What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Turkey is Authoritarian: From Atatürk to Erdoan
For the last century, the Western world has regarded Turkey as a pivotal case of the 'clash of civilisations' between Islam and the West. Why Turkey is Authoritarian offers a radical challenge to this conventional narrative. Halil Karaveli highlights the danger in viewing events in Turkey as a war between a 'westernising' state and the popular masses defending their culture and religion, arguing instead for a class analysis that is largely ignored in the Turkish context. This book goes beyond cultural categories that overshadow more complex realities when thinking about the 'Muslim world', while highlighting the ways in which these cultural prejudices have informed ideological positions. Karaveli argues that Turkey's culture and identity have disabled the Left, which has largely been unable to transcend these divisions. This book asks the crucial why does democracy continue to elude Turkey? Ultimately, Karaveli argues that Turkish history is instructive for a left that faces the global challenge of a rising populist right, which succeeds in mobilising culture and identity to its own purposes.Published in partnership with the Left Book Club.
249 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 20, 2018
11 people are currently reading
333 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 20, 2019
This is an interesting political history of Turkey that attempts to debunk the stereotype of a radical secular elite at odds with the pious masses of the country. This is a framework that has been very convenient for the religious right, which has been able to portray itself as the defender of the rights and dignity of the masses, even while in practice fighting against organized labor and serving the objectives of big business. Karaveli attempts to do a class analysis of Turkish society which shows that in fact the Kemalists and Islamists have much in common and have held together a right-wing coalition in the service of capital since the founding of modern Turkey. For this reason they have reached a compromise in recent years despite their cultural differences, to the disadvantage of the working-class masses and minorities.
The hero of Karaveli's story is Bulent Ecevit, Turkey's lone social democratic prime minster who governed the country briefly in the 1970s. His rule was shut down by a brutal military coup that was shamelessly backed by the United States. Ecevit attempted to institute social reforms that would have ameliorated the abysmal conditions of Turkey's working class. Unlike the "bourgeoise radicals" of the Kemalist revolution however, he was not at odds with the people he governed. Ecevit was himself a pious Muslim and managed to achieve the critical task of reconciling the needs of workers, the dignity of the people and to a large extent the rights of minorities (he failed to tread a middle path satisfactory to Kurdish nationalists, though he himself was half-Kurdish). When he died it was revealed that despite his quiet lifestyle he had been a billionaire through family lands procured during Ottoman-rule in modern Saudi Arabia. He had lived his life frugally and upon dying donated the money to a state fund for Hajj pilgrims in Turkey. Since the 1980 right-wing military coup the left has never recovered and there has been little progress on achieving bargaining rights or collective ownership of industry.
Karaveli argues that Turkey's experience is instructive for a world facing a resurgence of right-wing populism, including in the United States. He argues that the culture of the people must be reconciled with their economic interests by the left, in order to undercut the appeal of right-wing populists. I'm not sure if I agree that this example transfers as well as Karaveli thinks it does to the United States, for the obvious reason that the specific cultural issues and divisions facing the U.S. are very different at core than in Turkey. The United States has never had a culturally radical middle class at war with an entrenched mass culture. Indeed in the U.S. I have to sadly say that there is effectively no meaningful culture among the "masses" that he refers to, with cultural ties to Europe and even the religion of Christianity having degraded precipitously over the past century and nothing new growing in its place. As such it's a bit unclear what culture needs to reconciled with social democratic policies. If anything I think such policies could stand alone on economic grounds, in a place where wealth has become a substitute for culture in some ways.
This book explains well how a bourgeoise class can be created from thin air by the actions of the state. The Kemalist state created the Turkish bourgeoise following the Turkish War of Independence by redistributing the wealth of the destroyed Ottoman Christian elite. Since then the state has continued to serve as a vehicle for the interests of this class. It spent decades brutally fighting against Islamists before deciding to incorporate them, as it does today. The United States has played an incredibly malign role in sustaining the status quo in Turkey, backing the most brutal and openly fascist factions of the military establishment and egging on every coup that Turkey has ever experienced. As Karaveli compellingly argues, the U.S. also backed the 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan after they determined that he was no longer serving their interests as well as they'd like. It's clear from this book why the United States polls so poorly across the ideological spectrum in Turkish public opinion surveys.
Karaveli grudgingly concedes that the AKP and its predecessors have reduced poverty in Turkey, even while serving the interests of capital. I didn't really understand how this comported with his narrative of a seamless transition between the Kemalists and the Islamists, the former of whom largely failed to improve the economic lot of the masses. Nonetheless I found this book to be a refreshing change from the normal cliches about Turkey, including among left-leaning people who tend to regurgitate the same lazy tropes as the orientalists. Turkey is authoritarian today politically because it has always been politically authoritarian, a tradition set down by its founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. A class analysis like Karaveli has done here helps show this. In doing so it escapes the nonsensical image of secularist forces at war with Islam in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. As Karaveli argues, the state's reaction to those like Bulent Ecevit or Salahettin Demirtas who become a threat to the ruling coalition — based on capital — offers a potentially more enlightening way of understanding the real power dynamics at play in Turkey.
