve Milli˘ Ha˘kimiyet (The Caliphate and National Sovereignty) (Ankara, 1939) (1923); Tu¨rk Tes¸kila˘t-ı Esasiyesi (The Turkish Constitution) (Ankara, 1925–1929); U¨c¸ Medeniyet (Three Civilisations) (Ankara, 1927); Hindistan ve I˙ngiltere (India and Britain) (I˙stanbul, 1927–1928); Serbest I˙nsanlar U¨lkesinde (On the Land of Free Men) (I˙stanbul: Sanayiinefise Matbaası, 1930); Devlet ve Fert (State and Individual) (I˙stanbul: Sanayiinefise Matbaası, 1933); Ben Neyim? (Who Am I?) (I˙stanbul:, n.p., 1939); Azerbeycan'ın Ehemmiyeti (The Importance of Azerbaijan) (Ankara, 1940); I˙ran ve I˙nkıla˘bı (Iran and Its Revolution) (Ankara, 1941); Go¨nu¨lsu¨z Olmaz (Not Without Heart) (Ankara, 1941–1942); I˙htila˘l mi, I˙nkıla˘p mı?(Revolution or Reform?) (Ankara, 1941–1942); op. cit., ref. 14.

In this respect, see C. Nazım I˙rem, Kemalist Modernism and the Genesis of Modern Turkish Conservatism, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Ankara: Bilkent University, 1996); S. S. O¨g˘u¨n, ‘Bir Tu¨rkc¸u¨ I˙slamcı Eklemlenme Figu¨ru¨ Olarak Ag˘aog˘lu Ahmet’, (Ag˘aog˘lu Ahmet as a figure of Turkist–Islamist articulation), in his Modernles¸me, Milliyetc¸ilik ve Tu¨rkiye (Modernisation, Nationalism and Turkey) (I˙stanbul: Bag˘lam, 1995), pp. 195–203.

Ag˘aog˘lu, Devlet ve Fert (State and Individual) (I˙stanbul: Sanayyinefise Matbaası, 1933), pp. 101–2.

The most significant books of Yalman are Gerc¸ekles¸en Ru¨ya (The Dream that Came True) (1938); Yakın Tarihte Go¨rdu¨klerim ve Gec¸irdiklerim (1944–1971) (My Observations and Experiences in Recent History (1944–1971)), (1970–71, 4 volumes); Nazilig˘in I˙c¸yu¨zu¨ (The Inside Story of Nazism) (1943).

A. E. Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Go¨rdu¨klerim ve Gec¸irdiklerim (1944–1971) (My Observations and Experiences in Recent History (1944–1971)), IV, pp. 109–111.

Yalman, ibid., pp. 32ff.

In this respect see the ‘Statement by Adnan Menderes on the occasion of his and Fuad Ko¨pru¨lu¨’s expulsion from CHP due to the Proposal of the Four', Vatan (22 September 1945); ‘Statement by Menderes’, Vatan (1 April 1946); ‘Teessu¨r Verici Bir Manzara’ (A Regretful Panorama), Vatan (19 May 1946); ‘Demokrat Parti’nin En Bariz Vasfı' (The Most Obvious Quality of the Democratic Party), Vatan (23 May 1946); ‘Ulus Gazetesi’ndeki Bir Cevap Mu¨nasebetiyle' (On the Occasion of a Response in Ulus Daily), Vatan (22 June 1946); ‘I˙dareciler Kongresi Dolayısıyla’ (On the Occasion of the Administrators' Congress), Vatan (25 January 1947); Menderes, ‘Ac¸ık Konus¸ma Zarureti’ (The Necessity of Speaking Solemnly), Vatan (28 January 1947); Vatan (2 November 1949).

Apart from acknowledging the adherence to democracy (Article 1), in Article 3 of the DP programme private initiative and private capital were viewed as the principal actors in the economic sphere. The state was held responsible for providing a free and secure environment for the functioning of the free-market mechanism and for providing new opportunities for the private sector. Article 44 pointed to the necessity of planning in the economic activities of the state and for drawing the boundaries within which the state would act. In Article 53, the state's role in the economic sphere was restricted to sustaining competitive conditions in the market. State initiative was accepted only in those spheres where private initiative lacked competency (Article 45). Article 48 contained the proposal of the transfer of state enterprises to the private sector when appropriate. Apart from that the party also brought forth a new definition of e´tatism. In Article 17, e´tatism was presented as arising out of exigency. It was viewed as a transitory policy, which would harmonise state activities and private initiative and protect the latter vis-a`-vis the former.

