Although populism, as one of 9 Principles of declaration, known as 9 Umde, officially entered the constitution in 1937, its origins can be traced back to the Second Constitutional Era, II.Meşrutiyet, (1908). ZiyaGökalp and Yusuf Akçura, leading intellectuals of the Mesrutiyet era, formulated populism by being influenced of the Russian Narodnik Movement though this concept was interpreted in a different sense during the early republican period of Turkey. For such reason, we can claim that populism in Turkey is not a rigid and unchangeable ideology. That being said, it should be assumed as an idea that adapts to the conditions of the period, constantly renews itself, and reflects the economic and social conditions of the period.
As a leading historian, ZaferToprak, put forward a claim that populism in Turkey is divided into two periods. The first period is mostly about intellectual populism (1908-50) while the second is a political populism that marked Turkish political life after 1950. Toprak argues that the main purpose of intellectual populism in the early republican period is to make the people feel that they are part of the revolutions during the nation-state building process. Thus, intellectual populism had several traits such as denying the existence of classes and seeking the values of the nation in the far corners of Anatolia. However, Toprak overlooks the political populism during the War of Independence (1918-1922) and the early republican period. Meanwhile, populism has served as a means of mass mobilization for political purposes. That is to say, the overarching aim of the leading political figures was to gain the support of different social classes. Thus, I argue that such acts was at odds with intellectual populism and can be regarded as window-dressing.
Furthermore, concepts among others; people, will of the nation and popular sovereignty frequently mentioned in the parliamentary debates and official texts and therefore, nearly became synonymous with the early republican period. For instance, the first article of Teşkilat-ıEsasiye, adopted in 1921, states that “sovereignty is vested in the nation without condition. The governmental system is based on the principle of self-determination and government by the people”. The following article emphasizes that “executive power and legislative responsibility is exercised by and concentrated in the hands of the Grand National Assembly which is the sole and real representative of the nation”.
After World War I, Turkey had been dragged into a War of Independence and such national struggle lasted for many years and left the country in ruins. It is therefore little surprise that the main aim of a leading statesman, Mustafa Kemal, was to carry out revolutions against the danger of another collapse and accordingly create a modern society. Thus, the necessity of a popular political party to carry out such revolutions emerged. Mustafa Kemal expressed his intention to establish a party as follows:
“To be worthy of the respect and trust shown to me from every class of the nation, even from the furthest corners of the Islamic world, I will be honored forever, as a humble person of the nation, to dedicate the good of the country until the end of my life. After peace, based on the principle of Populism, I intend to form a party called the People’s Party”.
The election program, known as 9 Umde, was announced on April 8 1923, and formed the ideological infrastructure of the People’s Party. The first two principles of the Umde are directly related to populism. The first principle emphasized the unconditional sovereignty of the Turkish nation while the second principle stated that the sole representative of the nation is the National Assembly of Turkey.
In the following months, the deputies started to prepare the regulations for the new party to be established. The three principles, populism, nationalism, and republicanism, were adopted as basic principles, but the principles of national sovereignty, rule of law, and revolution were also included. The People’s Party was accordingly established on September 9, 1924, and during the single-party government period, it claimed to have represented all social groups. The main reason behind such a claim was the underdeveloped class structure in the newly established country and the lack of class consciousness of the social segments. Therefore, “a classless, non-privileged fused mass” has been the main motto of the one-party rule throughout the 1920s and 30s in Turkey.
In the next article, early populism in Turkey will be analyzed through People’s Houses, known as Halk Evleri.
- Doğan, Erkan. II. The Development of Populism Idea from the Constitutional Period to the Foundation Years of the Republic. Insan&İnsan, Yıl / Year 6, Number / Issue 20, Spring 2019, 131-144. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/702559
- Koroglu, KirvakEsin., ―Chain of Populism From The Democrat Party to the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. Doctoral Thesis, 2016
The 9 Umde is the declaration of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, published on 8 April 1923. The declaration states that sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the nation and self-government of the people is essential.
1927 census demonstrated that the majority of Turkish society had a rural and traditional way of life. It was, therefore, claimed that serious class distinctions did not exist.
Why Israel should support the establishment of the Middle Corridor
The governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan earlier in the year signed a declaration on improving the transportation potential throughout the region. Following that, the Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Georgian and Turkish foreign and transport ministries decided that there should be accelerated transport routes throughout the region, which will include the development of the Middle Corridor, a rail freight and ferry system that will link China with Europe.