The hero of Karaveli's story is Bulent Ecevit, Turkey's lone social democratic prime minster who governed the country briefly in the 1970s. His rule was shut down by a brutal military coup that was shamelessly backed by the United States. Ecevit attempted to institute social reforms that would have ameliorated the abysmal conditions of Turkey's working class. Unlike the "bourgeoise radicals" of the Kemalist revolution however, he was not at odds with the people he governed. Ecevit was himself a pious Muslim and managed to achieve the critical task of reconciling the needs of workers, the dignity of the people and to a large extent the rights of minorities (he failed to tread a middle path satisfactory to Kurdish nationalists, though he himself was half-Kurdish). When he died it was revealed that despite his quiet lifestyle he had been a billionaire through family lands procured during Ottoman-rule in modern Saudi Arabia. He had lived his life frugally and upon dying donated the money to a state fund for Hajj pilgrims in Turkey. Since the 1980 right-wing military coup the left has never recovered and there has been little progress on achieving bargaining rights or collective ownership of industry.
Karaveli argues that Turkey's experience is instructive for a world facing a resurgence of right-wing populism, including in the United States. He argues that the culture of the people must be reconciled with their economic interests by the left, in order to undercut the appeal of right-wing populists. I'm not sure if I agree that this example transfers as well as Karaveli thinks it does to the United States, for the obvious reason that the specific cultural issues and divisions facing the U.S. are very different at core than in Turkey. The United States has never had a culturally radical middle class at war with an entrenched mass culture. Indeed in the U.S. I have to sadly say that there is effectively no meaningful culture among the "masses" that he refers to, with cultural ties to Europe and even the religion of Christianity having degraded precipitously over the past century and nothing new growing in its place. As such it's a bit unclear what culture needs to reconciled with social democratic policies. If anything I think such policies could stand alone on economic grounds, in a place where wealth has become a substitute for culture in some ways.
This book explains well how a bourgeoise class can be created from thin air by the actions of the state. The Kemalist state created the Turkish bourgeoise following the Turkish War of Independence by redistributing the wealth of the destroyed Ottoman Christian elite. Since then the state has continued to serve as a vehicle for the interests of this class. It spent decades brutally fighting against Islamists before deciding to incorporate them, as it does today. The United States has played an incredibly malign role in sustaining the status quo in Turkey, backing the most brutal and openly fascist factions of the military establishment and egging on every coup that Turkey has ever experienced. As Karaveli compellingly argues, the U.S. also backed the 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan after they determined that he was no longer serving their interests as well as they'd like. It's clear from this book why the United States polls so poorly across the ideological spectrum in Turkish public opinion surveys.
Karaveli grudgingly concedes that the AKP and its predecessors have reduced poverty in Turkey, even while serving the interests of capital. I didn't really understand how this comported with his narrative of a seamless transition between the Kemalists and the Islamists, the former of whom largely failed to improve the economic lot of the masses. Nonetheless I found this book to be a refreshing change from the normal cliches about Turkey, including among left-leaning people who tend to regurgitate the same lazy tropes as the orientalists. Turkey is authoritarian today politically because it has always been politically authoritarian, a tradition set down by its founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. A class analysis like Karaveli has done here helps show this. In doing so it escapes the nonsensical image of secularist forces at war with Islam in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. As Karaveli argues, the state's reaction to those like Bulent Ecevit or Salahettin Demirtas who become a threat to the ruling coalition — based on capital — offers a potentially more enlightening way of understanding the real power dynamics at play in Turkey.
November 3, 2021
In diesem Buch spricht Karaveli von den autoritären politischen Führungsstil der Türkei, die je und eh die Türkei prägt.
Der Autor geht auf die Gründungsgeschichte der Türkei ein und erklärt wie Atatürk seinerseits schon autoritäre und zum Teil diktatorische Züge hatte, um die türkische Republik nicht nur zu gründen, sondern diese auch nachhaltig umzusetzen. Mit Atatürk kam der Wandel in die westliche Welt, der Trennung von Staat und Religion aber auch als Folge viele der bis Heute anti-säkulären Gegenpositionen, die sehr wohl den Islam im Staat verbandelt sahen. Während ein Teil der Bevölkerung nach säkularem politischen Grundpfeilern jagt, hat sich seit den 70ern die rechte, religiöse politische Macht mobilisiert und an politischer Macht gewonnen. Dieses hin und her wird in dem Buch deutlich erklärt. Ein interessanter Einblick in die Geschichte der Türkei bis zu den heutigen schwierigen politischen Verhältnissen.
