Civil Society and the State
Sema Akboga, University of Virginia
Turkish State and Civil Society Organizations
Civil society organizations are considered important promoters of democracy. However, the relationship between the existing political system and civil society is vitally important for a complete understanding of the latter’s contribution to democracy. It is legitimate for civil society organizations not to be openly political or take sides in the constellation of power; however, they have to be aware of the fact that their work has a political aspect and is related to the state’s authority as well as to their society’s political development (Jorgensen, 1996: p.36). Berman (2001) for example puts emphasis on the need for looking at the political institutionalization to understand the character of civil society (p.37). As Keane (1998) emphasizes, state power guarantees the existence of civil society institutions because he views “democracy as a special type of political system in which civil society and state institutions tend to function as two necessary moments, separate but contiguous, distinct but interdependent” (p.8). Oxhorn (2007) writes that although civil society should be independent of the state, it cannot be considered in isolation from it, as the state both conditions civil society’s development and reflects its strength. Muetzelfeldt and Smith (2002) similarly argue for the “mutually emergent features” of civil society and the institution of governance and “recognize the importance of the two-way interaction between civil society and governance” (p.58). Furthermore, as Edwards (2004) asserts, the state provides the legal and regulatory framework that enables a democratic civil society to function (p.24).
Drawing on the literature on the relationship between civil society and democracy, I look at the development of the relationship between the Turkish state and civil society organizations in order to understand how the political society has shaped the latter’s functioning in Turkey. To do so I divide the republican period into four periods: (1) 1923-1946, (2) 1946-1960, (3)1960-1980, and (4) post-1980. During each period, the state, as a result of various political transformations, reshaped its attitude toward civil society organizations.
My analysis reveals that although the last decades of the Ottoman Empire witnessed the proliferation of civil society with its organizations, foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 impeded its development. As Ataturk envisaged an ethnically and religiously homogenized political and social structure, one that could support a unified, secular, and western/modern society completely disconnected from its past, the Ottoman-era civil society organizations were allowed to survive only if they could help ensure the new system’s survival. The state, therefore, either closed or strictly controlled all such organizations through legal regulations until 1946, when the Democrat Party (DP) was founded. As DP promised more democracy, the Republican People’s Party (RPP) had to liberalize its own policies starting with 1946, which included softening its control of civil society organizations. After winning the 1950 elections, the DP softened the until-then harsh civil society regime in Turkey. However, its mismanagement of the economy engendered opposition to its rule. The DP then suppressed the opposition by various means, one of which was to increase the state’s control over civil society organizations by banning or limiting their activities. These undemocratic policies and the country’s severe economic problems resulted in the 1960 coup.
The following period was a time of relative freedom for such civil actors due to the new laws enshrined in the 1961 Constitution. There was an enormous increase in the number of civil society organizations. All of this, however, was undermined by the worsening economic conditions and changing international context. Leftist movements were on the rise, and civil society organizations became so politicized that they could not manage to be civil. Social, political and economic instability resulted in military intervention in 1980.
The 1982 Constitution reversed the 1960 Constitution. The army, which wanted to depoliticize society by decreasing political participation, closed and banned many civil society organizations. It also forbade civil servants, students, and teachers to join political parties, all forms of cooperation between trade unions and political parties, as well as made it illegal for political parties to open women’s or youth branches. However, the army achieved the exact opposite of what they intended, for many people began to see civil society organizations as the main tool to prevent or end the oppression that followed the military’s intervention.
The historical analysis of Turkish civil society indicates the significance of political society in the development of civil society organizations. In each political and social transformation, Turkish state turned to civil society organizations and changed its attitude toward them in a more restricting or liberating direction. Therefore, Turkish case is telling in terms of the fact that civil society organizations cannot be considered in isolation as the agents of democratization. Their interaction with political society is decisive in their contribution to democracy.