Initially, the party could not define its political stance clearly: ‘Since our party program refers to political, economic and social spheres it is difficult to prefigure whether we stand on the right or the left of the CHP in each one of these spheres. These issues are stated in our program more clearly. We believe that Turkey is at a stage of democracy that it has to transcend. We reject the theory that perceives class struggle as imperative. We are determined to protect national interest as a whole.’ Celal Bayar, Press Declaration as the Chairman of DP, 7 January 1946, quoted in Celal Bayar Diyor ki: 1920–1950 (Celal Bayar Says: 1920–1950), Nazmi Sevgen (ed.) (I˙stanbul: n.p., 1951), pp. 33–34.

In the first congress of the DP, Celal Bayar—the first chairman of the party—stated that ‘[I]t is a fact that a mono-party regime, which by definition is not accountable, leads to the emergence of some deficiencies in the national structure … Our people … were aware that a new development could only be achieved by the realization of control over the whole state administration by the nation. It is in this respect that the "Democratic Party" is the first party founded and created by the Turkish nation itself.’ Cited in Sevgen, ibid., p. 141.

For the relation between DP and military see F. Ahmad, The Turkish Experiment in Democracy (London: C. Hurst and Company, 1977), pp. 147–59.

On the 1961 Constitution and the constitutional amendments see B. Tano¨r, Osmanlı–Tu¨rk Anayasal Gelis¸meleri (1789–1980) (Ottoman–Turkish Constitutional Developments (1789–1980)) (I˙stanbul: YKY, 1998), 2nd edn., pp. 364–431.

On the role of the military as ‘guardians’ of democracy see G. Harris, ‘The role of the military in Turkey in the 1980s: guardians or decision-makers?’, in State, Democracy and the Military: Turkey in the 1980s, M. Heper and A. Evin (eds) (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), pp. 177–200; F. Tachau and M. Heper, ‘The State, politics and the military in Turkey’, Comparative Politics, 16(1) (1983), p. 21.

The Forum circle is the topic of another study, because of its quite heterogeneous membership structure and of the fact that it can be categorised into a ‘social liberal’ strand, which extends beyond the scope of this article. Among the prominent members of the circle were figures such as Yalc¸ın, Bu¨lent Ecevit, Muammer Aksoy, Osman Okyar, Bahri Bahri Savcı and Turhan Feyziog˘lu, who all had different political tendencies.

Yeni Forum was first published in September 1979.

Yalc¸ın, Vatan Hıyanetinin Anatomisi (The Anatomy of Treason) (Ankara: Daily News Web, 1986).

The same combination can also be found in Latin American experiences with neo-liberalism. See K. Weyland, ‘Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America: unexpected affinities’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(3) (Fall 1996), pp. 3–31; R. Espinal, ‘Development, neoliberalism and electoral politics in Latin America’, Development and Change, 23 (4, 1992), pp. 27–48.

At its inception the party was defined as merging ‘four tendencies’—i.e. as a nationalist, conservative party that accepted the principles of the free market economy and social justice. It can be argued that in the early 1980s ANAP functioned as a ‘melting pot’ for those politicians who in one way or another had connections with pre-1980 political parties. U¨. Ergu¨der notes that a survey study conducted with 203 active ANAP members ‘revealed that 52.2 percent of the respondents had served in the local organizations of the pre-1980 political parties. Of those who had pre-1980 political experience 73 percent had worked in AP organization, 8.7 percent each in CHP and MHP [Milliyetc¸i Hareket Partisi (Nationalist Action Party)] local organizations.’ U¨. Ergu¨der, ‘The Motherland Party, 1983–1989’, in Political Parties and Democracy in Turkey, M. Heper and J. M. Landau (eds) (London: I. B. Tauris, 1991), p. 155.