It starts in Southeast Asia and China, and runs through Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey before reaching southern and central Europe. This will permit trains to travel from China to Europe within 20-25 days, thus helping to reconnect the former Silk Road. As a former Israeli minister, I believe that Israel should be supportive of the establishment of the Middle Corridor, as it will help to strengthen the Abraham Accords if it is expanded to include Israel, the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the region.
The entire Middle East region used to be connected by train under the rule of the Ottoman Turks. There are a number of remnants of this wonderful train system in Israel, including the Ottoman train stations in Beersheba, Jaffa, and Jerusalem. These Ottoman train stations are historic landmarks from a bygone era when train travel across the Middle East was possible. Ottoman-era trains used to travel from Jaffa to Jerusalem, Haifa and other areas of the former Ottoman Turkish Empire, such as Medina and Damascus.
However, since Israel was declared to be independent, there has been no train travel between Israel and the Arab world. This was one of many causalities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet in the wake of the Abraham Accords, this all has the potential to change, as the Arab countries no longer view Israel to be the pariah that they once viewed it to be. If anything, the Persian Gulf countries now view Israel to be a partner in the struggle against Iran, as do the Turkic republics like Azerbaijan, who greatly disdain how the mullahs are treating the Azerbaijani population in the Islamic Republic.
Thus, if this Middle Corridor is built, we Israelis can try to connect onto it as well, as it will help to counter the mullahs in Tehran by creating a stronger connection between the Turkic republics, Israel and the Arab world. We can connect to it via Turkey by ferry, and then from there, have another set of trains going from Israel to Jordan and Saudi Arabia and from there, to the United Arab Emirates. In our times, this is within the realm of the possible.
This will thus help to greatly expand trade between China, the Turkic republics, Israel and the Arab countries. Already, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan know that it is necessary to have a train that crosses from Israel to the Gulf states. They are talking about it and thinking about it. They are starting with trucks with containers that I arranged, where they bring containers from Abu Dhabi to Israel crossing from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Haifa. They could continue from there to Turkey via ship and from there to Europe and anywhere else.
That means that we can have a train traveling from Europe to Turkey and from there, ships can go to Haifa, and from Haifa to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and from there, to the Gulf states, and they can go back in the opposite direction. I am in Bulgaria now to check how I can make it more relevant. After that, a Saudi Arabian agreement with Israel can start with a new train, like what existed in the Ottoman times with the Hijaz Railway. The people of Hijaz want to make it happen again. This is in the plan of the Abraham Accords Agreement and it will happen in the future.
Qatar punctures FIFA’s political fantasy
If the Qatar World Cup proved anything, it’s that sports and politics are inseparable Siamese twins joined at the hip.
Politics popped up at every twist of the World Cup’s road, whether related to the right of freedom of expression of players, sports commentators and fans; anti-government protests in Iran; anti-Israeli sentiment among Qataris and Arabs; a backlash against Western, particularly German, critics of Qatar; or ultra-conservative religious rejection of soccer as a sport.
Qatari efforts to stage manage the intrusion of regional politics ranged from picking and choosing which protests fit its foreign policy agenda to seeking to ensure, where possible, that events elsewhere in the region would not overshadow or inflame passions during the World Cup.
Palestine is a case in point.
Amid escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Mohammad al-Emadi, the Qatari official handling Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip, travelled to the region to ensure that it and Islamic Jihad, another Gaza-based organization, would not respond with rockets to Israeli use of lethal force against Palestinian militants on the West Bank.
Qatar feared that a response to last week’s killing of an Islamic Jihad commander on the West Bank and near-nightly Israeli raids could spark a renewed Israeli intervention in Gaza, already crippled by a 15-year-long Israeli-Egyptian blockade.
The Qatari pressure puts in a different perspective the Gulf state’s endorsement of expressions of support for the Palestinians during the World Cup in the form of pro-Palestinian flags and T-shirts and a refusal by Qatari and Arab fans to engage with Israeli reporters covering the tournament.
Despite refusing to follow in the footsteps of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan in recognizing Israel without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Qatar has a long-standing working relationship with the Jewish state that serves the interests of both countries.
The Gulf state, often at Israel’s request, has pumped millions of dollars into paying government salaries in Gaza, providing aid to thousands of families affected by past wars, and funding fuel for the Strip’s power plant as well as infrastructure projects.
