DEMOCRACY AND THE TURKISH CENTER RIGHT
3.3. The Democrat Pary and Democracy
3.3.2. Limits of the DP’s Perception of Democracy
3.3.2.2. The DP and the Press
There is no clear-cut story to the relationship between the DP and the press. Especially before coming to power, the DP followed a liberal inclination regarding freedom of the press though this was not sufficiently pursued while in office. During the opposition years of the DP, the CHP’s pressure on the press and on journalists who were close to the DP also motivated the party to struggle for freedom of the press.73 Initially, the DP supported changing Article 50 of the Press Law, which previously granted the government the right to close newspapers and periodicals in the case of any disturbance of the country’s general politics (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 13.06.1946 p.285; Topuz, 1972:170; Eroğul, 2003:43). One of the earliest attempts of the DP government was also to limit the government’s sweeping authority over the press through Law Number 568 in addition to introducing Press Courts. On 13 June 1952, another law (number
71 For the evaluation of intra-party discipline procedures in the DP, see Ergun Özbudun. 1968.Batı Demokrasilerinde ve Türkiye’de Parti Disiplini. Ankara: Başnur Matbaası. pp.219-3.
72 Mistrustful of others and reluctant to delegate authority, Menderes’ son also acknowledged that Adnan Menderes dealt with very minor things as a prime minister. For instance, he states that his father watched over the repair of street lamps in Florya because he wanted to follow up on things himself (Menderes and Akyol 2011:85).
73 For details, see Alpay Kabacalı. 1994. Türk Basınında Demokrasi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
5953) meant to regulate the working rights and improve the social conditions of press members was passed. Such concrete attempts of the DP were strengthened by the liberal statements of party elites regarding freedom of the press. On the same topic, just after becoming prime minister, Menderes stated that “the freedom given to the press would make it possible to clarify all the prevailing problems in the country and see the realities” (Bayar, 1969:114). He also suggested that democracy could only be improved if the press were free (Toker, 1991a:34). The DP elite thereby emphasized that compared to the pre-1950 period arbitrary rule over the press had been considerably lessened (Ağaoğlu, 2004:132; Bayar, 1969:149). Bayar even claimed that the “liberty of receiving and publishing news was not as free as in any place of the world as it was in post-1950 Turkey” (1969:149).
In time, the liberal position of the party changed, and the DP espoused a more authoritarian tone in its relations with the press. To the DP elite, the main reason behind this change was the press’s insistent attention to the so-called abuse of liberties by the DP (Bozdağ, 2004:183; Bayar, 1969:184; Ağaoğlu, 2004:135). Thus, the DP elite developed an intolerant pattern of to repressing criticism. In order to expedite the judicial process directly through judges, law number 6123 provided the right to prosecute critics of government policy regardless of the appeals of ministers (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi 23.06.1953). On 6 June 1956, Law number 6733 was debated in the
Assembly. That law established limitations on the freedom of the press and made censorship easier. In this meeting, the DP group explained the necessity of the law in this way: “in the name of critique and discussion, every kind of aspersion, gossip, and insult (…) was done as a continuous and systematic threat against the government
activities [and] against the people of administration (…) which also blemished the harmony of the community”74 (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 06.06.1956 p.97). In 1956, the Right to Propose (İspat Hakkı) became another matter of conflict for the DP. The Right to Propose aimed for the abolition of the right to prove the claims of the press against DP ministers especially regarding corruption and abuse of their positions. The DP government under the leadership of Menderes decided to abandon this right which led to a split with the party and led to the formation of the Freedom Party (the Hürriyet Partisi, or HP) (Öymen, 2013:163-6; Ağaoğlu, 2004:118; Toker, 1991b:104-8; Burçak, 1998:325-6).
After these institutional changes, journalist arrests increased. Ahmet Emin Yalman, Nihat Erim, Bedii Faik and Cahit Yalçın were sentenced for committing libel against the government (Ağaoğlu, 1972:222,233; Koraltürk, 2007:297; Burçak, 1998: 258)75. Toker describes the absurdity of his arrest in the spring of 1955 due to an article he published in Akis. His arrest was based on the pretext of “making publications in order to defame the government and showing probability to repeat this crime” (Toker, 1991b:96-3)76.
74 This explanation did not satisfy the opposition party, and İnönü interpreted this law as proof of the transformation of the regime into a closed and scandalous one (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, 06.06.1956 p.100).
75 Menderes and other Ministers such as Mükerrem Sarol granted clemency to some such as Nihat Erim, Sefa Kılıçoğlu and Falih Rıfkı Atay. However, President Bayar typically resisted Prime Minister Adnan Menderes’ forgiving attitude towards the press (Burçak, 1998:624-2; Ağaoğlu, 2004:134).
76 Whatever its defensive stance toward the press, some people close to the DP justified the government’s pressure on the press. For instance, Menderes and Akyol complained about the broad scope of criticisms, especially those in Akis and Akbaba across the DP years (2011:94).
Apart from introducing considerable press restrictions, the DP also took advantage of government privileges to benefit from media power.77 In 1951, a decree regulated the allocation of official advertisements. This enabled the government to use economic means to support some members of the press and punish others who were critical towards them (Tunçay in Akşin, 1989:179). The government prevented other parties from broadcasting during the election period despite widely expressing itself by radio.
During the 1957 elections, the state radio began to broadcast on behalf of the government at the end of the elections at approximately 14:30 pm. This was illegal and might have influenced the election process (Toker, 1991b:115). Furthermore, announcing that people had joined the Fatherland Front (Vatan Cephesi) over state radio (Öymen, 2013:457-9; Zürcher, 2004:348) could be interpreted as the utilization of the media by the DP for political purposes.78
In conclusion, despite certain positive steps in the beginning, the DP’s overall record on freedom of the press is inadequate. While in power, the party pursued an intolerant and exclusive attitude, reflected in its legislation, in the arrest of journalists and in the promotion of government supporters.
77 Mükerrem Sarol reports that Menderes was aware of the power of the press. To him, labeling the press as the fourth power corresponded to an underestimation of the press (Sarol, 1983:177).
78 On 12 October 1958 Manisa speech, Menderes declared that it was necessary to organize a Fatherland Front against the dissention front (nifak cephesi) of the opposition. To Menderes, the purpose of the Fatherland Front was unifying the citizens around progress and democracy that in practice turned ino the arbitrary rule of the government (Öymen 2013:461-5).