‘Green capital’ as a phenomenon gained prevalence especially in the 1990s, with the rise of small and medium Anatolian enterprise. The Independent Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (MU¨SI˙AD) has been perceived as its most significant representative. MU¨SI˙AD Chairman Ali Bayramog˘lu has noted that the Association represents the people that ‘lives in accordance with religious rules and that practices Islam.’ Ali Bayramog˘lu, ‘Din topyeku˘ndur, ekonomiyi ic¸erir’ (Religion is all-encompassing, it contains economy), Interview by Nes¸e Du¨zel, Radikal (Turkish daily), 9 December 2002. For more information on the issue of Islamic/‘green’ capital in Turkey, see Ays¸e Bug˘ra, ‘The Claws of the “Tigers” ’, Private view (5) (Autumn 1997), http://www.tusiad.org/yayin/private/autumn97/html/bugra.html; Kemal Can, ‘Tekkeden Holdinge Yes¸il Sermaye’ (Green Capital: From Lodge to Holding), Milliyet (Turkish daily), 11–18 March 1997.

Most of the founding members of LDT had also participated in Yeni Forum. When their articles in Yeni Forum and in the journal of the Society, Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce (Liberal Thinking) are analysed it is possible to demonstrate continuity.

The group publishes academic and non-academic books, which thematise selected issues in Turkish politics with resort to liberalism. For further information see http://www.liberte.com.tr. In that article, I analyse the articles published in Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce. I also restrict my analysis to the articles of those authors, who are included in the editorial and advisory boards of the journal.

In this respect, see K. Berzeg, ‘Neden Liberalim?’ (Why am I a liberal?), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), pp. 15–27; Berzeg, ‘Siyaset Pratig˘indeki Somut Liberalism’ (Concrete liberalism in political practice), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(2) (Spring 1996), pp. 152–56; M. Erdog˘an, ‘Nic¸in Liberalizm?’ (Why liberalism?), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), pp. 28–33; C. U¨lsever, ‘Marksizmden Liberalizme: Pratik Teoriyi Daima As¸ıyor’ (From Marxism to liberalism: practice always transcends theory), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), pp. 34–38; I˙. Dag˘ı, ‘Uluslararası Politikada Devletin Yeri: Liberteryen Bir Eles¸tiri’ (The place of the state in international politics: a libertarian criticism), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), pp. 93–100;

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 21, pp. 35–37.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ibid., p. 40.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ibid.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 21, pp. 98–99; ‘Yaratıcı Teka˘mu¨l’ (Creative evolution), Ku¨ltu¨r Haftası (29 January 1936).

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 21, pp. 34–35; 40–42.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ibid., pp. 62–76.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ‘Ziraat mi, Sanayi mi?’ (Agriculture or industry?), Akın (3 June 1933).

Yalman, op. cit., ref. 23, pp. 32ff.

Yalman, ‘I˙ktisadi siyasetin temelleri’ (The foundations of political economy), Vatan (21 December 1945).

Yalman, ‘Devletc¸ilik ve Halk’ (E´tatism and People), Vatan (4 September 1945).

Yalman, ibid. In this respect, see also his ‘Bes¸ nevi mukavemet’ (Five types of resistance), Vatan (4 December 1945); ‘Ticari birliklerin acıklı hali’ (The tragic conditions of commercial associations), Vatan (24 June 1942); ‘Yılanlar kımıldanırken’ (While the snakes are moving), Vatan (12 August 1942).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Asıl Mesele Nedir?’ (The Main Issue), O¨ncu¨ (29 August 1960); ‘Gelis¸me Gayretlerimizde Aksayan Nedir?’ (What are the deficiencies in our attempts at development?), Forum, 4(45) (1 February 1956), pp. 11–2.

F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944). For a similar line of argument adopted by the circle see O. Okyar, ‘Kumanda Ekonomisi, Gu¨du¨mlu¨ Demokrasi’ (Command economy, tutelary democracy), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(4) (Fall 1996), pp. 36–45; V. F. Savas¸, ‘O¨zgu¨r Toplumun Amac¸ları’ (The goals of free society), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(5) (Spring 1997), pp. 7–12; M. Yu¨ru¨s¸en, ‘Anti-Liberal Zihniyet ve Liberal Demokrat Parti’ (The anti-liberal mentality and the liberal democrat party), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(8) (Fall 1997), pp. 21–42.

