The Story of the Invisible Hand in Turkish Politics
The actors change, the set is renewed. But behind the scenes, in that dark area where the light does not reach, one thing remains unchanged: The writer and director of the play remain the same.
For many years, politics in Turkey has resembled a theatre stage. Every election period, we are confronted with new faces, new promises and new logos. The actors change, the set is renewed. But behind the scenes, in that dark area where the light does not reach, one thing remains unchanged: The writer and director of the play remain the same.
The Stage Changes, the Actors Change; But the Play Remains the Same
With the transition to a multi-party system in 1946, the appearance of political competition emerged in Turkey. However, this competition served to distract the public rather than represent them authentically. The intervention process that began with the 1960 coup shaped political memory every decade. Every coup, every memorandum, every early election was carried out to suppress a certain understanding and keep another within the system.
The purge of the Democratic Party was a reaction to the excessive strengthening of Anatolian capital. The Justice Party, established in its place, was brought onto the stage as a more ‘controlled’ continuation. Although the 1961 Constitution appeared liberal, it constitutionalised the centres of tutelage, clearly showing who held real power.
MHP: A Tool Deployed When the System Needs It
The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) took the stage as the representative of the security-oriented reflexes that this system needed. Transformed from the CKMP in 1969, the MHP became intertwined with paramilitary structures in the 1970s. It was legitimised by the rhetoric of ‘the survival of the state.’ Although seemingly suppressed by the 1980 coup, its cadres continued to function within the deep structures of the state.
The coup of 12 September 1980 was not merely a military intervention; it was also the military wing of Turkey's integration into neoliberal capitalism. The ANAP, led by Turgut Özal, became the domestic agent of this transformation. This change, which began with the economy, also integrated politics and society into the global order.
28 February and the Moderate Islam Project
The rise of the Welfare Party in the 1990s was seen not as the authentic voice of the people, but as an emergence that disturbed the system. The postmodern coup of 28 February 1997 was organised not only against political Islam, but against any independent voice coming from the people. The system's acceptable boundaries were redrawn.
Although the AK Party, which came to power in 2002, included cadres from the Welfare Party line, it was supported by the West as part of the ‘moderate Islam’ project. EU harmonisation laws, IMF policies and privatisations were the price of this support. Although the domestic public was guided by ‘local and national’ rhetoric, the orientation in foreign policy always remained Western-centric.
After 2016, as the AK Party became more authoritarian, the MHP was brought back into play as a balancing factor. Thus, the central axis of the system was re-established with the ‘People's Alliance.’ The MHP became the legitimiser of the government, the representative of the deep state, and the ‘national shield’ of the system. Not much has changed to this day!
Representatives of the Oligarchy, Not the People
This entire picture shows that those elected in Turkey do not represent the people, but rather global and local interest groups. Real power lies in the hands of media monopolies, financial institutions, intelligence networks, and the political engineering structures connected to them.
If a new party is needed, it is created. If a party needs to be weakened, the media steps in. Everything is presented in ‘democratic’ packaging. But the design is always done by the same hands.
Real Change: Possible Outside the System
At this point, the question that needs to be asked is clear: If this system is built on suppressing the will of the people, then is real change possible with an understanding that can go beyond this system?
Being outside the system does not mean being violent or creating chaos. On the contrary:
- Being able to question the NATO axis,
- Not just condemning what is happening in Palestine and Gaza, but being able to strike with an iron fist in a real sense,
- Being able to discuss dependence on global capital,
- Defending real popular sovereignty,
- and producing politics guided by the people, not the media.
Conclusion: If You Remain a Spectator, the Game Continues
In Turkey, politics appears to be changing through names and logos. But this is merely a simulation. Real change can only begin where the rules change, a new political culture is built, and the people transform from mere spectators into actors who take the stage.
This play will continue as long as there are spectators.
But the curtain will only fall when the people take to the stage.
But the people know no bounds. They are now on the stage!
