Center Party Politics

The “center-periphery” duality, mostly cited in political sociology, makes significant contributions to explain the positions and relations of power and political parties. Political scientists such as Rokkan,

1The prominent names of the opposition within the MHP are Meral Aksener, Umit Ozdağ, Sinan Oğan and Koray Aydin who took part in the MHP for many years, served as deputies and were renowned politicians.

2 The figure of Meral Aksener became prominent in the process of referendum and it was called as “Aksener Movement”.

Belgin Buyukbuga Tarhan, Ahmet Bora Tarhan

Shills and Tilly define the center-periphery cleavage within the framework of each society’s own cultural value forms. For these three thinkers, center is the one holding power in the political area and providing the continuity of the current political order (Tosun, 1998: 27). Political power (government) is the center and political parties are civic organizations originating in people, thus periphery. Beyond the representation of the periphery, political parties desire to settle down in the center, thus obtain the political power. Political parties will therefore both monitor the requests of the periphery and struggle to remain in the center within the rules of center/power.

The concept of “center” in the context of political parties also needs to be examined. Center, in the Western political tradition, refers to remaining away from radical ideologies and doing politics for large-mass-of-people. Lipset and Rokkan claim political parties have emerged as a result of the cleavages, thus conflicts in the society. Accordingly, there is a biaxial conflict line as local and functional in the society and political parties as its representative. On the local axis, there are on the one hand regional conflicts against central tendencies, on the other hand, conflicts among national elites. On the functional axis, the ideological divergence affecting the structure of political parties along with specific interests embitters the conflict (Saribay, 1998:101-102). Therefore, a center positioning implies to disregard or steer away from all these differences, divergences and conflicts. A center positioning by moving away from the meaning of “part”, “division” on the origin of “party” as a concept and focusing on the whole constitutes a contradiction to the nature of political parties. With reference to the evaluation of Lipset and Rokkan, it can be claimed that parties moving toward center try to achieve through addressing dissolution on the local axis to the population having the greatest share possible and combining relatively concordant ideologies in the functional ground.

The tradition of political parties in Turkey prefers using center-right or center-left conceptualization rather than center-politics or center-party. Ergun Ozbudun draws attention to the difference between the West and Turkey in the issue of center-right and center-left distinction.

According to Ozbudun, left-right political spectrum is based on attitudes of political towards socioeconomic problems in Western democracies while these concepts refer to secularism-conservatism distinction in Turkey (2016: 73). in the studies related to Western democracies, “far-right” and “far-left” phrases generally denote anti-system parties which do not adopt rules of the democratic game to a certain extent. On the other hand, the existing left-right distinction in Turkey corresponds to the traditional center-periphery division emerging as Turkish-Kurdish, Sunni-Alevi or religious-secular fractionation. As the founding will of the Republic in Turkey arose in the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the only representative of center/power was the CHP. The Democrat Party (DP) by contrast as the second powerful party desirous of the center assumed spokesmanship of center-right³. However, periphery took the advantage of the condition that the center adopted discourses of the periphery. Peasants supported the DP in anticipation of that the party would handle their daily problems, relieve Turkey of the hierarchical and inaccessible bureaucracy and discuss religion from a more liberal perspective. According to Mardin, the DP was regarded as an organization identical to the peripheral culture. The striking fact was that the four founders of the new party were the Republican Party’s politicians. During the era in power, the DP accomplished to carry the peripheral values to the center through the regularization of Islam and rural values (2000: 95-98).

The lack of a significant difference between the politics of the CHP and the DP led both parties, one on the left and on the right, to pursue strong center politics. The position of the CHP has not been changed in time; however, the representative of the center-right became the Party (AP) in the 1960s and 1970s, the Motherland’s Party (ANAP) and The True Path Party (DYP) in the post-1980 era. Center-right parties have shown sensitivity to cultural and religious values of people instead of secular elitist tendency represented by the CHP. Center-right parties in Turkey have generally taken a close stand to conservative, nationalist and partly liberal values.

It can be claimed that the main aim of this study is, the Good Party, identified with the center-right tradition. The party founders give references to the DYP and ANAP of the 1990s and even to the AP of

3 Emre Kongar defines the center as “Statist-Elitists” and the opposing periphery as “Traditionalist-Liberal” rather than using the conceptualization of center-periphery cleavage in order to find keywords helping class analysis in the Turkish political life.

Emre Kongar, 21. Yuzyilda Turkiye, Remzi Kitabevi, Istanbul, 1999, p.131.

63 From Nationalist Grassroots to Center

the 1970s in their statements. Although the founders of the party were formerly MHP politicians and included in the idealist/nationalist movement, they express the Good Party discursively and politically reflects the mosaic of Turkey.

in this section of the study, the Good Party is analyzed within the framework of center party conceptualization as its founders claim. The definition of a center party or center politics beyond the concepts of center-right and center-left will be provided. in this context, the center party approach can be examined by dividing the concept into interrelated three parts: discourses/values of the center, the position of the center and the voters of the center.