The circle also tries to fortify this conception with regard to human rights. See Zu¨htu¨ Arslan, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Siyasal Partiler Politikası: “Ve c¸ag˘ı”nda “Ya-ya da”cı Yaklas¸ımın Anakronizmi U¨zerine Bir Deneme' (The policy of constitutional court regarding political parties: an essay on the anachronism of the “either-or” approach in an age of “and”), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 6(22) (Spring 2001), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi22/2202.htm; Erdog˘an, ‘I˙nsan Haklarına Kavramsal Bir Yaklas¸ım’ (A conceptual approach to human rights), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 3(12) (Fall 1998), pp. 7–16, Berzeg, ‘Hukuk Sistemimiz Mu¨lkiyet Hakkına Ne Kadar Saygılı?’ (What is the extent of respect to property rights in our legal system?), interview by Levent Korkut, Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 3(12) (Fall 1998), pp. 54–63.

Ag˘aog˘lu, Ben Neyim (Who am I?) (I˙stanbul: n.p., 1939).

Ag˘aog˘lu, Serbest I˙nsanlar U¨lkesinde (I˙stanbul: Sanayiinefise Matbaası, 1930). In this contrast one can trace the implications of the conflict between the abstract individual of classical liberalism and the altruistic individual of the personalistic approach.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 54; ref. 43.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ibid.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 54. See also Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 55.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 55, p. 105; ‘Maarifimizin Islahı’ (Reformation of our education system), Akın (21 June 1933).

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 21, p. 22; ‘Tu¨rk Entellektu¨ellerinin Zaafları’ (The Weaknesses of Turkish Intellectuals), Akın (7 June 1933).

Ag˘aog˘lu, ibid.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ibid.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 21, pp. 29ff, 74–75, 122.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 55, p. 69; ‘Milliyetc¸ilik’ (Nationalism), Akın (10 June 1933).

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 55; Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., Ref. 21, pp. 28–30.

Yalman, ‘Anglo Sakson du¨s¸ku¨nlu¨g˘u¨nu¨n tahlili’ (The analysis of adherence to Anglo-Saxon world), Vatan (17 February 1942).

Hu¨r Fikirleri Yayma Cemiyeti Beyannamesi (The Declaration of the Society for the Dissemination of Free Ideas) (I˙stanbul: I˙smail Akgu¨n Matbaası, 1949), p. 7.

Yalman, ‘I˙deal Din Sistemi: Dig˘erlerine U¨stu¨nlu¨g˘u¨n Esaslı Sebepleri’ (An ideal system of religion), Vatan (27 November 1941). See also, his ‘Din Bahsinde Vardıg˘ımız Neticeler’ (Results concerning the issue of religion), Vatan (4 December 1941); ‘Din, milliyetec¸ilik bahsinde Bayar’ın konus¸ması' (Bayar's speech on the issue of religion, nationalism), Vatan (25 April 1949).

Yalman, ‘Daima bekc¸isi olacag˘ımız bes¸ esas’ (Five principles that we will always guard), Vatan (23 November 1941).

Yalman, ‘Kendi kendimize kavus¸mak ihtiyacı’ (The need to be reunited), Vatan (16 December 1941).

Yalman, ‘Bizi maziye bag˘layan ko¨pru¨ler’ (The bridges that tie us to the past), Vatan (9 October 1940). Yalman opposed the attempts for radical Turkification of language on the same grounds. Yalman, ‘Dilde istikrar ve birlik’ (Stability and unity in language), Vatan (10 August 1940); ‘Yarım ve tam vatandas¸lık’ (Semi- and full citizenship), Vatan (20 November 1941).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Gerc¸ek Atatu¨rkc¸u¨lu¨k’ (Real Ataturkism), O¨ncu¨ (10 November 1961).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Nic¸in C¸ıkıyoruz?’ (Why do we publish?), Yeni Forum, 1(1) (15 September 1979), p. 2.

‘Rejim ve Anayasamızda Reform O¨nerisi’ (Proposal for reform in our regime and constitution), Yeni Forum, 2(17) (15 May 1980), pp. 1–33, Supplement.

According to Yalc¸ın ‘[T]he failure of civilian rule, the incompetence and irresponsibility of the leaders of civilian parties inevitably [led] the military to intervene...’ Yalc¸ın, op. cit., ref. 23, p. 334.

‘Amerikan Senatosunda Tero¨rizm Aras¸tırması’ (Research on terrorism in the U.S. Senate), Yeni Forum (editorial), 3(45) (15 July 1981), pp. 3–4.

