土耳其的政治发展,1950 - 1970年

Kemal H. Karpat
{"title":"土耳其的政治发展,1950 - 1970年","authors":"Kemal H. Karpat","doi":"10.1080/00263207208700214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The elections of May 14, 1950, which brought the Democratic Party (Demokrat Parti) of Celal Bayar and Adnan Menderes, President and Premier in 1950-60 respectively, to power and sent the Republican Party (Cumhurriyet Halk Partisi) of Ismet Inonii into opposition (it is still there) was the turning point in Turkish political and social life. It set into motion a new process of leadership selection, social mobilization and broader popular participation. Now, twenty years after this memorable political event, one may rightly ask whether the Turkish efforts to adopt first the classical mechanism of European parliamentarianism and then the ideas of social democracy were successful at all. The answer is positive, despite the brief interlude of a military takeover in 1960-61. Instead of restoring a strong regime under one party government, as demanded by some intellectual and bureaucratic groups, the military ended their rule formally in 1961, by adopting a broadly based social and political order and a new constitution. The success of the Turkish experiment in parliamentary democracy stands in sharp contrast not only to the political regimes in the neighbouring countries but also to most of the Third World. It is true that the present regime in Turkey has been challenged by a variety of leftist and rightist groups, either because it supposedly retards modernization and does not achieve social justice, or because the economic development and the social change it promotes undermine the basic values and the established order in the society. But the regime seems to maintain its vitality. The purpose of this article is not to provide broad generalizations about Turkish politics but a general and factual analysis of some of the major internal and international developments occurring between 1950 and 1970. Nevertheless, in order to place these developments in proper perspective it is necessary to point out some basic historical and social factors which conditioned, at least in part, the emergence of the current parliamentary regime. The first factor is a historical one. The Turkish Republic inherited from the Ottoman Empire not only a strong bureaucratic organization but also a sophisticated political understanding of conflicts and experience in solving them. One may say that throughout the nineteenth century the Ottoman bureaucracy, despite its internal weaknesses, sought to reconcile the social and ethnic conflicts rising from the encounter with, as well as the pressure of Europe, its own traditions of authority and social organization. This tradition was based on the principle that the role of the government was to achieve balance among various forces and interests within the framework of a political system. The social and cultural system on one hand, and the political system on the other, were manipulated in practice as separate entities subject to their own exigencies. The ability of the Ottoman bureaucracy to separate in practice-the theory was rather ambiguous-","PeriodicalId":127782,"journal":{"name":"Studies on Turkish Politics and Society","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1972-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"48","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political Developments in Turkey, 1950–70\",\"authors\":\"Kemal H. Karpat\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00263207208700214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The elections of May 14, 1950, which brought the Democratic Party (Demokrat Parti) of Celal Bayar and Adnan Menderes, President and Premier in 1950-60 respectively, to power and sent the Republican Party (Cumhurriyet Halk Partisi) of Ismet Inonii into opposition (it is still there) was the turning point in Turkish political and social life. It set into motion a new process of leadership selection, social mobilization and broader popular participation. Now, twenty years after this memorable political event, one may rightly ask whether the Turkish efforts to adopt first the classical mechanism of European parliamentarianism and then the ideas of social democracy were successful at all. The answer is positive, despite the brief interlude of a military takeover in 1960-61. Instead of restoring a strong regime under one party government, as demanded by some intellectual and bureaucratic groups, the military ended their rule formally in 1961, by adopting a broadly based social and political order and a new constitution. The success of the Turkish experiment in parliamentary democracy stands in sharp contrast not only to the political regimes in the neighbouring countries but also to most of the Third World. It is true that the present regime in Turkey has been challenged by a variety of leftist and rightist groups, either because it supposedly retards modernization and does not achieve social justice, or because the economic development and the social change it promotes undermine the basic values and the established order in the society. But the regime seems to maintain its vitality. The purpose of this article is not to provide broad generalizations about Turkish politics but a general and factual analysis of some of the major internal and international developments occurring between 1950 and 1970. Nevertheless, in order to place these developments in proper perspective it is necessary to point out some basic historical and social factors which conditioned, at least in part, the emergence of the current parliamentary regime. The first factor is a historical one. The Turkish Republic inherited from the Ottoman Empire not only a strong bureaucratic organization but also a sophisticated political understanding of conflicts and experience in solving them. One may say that throughout the nineteenth century the Ottoman bureaucracy, despite its internal weaknesses, sought to reconcile the social and ethnic conflicts rising from the encounter with, as well as the pressure of Europe, its own traditions of authority and social organization. This tradition was based on the principle that the role of the government was to achieve balance among various forces and interests within the framework of a political system. The social and cultural system on one hand, and the political system on the other, were manipulated in practice as separate entities subject to their own exigencies. The ability of the Ottoman bureaucracy to separate in practice-the theory was rather ambiguous-\",\"PeriodicalId\":127782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies on Turkish Politics and Society\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1972-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"48\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies on Turkish Politics and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00263207208700214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies on Turkish Politics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00263207208700214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