2.1. Discourse/Values of the Center in the Good Party

Center politics involves the whole people instead of a minority or a certain fraction of the society. It, therefore, concentrates upon the modest rather than the radical, cohesion rather than distinction and disintegration. The Good Party accordingly prefers an inclusive discourse that is able to attract the majority of the people. in the direction of receive the majority’s support, the highest value underlines by the Party is “non-ethnic nationalism”. The second most important subject of the party discourse is related to “democratic values”. Progress in the path of democracy is perceived as the only option for the middle class to achieve material conditions, prosperity and freedoms permanently, albeit a long and burdensome path. The third discourse of the Good Party targets social segments that can be hardly reached with the former two. Three manners of discourse adopted by the Good Party serve to reach the broadest electorate of center politics.

Pursuing the Politics of Unifying: “Nationalism”

The adverse effects of political polarization and division in Turkey have been discussed quite frequently. in this regard, the politics of dividing/polarizing is in contrast to the politics of unifying.

Polarizing politics refers to othering and segregation within a society on the basis of ethnicity, religion or denomination. Clinging to a rigid ideology or a cause marginalizes political parties. Such parties, instead of the ruling party, generally undertake a permanent role of opposition, expressing the problems of the social base they represent. Parties that are ideologically rigid or do politics on the basis of ethnicity are often indicated as divisive and polarizers, and politically excluded in such a way that they cannot even bring problems and demands of the persons they represent to the opposition because of the high electoral threshold. The destructive quality of politics in Turkey to non-centrist parties inevitably directs new political formations to the center. in this direction, the values of the center have combined conservative discourse with nationalism in the post-1980 center-right (Bora, 2003: 158).

in accordance with the political order, center parties tend towards the politics of compromise rather than conflict, solidarity rather than polarization and unity rather than separatism. As Tanil Bora expresses, nationalism is essentially a project of homogenization and the unity and solidarity discourse of the state regime, thus the center, reveals the main function of nationalism and religion (2003: 138).

This context obscured the boundaries between the Welfare Party (RP) and the MHP within the ideological framework during the 1990s and led the acceleration of the RP following the RP-MHP alliance in the 1991 elections (Bora, 2003: 134).

The Good Party program and the speeches of the party founders underline that Turkey has emergent problems to be overcome, therefore, needs to avoid “separatist”, “divisive” and “polarizing”

politics. Umit Ozdağ, one of the founders of the Party, states that Turkey passes an extraordinary period and draws a parallel with the First Parliamentary period ruling the War of Independence in order to explain the gravity of the situation (2017a). The president of the Good Party Meral Aksener (2017) expressed divisive and polarizing politics serves the purpose of the ruling party that makes people obligated to the government by embittering this type of politics. The General Secretary of the Party Aytun cinar (2017) promises the non-ethnicity based unifying politics in the Good Party.

Ozdağ issued a statement that the Good Party should be associated with “non-ethnic nationalism”.

According to the founders of the Good Party, there is a need to hold on to the union of nation-state as a higher value while going through the phase of crisis. Within this context, the Good Party appears to stint the area of political convergence. The Good Party pledges to solve the problems of Turkey from

Belgin Buyukbuga Tarhan, Ahmet Bora Tarhan

past to present via this higher value. The Party overlooks Kurds’ demands for fundamental freedoms and does not even mention. Umit Ozdağ states that they would not prefer the term of the “Kurdish Issue” since they do not consider the matter as a problem of ethnicity (2017b). The Kurdish Issue discussed in the second part of the study, or the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia Issue as the Good Party refers does not serve for the politics of unifying. The term reflects a so-distant understanding to involve a large proportion of the society.

Politics of solidarity instead of divergence, division and polarization is not a new purpose in Turkish politics. The polarization between the CHP and the DP in the 1950s turned into the CHP-AP duality after the 1960’s coup d’état despite the emergence of new political candidates. The ANAP under the leadership of Turgut Ozal after the 1980 coup assumed the unifying role of the right. Fledgling political tendencies in several parties of the 1970s were invited to gather under the roof of the ANAP for the post-coup order. The ANAP, in its program, described the party as nationalist, conservative, social justice advocate and supporter of competitive market economy (ANAP, 1983). The ANAP was responsible for establishing the order of vanquished parties by the military intervention, consolidating democracy and restructuring civil political arena and equipped for the mission to determine the center of politics. The ANAP led by Ozal constituted the center-right politics based on nationalism, conservatism and liberalism that are relatively in compliance with each other.

Democratic Centralism of the Good Party: Adoption of Inclusive Values

Political parties can be mapped along a left-right axis in terms of their position in the ideological spectrum. Ideological position also determines the social origin of the party. An ideology and a party marginalize toward the left and right side of ideologies while ideologies and values become ambiguous toward the center. Values of the ideologically radical party programs are more complete against indiscriminate values of the party programs moving towards the center.