‘Demokrasimizin Sıkıntılı Do¨nemleri’ (Difficult periods for our democracy), Yeni Forum (editorial), 6 (133) (15 March 1985), pp. 3–4.

Yalc¸ın, ‘Yeni Bir Do¨nemin Bas¸ında’ (In the beginning of a new era), Yeni Forum, 11 (248) (January 1990), p. 6. This formula, which originally belonged to one of the most prominent nationalist intellectuals of the late Ottoman and early-Republican era, Ziya Go¨kalp, can also be read as another attempt to articulate liberal principles into a particular national framework. Briefly, while the ‘Turkish’ component clearly referred to geographical and historical bonds, the Islamic component corresponded to an indispensable social and cultural element of Turkish society, and the ‘Western’ one would presumably provide the source for the universally validated liberal framework.

‘Yeni Forum’un Cevabı' (Yeni Forum's Response), Yeni Forum (editorial), 5 (111) (15 April 1984), p. 3.

‘Bas¸arılı Bir Demokrasi I˙c¸in’ (For a successful democracy), Yeni Forum (editorial), 6 (141) (15 July 1985), pp. 3–4; A. Yayla, ‘Hu¨r Basın ve Demokratik Sistem’ (A free press and the democratic system), Yeni Forum, 6 (143) (15 August 1985), pp. 32–34.

Yalc¸ın, op. cit., ref. 78.

Erdog˘an, op. cit., ref. 53, p. 10.

Erdog˘an, ‘Birey, Topluluk, Toplum’ (Individual, community, society), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(7) (Summer 1997), pp. 58–63; Yu¨ru¨s¸en, ‘C¸og˘ulculuk: Sorunlar, Sınırlar ve I˙mka˘nlar’ (Pluralism: problems, limits and possibilities), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 6 (22) (Spring 2001), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi22/2211.htm.

G. Akalın, ‘Ekonomik Demokratikles¸me’ (Economic democratisation), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(6) (Spring 1997), pp. 13–22; Erdog˘an, ‘C¸es¸itlilik, C¸og˘ulculuk ve Rekabetc¸i Federalizm’ (Diversity, pluralism and competitive federalism), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(6) (Spring 1997), pp. 44–54; ‘Demokratik Toplumda I˙fade O¨zgu¨rlu¨g˘u¨: O¨zgu¨rlu¨kc¸u¨ Bir Perspektif’ (Freedom of expression in a democratic society: a libertarian perspective), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 6(24) (Fall 2001), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi24/2402.htm; ‘Siyasi Partiler, Devlet ve Demokrasi’ (Political parties, state and democracy), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 6(22) (Spring 2001), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi22/2206.htm; Yayla, ‘Demokrasiyi Koruma Kılavuzu’ (The guide to protecting democracy), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 6(22) (Spring 2001), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi22/2207.htm; Yu¨ru¨s¸en, ‘Politik Mes¸ruiyet, Liberal Tarafsızlık ve Tu¨rkiye’ (Political legitimacy, liberal neutrality and Turkey), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(7) (Summer 1997), pp. 19–35.

See, for example, A. N. Yurdusev, ‘Laiklik ve Demokrasi: Biri Dig˘erinin Vazgec¸ilmez S¸artı mı?’ (Laicism and democracy: is one the sine-qua-non of the other?), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(2) (Spring 1996), pp. 138–44; Erdog˘an, op. cit., ref. 39; Berzeg, op. cit., ref. 39; ‘Siyaset Pratig˘indeki Somut Liberalizm’, op. cit., ref. 39; A. Arslan, ‘Tu¨rk Laiklig˘i ve Geleceg˘i U¨zerine Bazı Du¨s¸u¨nceler’ (Some reflections on Turkish laicism and its future), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), pp. 54–76; Akalın, ‘Tu¨rkiye’de Devletc¸ilik Hareketi ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Maliyeti' (The e´tatist movement and its socio-economic costs in Turkey), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), pp. 85–92.