Moreover, Qatar became the first Gulf state to put money into Israel when it funded in 2006 a six-million-dollar stadium in the predominantly Israeli Palestinian town of Sakhnin, an investment long before the UAE-led Arab recognition of the Jewish state 14 years later.
Sakhnin and the Doha Stadium are home to Bnei Sakhnin, Israel’s most successful Israeli-Palestinian club.
As a result, allowing expressions of pro-Palestinian sentiment during the World Cup served multiple Qatari purposes.
It gave a release valve to Qataris, a minority in their own country, who were concerned about the impact on their society of the government’s live-and-let-live approach towards soccer fans with very different cultural values visiting their country during the World Cup.
Preventing fans from taking pro-LGBT paraphernalia such as One Love and rainbow-coloured armbands and shirts into stadiums served a similar purpose.
It also allowed Qataris to vent their frustration at perceived double standards in European and American criticism of Qatar’s rejection of LGBT rights, particularly after the German team’s hands-over-mouth gesture in protest against FIFA’s denial of their right to wear pro-LGBT armbands.
In one instance, Qataris wore pro-Palestinian armbands of their own to a match as a protest against the donning of a pro-LGBT One Love band by German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, who attended the game.
Expressions of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment also suggested that Qatar’s refusal to recognise Israel was more in line with Arab public opinion than efforts to project the UAE-led recognition of the Jewish state as genuinely popular and indicative of a drop in support for the Palestinian cause.
If anything, recent polls show that public support for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel had fallen across the Arab and Muslim world, including in countries that normalized their ties to the Jewish state.
In Bahrain, 20 per cent of the population supports the accords, compared with 45 per cent in 2020, according to a Washington Institute for Near East Policy poll in July. Support in Saudi Arabia fell from 41 to 19 per cent. Even in the UAE, where normalisation had the greatest impact, support dropped to 25 per cent this year from 47 per cent in 2020.
For Qatari World Cup managers, Palestine was low-hanging fruit. Protest against the government in Tehran was a far trickier challenge.
A regional behemoth, Iran is a partner as well as a potential threat with which Qatar shares the world’s largest offshore gas field.
Maintaining relations with Iran has allowed Qatar, at times, to be a background mediator with the United States on issues like the moribund talks to revive the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement.
Qatar feared that allowing stadiums to become venues of confrontation between opponents and supporters of the Iranian government could have persuaded Iran to rank the Gulf state, alongside Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States, as an instigator of sustained anti-government protests in which security forces have killed hundreds.
As a result, Qatar sought to prevent anti-government banners, T-shirts, and pre-revolution flags from entering stadia. The problem resolved itself when Iran was knocked out of the World Cup in the group stage.
Yet, the larger issue remains. The Qatar World Cup demonstrates that FIFA’s insistence that sports and politics can be separated amounts to a political fantasy.
More concerning than that, it enables FIFA and autocratic World Cup hosts like Qatar to decide what are convenient and inconvenient expressions of politics. That hardly makes for a level playing field, the starting point for any sport.
The challenges lie ahead Ankara’s decision to normalize relations with Cairo and Damascus
Although Egypt and Syria are at the bottom of the list of states with which Turkey intends to reconcile, the 10-year conflict with the two mentioned countries, which is accompanied by conflict and bloodshed in Syria, is on the verge of ending, and Turkey’s relations with Egypt and Syria are returning to normal.
Of course, the recent progress is due to the efforts of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey; Especially after the negotiators failed to close the last case of incompatibility between the two sides. The process of reconciliation began in 2021, in the city of Al-Ala in Saudi Arabia, and since then, Cairo and Ankara continued to strive and innovate in order to achieve reconciliation and compromise, and finally achieved positive and significant results.
However, the reconciliation between the two states was not at the leadership level; Until Qatar provided the ground for the meeting of Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Doha during the opening ceremony of the World Cup. The sitting of the Secretary General of the United Nations between the presidents of the two countries was not aimed at keeping them away from each other, and it seems that the Egyptians and the Turks had prepared for this occasion a few weeks ago, and the opening ceremony of the World Cup was held as a tribute to the mediation of Qatar, as the appointment was selected.