For instance, the defense of private property and free-market competition together with social justice in the same party program shows an example of an indecisive party and causes ambiguity to decide which one is significant or minor in practice. The founders’ committee of the Good Party, which identifies itself as the center party has the majority of the center-right, nationalist and conservative base. The sun with eight lines in the yellow navy logo highlights the values of the party tendencies. The party tends towards “good things” representing the values of hope, determination, justice, future, knowledge, wealth, courage and civilization rather than ideological values. The slogan of the party is accordingly “Turkey will be good”. in the bylaw of the Good Party, it is written “The Party adopts fundamental concepts and principles of democratic constitutional states such as democracy, human rights, justice, equality, free thought, free will, competence, independent and objective judiciary, balance and audit systems” (Good Party Bylaw, 2017 ). The Good Party declares not to give up the universal standards and institutions as well as being loyal to the founding values of the Republic in order to address a major part of the Turkish population. The sine qua non in the party program and founders’ statements is to revert to “the constituents of the Republic” (Ozdağ, 2017c).

The aspects of democratic politics, national will, fundamental freedoms, and the functionality of the rule of law principle within the framework of European Union ideal in the center-right party tradition as observed in the party programs of the ANAP and the DYP along with the leaders and founding the cadre. The values above are oft-voiced by the CHP and the AKP that today develop policy to be the main actors of the center-party politics. However, what is the most important is whether democratic ways are involved in the intra-party operations and/or the governing process rather than to what extent the primary elements unique to democratic regimes are mentioned. According to Habermas, the theme of the politics has changed in the last century and the political perspective dealing with the issues of the political custom like human rights, social right and self-realization has replaced the politics based on security. The issues have been mostly related to the cultural sphere rather than the economic one and moved towards the topics such as social integration and socialization (Yilmaz, 2003: 243-244). Undoubtedly, values such as human rights, rule of law, social justice are indispensable elements of contemporary democracies. The adoption of universal democratic values in party programs and bylaws and the appropriation by party leaders and representatives is preferable.

65 From Nationalist Grassroots to Center

However, the expression of these political values in a haphazard way is not enough to achieve the ideal of contemporary democracy. These political values often find meaning under a political ideological perspective. These values otherwise impede and exclude each other in addition to their potential to support and maximize each other.

The haphazard usage of democratic values by the Center Party politics and keeping moderate ideologies together implies that the party is distant from a political course and ideology. Indistinctness of parties’ political identity due to the lack of a political cause, the shift from a cause-based party to an interest-based party and first and foremost indistinguishable character of parties standing for the center are on the origin of problems oft-experienced by center parties.

Pragmatic Discourse: Populism

“Turkish-Islamic-Western” synthesis as the cement of the post-80 project of the center associated Westernism to Kemalism and the center parties in this process resembled each other in the discourse, the differences were built around market pragmatism and its rationality (Bora, 2003: 128). If the Good Party remains in line with this form of nationalism and democratic politics, it will be incapable of being a catch-all party and embracing the masses. The Good Party tries to overcome the deficiencies in its discourse with its promises of food, job, thus a good future for the time to get power. The Party Program (2017) describes the main purposes as:

"We take an action to provide the right to live and equality for our women, peace, confidence and care for our elderly people, joy, happiness and health for our children, unity and solidarity for our nation. We are aware of the fact that we are taking action in tough times and difficult conditions. We believe and put trust in our people. We are eighty million people. We are a great nation. We are a great economy. We work and produce. We cannot share. We will share fairly. Together we achieve. We will be fair. We will secure the justice.

These promises that are quite influential especially at the time of the elections are attempts to directly improve the life conditions of the citizens. in addition to democracy and democratic institutions requested in the long run, emergent solution proposals for low and lower-middle income groups and the disadvantaged people are also offered in the practice of politics. in this context, populist and benefit-oriented practice of the center functions as a tool in the way of power.

2.2. The Position of the Center in the Good Party

It was stated that the political parties came out from the periphery in the center-periphery duality, but aimed to be located at the center. Political parties desire to have an impact upon the power and transform it. However, the discourse and demand of a political party to directly become the central party shows that it is ready to integrate directly with the state. The Good Party is a very new party, but gains ground on becoming the central party and has the center in its sights. The Vice President Umit Ozdağ as among the founders of the Party states their party is a national center party. Aytun cinar (2017) the General Secretary of the Party, said in one of her interviews that “they are not on the road to the center because the party has been already established in the center-right”.

Tanju Tosun expresses that the center has an attraction in the countries with no history of social struggles like Turkey (1998: 18). in the countries where the political power is not restricted by the democratic values and institutions, the state is reluctant to share the political power as a strong actor.

The center/power also regulates the politics in the societies with an authoritarian administrative culture rather than democracy. The survival of the political parties depends on remaining around the axis of the state. According to Tosun, the authoritarian political culture from the Ottoman Empire to the Republican era has modified its instruments and has been influential in the Turkish political system as well as in party cultures, and furthermore, it is not possible for political parties and ideologies to

The center/power also regulates the politics in the societies with an authoritarian administrative culture rather than democracy. The survival of the political parties depends on remaining around the axis of the state. According to Tosun, the authoritarian political culture from the Ottoman Empire to the Republican era has modified its instruments and has been influential in the Turkish political system as well as in party cultures, and furthermore, it is not possible for political parties and ideologies to