Erdog˘an, ‘I˙slam ve Liberalizm: Kısa Bir Bakıs¸’ (Islam and liberalism: a brief look), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(4) (Spring 1996), pp. 7–21; ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi Nasıl Karar Veriyor: Bas¸o¨rtu¨su¨ Kararı’ (How does the constitutional court decide: the decision on headcover), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 3(9) (Winter 1998), pp. 5–16; Yu¨ru¨s¸en, ‘Refah Partisi’nin Yu¨kselis¸ine C¸es¸itlilik Perspektifinden Bakmak' (Approaching the rise of the Welfare Party from a diversity perspective), 1(3) (Summer 1996), pp. 13–21.

Erdog˘an, ‘Islam in Turkish Politics: Turkey’s Quest for Democracy without Islam', Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 4(14) (Spring 1999), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi14/1410.htm.

Erdog˘an, ‘Sivil O¨zgu¨rlu¨k Olarak Din ve Vicdan O¨zgu¨rlu¨g˘u¨’ (Freedom of religion and conscience as civil liberty), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 6(21) (Winter 2001), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi21/2107.htm.

In this respect, O¨mer C¸aha's article is representative: ‘Amerikan Modeli: I˙nanc¸ ile O¨zgu¨rlu¨g˘u¨n Bulus¸ması’ (The American model: the meeting of belief with liberty), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 8(30–31) (Spring–Summer 2003), pp. 15–44.

Erdog˘an, op. cit., ref. 83.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 55, p.35.

Ag˘aog˘lu, op. cit., ref. 14, pp. 147, 198–99.

Ag˘aog˘lu, ‘Mu¨stakil Meb’usluklar' (Independent memberships of parliament), Akın (15 June 1933).

Yalman, op. cit., ref. 23, pp. 32–33; ‘Yeni Parti Kurulurken’ (While the new party is founded), Vatan (3 December 1945); ‘Demokrat Partinin Mesuliyetleri’ (The Responsibilities of the Democratic Party), Vatan (10 December 1945).

Yalman, ‘Gazi Pas¸a Hazretlerine Maruzat’ (An appeal to Gazhi Pasha), Vatan (5 October 1923).

Yalman, ‘Bazı Esaslı Noktalar’ (Some essential points), Vatan (27 September 1923); ‘En Esaslı Mesele’ (The most essential issue), Vatan (8 January 1925).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Partiler ve Demokrasi’ (Political parties and democracy), O¨ncu¨ (17 November 1960); ‘Siyasi Ortam’ (The political milieu), O¨ncu¨ (25 October 1960).

Yalc¸ın, ‘I˙lim ve Demokrasi’ (Science and Democracy), O¨ncu¨ (1 October 1960); ‘Farklı Du¨s¸u¨nceye Saygı’ (Respect for different thoughts), O¨ncu¨ (25 November 1961).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Zihniyet ve Tutum Meselesi’ (A matter of mentality and attitude), O¨ncu¨ (22 February 1961).

Yalc¸ın, op. cit., ref. 97.

Yalc¸ın, ‘Hu¨rriyet I˙nancı’ (The belief in liberty), O¨ncu¨ (29 September 1960).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Profesyonel Politikacı ve Demokrasi’ (Professional politicians and democracy), O¨ncu¨ (26 September 1960). See also his ‘Demokrat Partinin Akıbeti’ (The end of the Democratic Party), O¨ncu¨ (3 September 1960).

Yalc¸ın, ‘Demokrasi ve Lider’ (Democracy and the leader), O¨ncu¨ (14 September 1960); ‘Siyasi Liderlik’ (Political leadership), O¨ncu¨ (3 July 1961); ‘Kars¸ılıklı Etki’ (Mutual influence), O¨ncu¨ (14 July 1961).

His criticism of C. Bayar, the founding chairman of DP, and A. Menderes, the second chairman of DP after Bayar, as ‘ordinary and ignorant’ men was significant in this regard. Yalc¸ın, op. cit., ref. 102.

Yalc¸ın, ‘Tu¨rkiye’de Sınıf Partisi' (Class party in Turkey), O¨ncu¨ (15 February 1961).

Such a stance led him to argue at the time that the fascist movement in Turkey had emerged in opposition to Marxism and resorted to violence with ‘patriotic intentions’. Yalc¸ın, op. cit., ref. 34, p. 23.

