Popülist Politika Perspektifinden Demokrat Parti Dönemindeki Mülki İdare Düzenlemeleri
Gülmelek Doğanay, Çağrı ÇolakBu çalışmada Demokrat Parti (DP) dönemindeki mülki idare düzenlemelerine odaklanılmakta ve bunların popülizm, popülist politika ve patronaj sistemi ile olan ilişkisi analiz edilmektedir. Söz konusu analiz için nitel araştırmalarda veri toplama yöntemi olarak sıklıkla başvurulan doküman ve literatür incelemesi tekniklerinden yararlanılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmada ilk olarak popülizmin kavramsal çerçevesine ve dünyadaki tarihsel öncüllerine yer verilmektedir. Ardından “bir seçkin ideolojisi olarak halkçılık” ve “DP’nin siyasal popülizmi” arasındaki fark ortaya koyularak, Türkiye’de popülizmin izi sürülmektedir. Son olarak DP döneminde uygulanan mülki idare düzenlemeleri sıralanmakta ve bunlar ile DP’nin patronaj sistemine dayanan popülizmi arasındaki ilişki tartışılmaktadır.
Civil Administration Arrangements in the Democrat Party Period from the Populist Politics Perspective
Gülmelek Doğanay, Çağrı ÇolakThis study focuses on the civil administration arrangements in the Democrat Party period (DP) and analyzes their relationship with populism, populist politics, and the patronage system. The analysis employs the document and literature review techniques that are commonly used as data collection methods in qualitative research. In this context, the study first includes the conceptual framework of populism and its historical antecedents in the world. Then, it elaborates the difference between “populism as an elite ideology” and “political populism of DP” and traces populism in Türkiye. Finally, the article lists the civil administration arrangements in the period of DP and discusses the relationship between them and the populism of DP based on the patronage system.
Populism, which is a modern social phenomenon, emerges, develops and transforms in different ways throughout history. The Narodnik movement, in which Russian intellectuals supported the peasants, and the populist movement of the People’s Party in the United States, in which the cotton workers of the South defended their rights against the rich merchants of the North, are based on agrarian radicalism, but their political actors and ideological backgrounds differ. The populism that has been observed in many parts of the world since then appears in Türkiye under the name “populism” and embodies the understanding of “populism in spite of the people” inherited from Ottoman intellectuals, similar to Russian populism. Social scientists studying Turkish populism generally trace early populism in Türkiye to the modernization movement of the late Ottoman period and consider “populism” that emerged during this period as an intellectual movement distinct from political populism in democratic countries. It is argued that populism in its modern sense emerged with the transition to a multiparty system in Türkiye; thus, the relationship between populism and democracy becomes clear. The DP which came to power in 1950 with populist promises and its populist policies, became symbols of the democratization of the Turkish political system. Populism as a political style and strategic tool of the period of DP is based on the discourse of the national will. DP Government, used this will; the nation, claimed as the owner of the will, were the citizens reduced to the vote. Representing the sovereignty of the people, the DP unites different social segments in democratic demands. On the axis of trend between democratization in the first period of DP and authoritarianism in its second period, the leader’s nonbureaucratic, informal and personalized relations with the public, became more evident. In this process, it can be said that plebiscitary politics along with a system based on patronage and clientelism were important strategies of DP populism. It can even be argued that DP transformed this political style into a strategy more in the context of winning votes and achieving victory in political competition. This strategy is also reflected in the civil administrative arrangements of that time. The governments of DP, by winning the elections in 1950 and remaining in power for ten years, added a total of 5 new provinces and 141 new subprovinces to the civil administrative organization. In other words, 19% of the 26 newly established provinces and 22% of the 640 subprovinces in the first hundred years of the Republic occurred in the period of DP. In this context the averages obtained by dividing the number of newly established provinces and subprovinces by the duration of the government show that the period of DP is the second period with the highest average in the history of the Republic.
This study analyzed the civil administrative arrangements enacted by the DP during its ten year power as part of its populist policies. It is claimed that the implemented regulations were based on the personalized relationship between the party leader Adnan Menderes and the people, sometimes being part of his patronage politics, and sometimes being used as a political strategy when its cost could not be covered. The main goal of this political strategy was to get the most votes. The political strategy that Menderes built on rewardpunishment relationship was also based on the democratic demands of the people. The demands of the local people to be a province or district were also taken into account by DP to obtain better services and prestige; regulations announced to the public were rearranged according to the reaction of the people. Especially in preparation for the 1957 elections, as part of the strategy to gather votes, the demand of the people was instrumentalized, and the good news were announced that many localities would become provinces or subprovinces. While it is possible for a place to legitimately become a province or subprovince for geographic and economic reasons, it is also apparent that the decisions made during the period of DP were made in accordance with the personal interests of the political leader. The justifications put forward during the realization of the civil administrative arrangements, which were based on personalized relationships rather than institutional ones, show that the arrangements were an instrument of the populist politics of DP.