Regardless of political compliments, the reconciliation of Egypt and Turkey is very important; Because the continuation of tension between the two countries can lead to many risky developments. Relations between Egypt and Turkey became strained after the overthrow of the government of Mohamed Morsi in 2013. At that time, it became clear to political observers that this inconsistency will last for a long time and will not end soon; Especially since the late president of Egypt tried to run his country with the mentality of a one party rule. For this reason, the solidarity of the angry protesters with the security institutions played a central role in changing the situation in this state and marked the end of the Muslim Brotherhood government. Then, the Muslim Brotherhood made Istanbul its alternative capital and began its plans and efforts to return to power from there. This caused a crisis in the relations between Egypt and Turkey, and with the passage of time, the incompatibility between the two states increased.
However, in the past year and a half, the governments of Turkey and Egypt have held several meetings in order to resolve the dispute and end the disputed cases, and they were able to achieve significant successes in terms of security and media. Ankara more or less stopped the activity of the Egyptian opposition in Turkish territory, but the reconciliation between the two sides was not complete and the disagreement over how to manage the Libyan war crisis and the dispute over territorial waters in the Mediterranean remained unresolved.
In the case of Libya, Turkey supports one side of the conflict and Egypt supports the other side. Libya plays a vital role for Egypt in terms of security, and it is an important market for Turkey in terms of economy. In addition, Libya has many debts to pay to Turkey since the Gaddafi government.
On the other hand, after the discovery of gas fields in the Mediterranean waters, which are believed to contain a large amount of energy, there was a dispute between Egypt, Turkey and Greece over territorial waters in the Mediterranean, and the aforementioned states have not been able to find a solution to overcome this challenge.
The issue of ending the tension between Egypt and Turkey is very important, because achieving this goal may help end the war in Libya, and this in itself is reason enough to be optimistic about the current efforts for reconciliation between the two states. However, the price of this reconciliation will be paid by the opposition affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood outside of Egypt.
Of course, the path of reconciliation between Damascus and Ankara is extremely chaotic and risky. It is so difficult to reach the stage of reconciliation between the two states that, according to Erdogan, if he himself goes to Damascus, he will not be able to find a quick solution to end this complex crisis. Turkey and Syria have been fighting indirectly for more than 10 years. In addition, several military powers, including the forces of the Islamic Republic, Russia, the United States, foreign militias, the remnants of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the separatist Kurds of Turkey, and the Syrian armed opposition continue to invade Syria.
Meanwhile, the inability of Damascus to control parts of the Syrian territory has created a power vacuum in different parts of the country. Millions of Syrian refugees live abroad; In addition, millions of other citizens who have been forced to leave their homes have sought refuge in areas far from the war and are still displaced.
Therefore, any solution that is presented to end the crisis should consider the above points. Currently, all sides want the war in Syria to end, but the path to achieving this goal remains elusive.
Why Israel should support the establishment of the Middle Corridor
The governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan earlier in the year signed a declaration on improving the transportation potential...
Qatar punctures FIFA’s political fantasy
If the Qatar World Cup proved anything, it’s that sports and politics are inseparable Siamese twins joined at the hip....
Uzbekistan’s Artel joins UN’s ‘Orange The World’ campaign against gender-based violence
Artel Electronics LLC (Artel), Central Asia’s largest home appliance and electronics manufacturer, has teamed up with the UN Population Fund...
US Anti-Inflation Law threatens Europe
Europe and the US are heading towards a serious trade and economic conflict, writes “Berliner Morgenpost”. In the European Union...
OPEC+ agrees to stick to its existing policy of reducing oil production
Led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, OPEC+ agreed in early October to reduce production by 2 million barrels per day...
U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit: Matters Arising and Way Forward
On the eve of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit planned for December 13-15 in Washington, the Corporate Council in partnership with...
Weapons from Ukraine’s war now coming to Africa
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said that weapons from the raging war between Russia and Ukraine are now slipping into the...
Eastern Europe3 days ago
What “Victory” and “Defeat” Would Mean in Ukraine’s War
Science & Technology4 days ago
Interesting archaeological discovery in Israel
Americas4 days ago
Joe Vogler and the Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Secession Attempt in the United States
Americas4 days ago
Canada’s Indo Pacific strategy
East Asia4 days ago
Russia-Ukraine Conflict and the Chinese Viewpoint
Defense3 days ago
Ukraine Crisis: International Security and Foreign Policy Option for Pakistan
Reports3 days ago
Small Business, Big Problem: New Report Says 67% of SMEs Worldwide Are Fighting for Survival
Eastern Europe3 days ago
It Is Possible To Live Peacefully In The Caucasus