See, for example, ‘Vatanseverlik ve Sag˘duyunun Gu¨r Sesi’ (The deep voice of patriotism and common sense), Yeni Forum (editorial), 2(9) (15 January 1980), pp. 3–4; ‘Senaryonun I˙c¸ ve Dıs¸ Tezahu¨rleri’ (Internal and external appearances of the scenario), Yeni Forum (editorial), 3(35) (15 February, 1981), pp. 3–4; ‘Aysbergin Ucu ve Go¨vdesi’ (The apex and body of the iceberg), Yeni Forum (editorial), 3(36) (1 March 1981), pp. 3–4; ‘Tes¸his Hatasının Sakıncaları’ (The drawbacks of wrong diagnosis), Yeni Forum (editorial), 5(121) (15 September 1984); Osman Okyar, ‘Tu¨rkiye’de Aydınlar Bunalımı' (The crisis of intellectuals in Turkey), Yeni Forum, 6 (134) (1 April 1985), pp. 18-20; ‘Yeni Yılda Millı˘ Gu¨ndem’ (National agenda in the new year), Yeni Forum (editorial), 6 (139) (1 January 1985), pp. 3–4; ‘12 Eylu¨l’u¨n Bes¸inci Yıldo¨nu¨mu¨' (The fifth anniversary of September 12), Yeni Forum (editorial), 6(145) (15 September 1985), pp. 3–5; ‘Kıs¸ Bas¸ında Bulutlanan Ufuklar’ (Cloudy horizons at the beginning of winter), Yeni Forum (editorial), 6(148) (1 November 1985), pp. 3–4.

Yayla, ‘Du¨nyada ve Tu¨rkiye’de Tero¨r' (Terror in the world and in Turkey), Yeni Forum, 6(128) (1 January 1985).

Yayla, ‘Pratikteki Ac¸mazlarıyla Liberalizm ve Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce Toplulug˘u’ (Liberalism and the society for liberal thinking with its practical impasses), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 1(1) (Winter 1996), p.11.

Hayek, The Fortunes of Liberalism, P. G. Klein (ed.) (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 237–38.

Akalın, op. cit., ref. 84; Okyar, op. cit., ref. 52; Berzeg, op. cit., ref. 84.

Yayla, op. cit., ref. 84; Erdog˘an, op. cit., ref. 84; Yu¨ru¨s¸en, op. cit., ref. 83.

As an example for such an approach, see C¸aha, ‘Yu¨zyılın Son Sec¸iminde Anadolu’nun Yu¨kselen Sesi' (The rising voice of Anatolia in the last elections of the century), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 4(14) (Spring 1999), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/dergiler/ldsayi14/1404.htm.

Yayla and M. Seyitdanlıog˘lu, ‘Tu¨rkiye’de Liberalizm' (Liberalism in Turkey), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 3(10-11) (Spring–Summer 1998), http://www.liberal-dt.org.tr/ldd/m1011/10-11-yaylaseyitdanli.htm. For a similar reading see Okyar, op. cit., ref. 52, pp. 41–42.

Hayek, op. cit., ref. 52., p. 12.

P. Watkins, ‘Decentralising education to the point of production: Sloanism, the market and schools of the future’, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 17(1) (1996), pp. 85–99; P. Morris, ‘Freeing the spirit of enterprise: the genesis and development of the concept of enterprise’, in Enterprise Culture, R. Keat and N. Abercombie (eds) (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 21–37; R. Selden, ‘The rhetoric of enterprise’ in Enterprise Culture, pp. 58–71; P. Heelas, in Enterprise Culture, pp. 72–90.

In this respect see, U¨lsever, ‘Demokrasi I˙c¸in Gerekli ve Yeterli Kos¸ullar’ (Necessary and sufficient conditions for democracy), Liberal Du¨s¸u¨nce, 2(6) (Spring 1997), pp. 94–100. See also Yu¨ru¨s¸en, op. cit., ref. 84. Although Yu¨ru¨s¸en does not directly address the issue of education, his reference to the mechanisms of the free market economy as a means for moulding pluralist consciousness indicates the yet-to-be explained stance in the circle.

Such an exclusion can be understood in Karl Mannheim's terms: ‘The absence of certain concepts indicates very often not only the absence of certain points of view, but also the absence of a definitive drive to come to grips with certain life problems.’ (K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, Louis Wirth and Edward Shils (trans.) (San Diego: HBJ Publishers, 1985), p. 274.