The Intellectuals in Turkey regarding extra-parliamentary opposition from 1950 to date

THE INTELLECTUALS IN TURKEY REGARDING EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION FROM 1950 TO DATE Ph. D. Dissertation, Written by: Ahmet KARADA? İnönü University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Department of Public Administration (September, 2002) ABSTRACT AND KEY WORDS The subject of this dissertation is about the evaluation of Turkish Intellectuals from different perspectives as the center of extra-parliamentary opposition. In this respect, first of all the sub-terms of extra-parliamentary opposition will be clarified. Then the opinions and perspectives of the intellectuals will be examined according to the terms which have been identified as the sub-terms of extra-parliamentary opposition such as republic, democracy, election, army-politics relations, public sphere and freedom of thought. The intellectuals who have been included within the study accept the republic as a type of administration in a narrow sence. Therefore there is no truce in their thinking regarding to the philosophy of republic, freedom and equality. With regard to democracy there are important differences between the intellectuals. Soysal, Başgil, Aybar and Selçuk see democracy as a universal value and stress some aspect of democracy such as election, a set of freedoms with protection of law, an open and vast political spectrum, democratic culture, an influential parliament, and secularism. With regarding to democracy, no democratic characteristics can be found in the views of Velidedeoğlu, Toker and Özden. On the other hand Avcıoğlu opposes to democracy because of the negative result of democracy for economic development and power, and develops a different view seeing democracy as a than an aim.The intellectuals oppose election being used as a pragmatic aim. To achieve that the meaning of the election regarding to democratic political culture should be understood. But intellectuals give more attention to the interpretation of the election results. In term of army-politics relations, the intellectuals have a benefical views. In this sense, Soysal, Aybar, Velidedeoğlu and Özden look positivelly to the 27 May Coup because they see the coup benefical. At the same time Soysal and Velidedeoğlu belive that 12 March Coup was not benefical. According to Toker military take overs and military coups are necessarly done because of the army to preserve the Republic. Başgil and Selçuk on the other hand, belive that the reason behind the military take over is existence of the political instability. With regarding to public sphere the views of some intellectual coincide with views of liberals. But a group of the intellectuals put the state and representative public in the centre of their views. Soysal, Başgil, Aybar, Selçuk and Avcıoğlu belive that any restriction can not be put on the freedom of thought. According to these intellectuals, freedom of thought is indivisible which can not be limited, and it can only be bounded by natural restrictions. In the views of Velidedeoğlu, Özden and Toker it seems that there can be a limit to the freedom of thought. KEY WORDS: Republic, democracy, public sphere, political opposition, parliamentarian opposition, extra-parliamentary opposition, intellectual.