摘要

1950年5月14日的选举使分别担任1950-60年总统和总理的Celal Bayar和Adnan Menderes的民主党(Democratic Parti)上台执政,并使Ismet Inonii的共和党(Cumhurriyet Halk Partisi)成为反对党(它仍然存在),这是土耳其政治和社会生活的转折点。它启动了一个新的领导层选择、社会动员和更广泛的民众参与进程。现在,在这一令人难忘的政治事件发生20年后,人们可能会问,土耳其首先采用欧洲议会制的经典机制,然后采用社会民主主义思想的努力是否成功。答案是肯定的,尽管在1960-61年间有短暂的军事接管。军方没有像一些知识分子和官僚团体所要求的那样,在一党专政下恢复一个强大的政权,而是在1961年正式结束了他们的统治,采用了基础广泛的社会和政治秩序,并制定了一部新宪法。土耳其议会民主试验的成功不仅与邻国的政治制度形成鲜明对比,而且与大多数第三世界国家形成鲜明对比。诚然,土耳其现政权受到了各种左翼和右翼团体的挑战,要么是因为它被认为阻碍了现代化,没有实现社会正义,要么是因为它所推动的经济发展和社会变革破坏了社会的基本价值观和既定秩序。但该政权似乎仍保持着活力。本文的目的不是提供关于土耳其政治的广泛概括,而是对1950年至1970年间发生的一些主要的国内和国际发展进行一般性和事实性的分析。然而,为了正确地看待这些发展,有必要指出一些基本的历史和社会因素,这些因素至少在一定程度上决定了当前议会制度的出现。第一个因素是历史因素。土耳其共和国不仅从奥斯曼帝国继承了一个强大的官僚组织,而且还继承了对冲突的复杂的政治理解和解决冲突的经验。可以说,在整个19世纪,奥斯曼帝国的官僚机构,尽管其内部存在弱点,但仍试图调和由于与欧洲的接触以及欧洲的压力而产生的社会和种族冲突,以及它自己的权威和社会组织传统。这一传统是基于这样一个原则,即政府的作用是在政治制度的框架内实现各种力量和利益之间的平衡。一方面是社会和文化制度,另一方面是政治制度,在实践中作为各自的实体被操纵,受制于各自的紧急情况。奥斯曼官僚体系在实践中的分离能力——理论上是相当模糊的——
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Political Developments in Turkey, 1950–70
The elections of May 14, 1950, which brought the Democratic Party (Demokrat Parti) of Celal Bayar and Adnan Menderes, President and Premier in 1950-60 respectively, to power and sent the Republican Party (Cumhurriyet Halk Partisi) of Ismet Inonii into opposition (it is still there) was the turning point in Turkish political and social life. It set into motion a new process of leadership selection, social mobilization and broader popular participation. Now, twenty years after this memorable political event, one may rightly ask whether the Turkish efforts to adopt first the classical mechanism of European parliamentarianism and then the ideas of social democracy were successful at all. The answer is positive, despite the brief interlude of a military takeover in 1960-61. Instead of restoring a strong regime under one party government, as demanded by some intellectual and bureaucratic groups, the military ended their rule formally in 1961, by adopting a broadly based social and political order and a new constitution. The success of the Turkish experiment in parliamentary democracy stands in sharp contrast not only to the political regimes in the neighbouring countries but also to most of the Third World. It is true that the present regime in Turkey has been challenged by a variety of leftist and rightist groups, either because it supposedly retards modernization and does not achieve social justice, or because the economic development and the social change it promotes undermine the basic values and the established order in the society. But the regime seems to maintain its vitality. The purpose of this article is not to provide broad generalizations about Turkish politics but a general and factual analysis of some of the major internal and international developments occurring between 1950 and 1970. Nevertheless, in order to place these developments in proper perspective it is necessary to point out some basic historical and social factors which conditioned, at least in part, the emergence of the current parliamentary regime. The first factor is a historical one. The Turkish Republic inherited from the Ottoman Empire not only a strong bureaucratic organization but also a sophisticated political understanding of conflicts and experience in solving them. One may say that throughout the nineteenth century the Ottoman bureaucracy, despite its internal weaknesses, sought to reconcile the social and ethnic conflicts rising from the encounter with, as well as the pressure of Europe, its own traditions of authority and social organization. This tradition was based on the principle that the role of the government was to achieve balance among various forces and interests within the framework of a political system. The social and cultural system on one hand, and the political system on the other, were manipulated in practice as separate entities subject to their own exigencies. The ability of the Ottoman bureaucracy to separate in practice-the theory was rather ambiguous-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信