Social democracy and Turkish Left: A New Possibility?

 Evren Tok

Karl Polanyi (1886-1964) is a well-known economic historian and anthropologist of Hungarian origin, the author of the “Great Transformation”, and also one of the key figures who have had significant influence on the evolution of European social democracy. Polanyi’s contribution to the European tradition of social democracy mostly stems from his nuanced understanding of “freedom in a complex society”. Karl Polanyi’s understanding refers to accepting the reality of society to remove injustice and unfreedom. The task according to Polanyi is to create more abundant freedom for all, without fear. This is the meaning of freedom in a complex society in his perspective; it provides certainty that the society needs (Great Transformation, p. 268). I believe that Polanyi’s perspective could provoke new debates and motivations for the Turkish left in order to be more self-reflexive especially in relation to the possibility of social democracy in Turkey. In other words, Polanyi’s vision and the meaning he attached to freedom in a complex society could guide the Turkish left in many ways. The failure of the left could be approached in respects, first by contextualizing the ascendance of social democracy in Europe, and Turkish left’s inability to utilize from it; and secondly by pointing out the highly fragmented nature of the left, which prevents them to reach the public as well as connecting with the global left.

The road to today’s impasse for the Turkish Left 

The ascendance of Third Way social democratic parties in Europe, such as New Labor under the Blair government, Zapatero’s Socialist Party in Spain and Social Democrat Party under Schröder in Germany all pointed out that social democrats could achieve electoral success through strategies such as balancing out the market forces with societal priorities, privileging both recognition and redistribution, and also being extremely sensitive to issues such poverty, inequality and social justice. Since 1980, but more intensively during the course of 1990s, the emergence of new societal actors with new societal demands have been played out in Turkey, which in turn opened the floor for further democratization efforts and voiced claims for recognition and participation. In Turkey, however, the left has been quite passive and disoriented in terms of capitalizing on the domestic dynamics, which had very prominent counterparts abroad. It is also quite controversial that this societal reshuffling took place in a context in which the leftist oriented political parties especially the CHP, have been totally detached from societal reflexes. In this conjuncture, the AKP starting from the 2002 elections, emerged as a party offering a social democratic alternative as opposed to the CHP, which remained, and can even be said to have become more nationalist/state centric. This debate was caricatured as Turkey’s late, or in other words, “delayed” encounter with the global Third Way politics.

The recent discussions within leftist circles successfully denounced the deeply fragmented nature of the left in Turkey. In a way, these discussions were portraying the historical opportunity that has been ruined at the beginning of the new millennium. Today, one of the central debates is centered around the leftist stance and positioning towards the Ergenekon case. The number of labels circulating within the left oriented press is numerous running the spectrum from positivist vs. non-positivist leftists, Kemalist vs. non-Kemalist leftists, and liberal leftists vs. non-liberal leftists, etc. Perhaps, these discussions gained momentum especially after Sungur Savran’s proposal to bring Marxist analysis to the table.

On the one hand, these discussions were necessary in order for the left to be more self-reflexive and recognize the historicity of the way in which different fragments within the left have come into existence. The internal squaring ups within the left especially with respect to the debates on Ergenekon made it clear that the current leftist critique in Turkey equates “getting more civilian” to democratization. In a way the former is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one for the consolidation of democracy. Furthermore, the same sets of discussions were mute regarding the issue of Third Way social democracy and its importance in Turkey. The introverted and futile discussions within the Turkish left prevented them from finding institutional correspondence in the Western Left.

Turkish left and the meaning of freedom

The post 2002 period has shown that unlike European style social democratic parties, which have put emphasis on restructuring/redesigning welfare states, balancing out recognition and redistribution and aiming for freedom in a complex society, Turkish social democrats have not been successful in getting such debates even onto the agenda. Now, it is the task of the Turkish left to establish a road map to move out of the impasse. Turkey’s delayed encounter with Third Way social democracy could be better instituted if the Turkish left helps build a road map that would accelerate the pace of democracy, promote participatory democracy, and redraw the boundaries between the state and the civil society. Indeed, providing effective and democratic regulation of the market and more emphasis on issues such as social justice, inequality and poverty should be priority.

The Turkish left has more responsibility than ever to prescribe a social democratic alternative that recognizes the multiplicity of societal actors, state and non-state institutions, diverging interests and global ideas that reign over Turkish democracy. From Polanyi’s perspective, the apathy of the left toward the society and societal privileges is a big obstacle to reach freedom in a complex society. Hence, being extraverted and connecting with the public, societal concerns as well as the global left, and providing more certainty than ambiguity are essential for the Turkish left to look for the true significance of freedom in a complex society.

Evren Tok: Ph.D Candidate, Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration