2 - 1961–71: The Rise of Süleyman Demirel

Summary

Introduction

The coup and execution of Adnan Menderes in 1960 brought down the curtain on Turkey's first experiment with democracy. After a short period, democratic politics was allowed to resume, albeit with altered parameters. Officers of the coup created a new constitution granting greater rights to society, as well as scrutiny of the executive to prevent a repeat of the authoritarian actions of Menderes and Bayar's government. The break from the previous era was further marked by the rise of a new leader who ascended to the prime ministerial seat – Süleyman Demirel.

Despite major efforts by the military to engineer a liberal political system, the 1960s was yet another tumultuous period in Turkish history: politics, on account of a society polarised along opposing lines, became marked by paralysis. The conditions ensured that within a decade, in 1971, the military took it upon itself to force civilian rule to an acrimonious end. The implementation of a liberal constitution and stronger mechanisms to restrain power could not ensure steps towards a consolidation of democracy or a stable political order.

The central focus of this chapter is on Süleyman Demirel's leadership as Prime Minister from 1965 to 1971. Chapter 2 demonstrates that, despite the military's attempts to create a democratic order through constitutional restructuring, democracy faced much deeper problems. Demirel was different from Menderes and Bayar in placating the military; nonetheless, in terms of civilian politics, he struggled to respect demands from the opposition and checks on his authority. This was first reflected inside his party and subsequently carried over into the inter-party environment which impacted the democratic order, particularly when Demirel headed the government. In the concluding section, I explore the leadership style of Demirel and how the inter-play between the intra- and inter-party was the causal factor, hastening the deterioration of the political and social order. Demirel did not govern based on tolerance, institutional forbearance, or politics based on compromise and consensus. Ultimately, Demirel failed to heed the lessons of the Menderes and Bayar era, and his leadership was similarly problematic for sustaining democracy.