Der Autor geht auf die Gründungsgeschichte der Türkei ein und erklärt wie Atatürk seinerseits schon autoritäre und zum Teil diktatorische Züge hatte, um die türkische Republik nicht nur zu gründen, sondern diese auch nachhaltig umzusetzen. Mit Atatürk kam der Wandel in die westliche Welt, der Trennung von Staat und Religion aber auch als Folge viele der bis Heute anti-säkulären Gegenpositionen, die sehr wohl den Islam im Staat verbandelt sahen. Während ein Teil der Bevölkerung nach säkularem politischen Grundpfeilern jagt, hat sich seit den 70ern die rechte, religiöse politische Macht mobilisiert und an politischer Macht gewonnen. Dieses hin und her wird in dem Buch deutlich erklärt. Ein interessanter Einblick in die Geschichte der Türkei bis zu den heutigen schwierigen politischen Verhältnissen.
June 26, 2021
This was a really great read for anyone interested in Turkey or the so-called Middle East/Islamic World more broadly. Karaveli's biggest accomplishment with this book is piercing the thick walls of nationalist mythologizing around Turkey's formation among the rubble of the Ottoman Empire and grounding his rereading of Turkey's history in materialist analysis. His clarification of the material conditions behind the Armenian genocide, in particular, is very useful and provides a lens to reread things like the Greco-Turkish population exchange, etc.
Karaveli's main thesis, that leftism in Turkish has floundered due to its grounding in Kemalism/Turkish nationalism and failure to capitalize on the popular masses by isolating the bourgeois left culturally from the predominantly Muslim, rural, Anatolian working class, is a great working framework for understanding the popularity of Erdoğan, the AKP, and to a certain extent the MHP/Grey Wolves. I have mentioned in a progress update that the pacing is a bit odd, as is the prolonged focus on Ecevit's tenure in power, but to be fair these make sense in the need to establish the foundations of modern Turkish class foundations, and to explain the failure of the left due to material internal and external causes, respectively.
Finally, this book is easy to read in that Karaveli takes the time to clarify certain things vis-a-vis Turkish culture and history for newcomers without dwelling on these topics. This is also thanks to his concise but not too dry writing style, and how he takes the time to set the scene, use some colorful characters to illustrate the broader dynamics playing out on a macro scale, and generally bringing the history alive within his novel reframing of Turkish history.
The biggest omission, I think, is a substantive look at the Kurdish question other than a few passing glances at eastern Anatolia in examples of capital accumulation and class reorganization in the early republican era and the occasional mention of Öcalan's negotiations with the Erdoğan administration. A look at recent events in Northern Syria, including the Turkish invasion of Afrin, is otherwise confined to an afterward dedicated to the topic. I think it's fair to say that the Turkish-Kurdish axis constitutes a significant dialectic that is crucial in the construction of both modern Turkish and Kurdish identities, and a closer look at this would have strengthened the book, or at least the overriding thesis. I think it would have been doubly welcome given the way the Kurdish question is quite unique from that of Greek/Armenian/Jewish populations, who all fall into the general framework of usurpation of Christian-Jewish capital as the foundation of a Turko-Islamic bourgeoisie constitutive of the modern Turkish state that Karaveli presents.
Karaveli's main thesis, that leftism in Turkish has floundered due to its grounding in Kemalism/Turkish nationalism and failure to capitalize on the popular masses by isolating the bourgeois left culturally from the predominantly Muslim, rural, Anatolian working class, is a great working framework for understanding the popularity of Erdoğan, the AKP, and to a certain extent the MHP/Grey Wolves. I have mentioned in a progress update that the pacing is a bit odd, as is the prolonged focus on Ecevit's tenure in power, but to be fair these make sense in the need to establish the foundations of modern Turkish class foundations, and to explain the failure of the left due to material internal and external causes, respectively.
Finally, this book is easy to read in that Karaveli takes the time to clarify certain things vis-a-vis Turkish culture and history for newcomers without dwelling on these topics. This is also thanks to his concise but not too dry writing style, and how he takes the time to set the scene, use some colorful characters to illustrate the broader dynamics playing out on a macro scale, and generally bringing the history alive within his novel reframing of Turkish history.
The biggest omission, I think, is a substantive look at the Kurdish question other than a few passing glances at eastern Anatolia in examples of capital accumulation and class reorganization in the early republican era and the occasional mention of Öcalan's negotiations with the Erdoğan administration. A look at recent events in Northern Syria, including the Turkish invasion of Afrin, is otherwise confined to an afterward dedicated to the topic. I think it's fair to say that the Turkish-Kurdish axis constitutes a significant dialectic that is crucial in the construction of both modern Turkish and Kurdish identities, and a closer look at this would have strengthened the book, or at least the overriding thesis. I think it would have been doubly welcome given the way the Kurdish question is quite unique from that of Greek/Armenian/Jewish populations, who all fall into the general framework of usurpation of Christian-Jewish capital as the foundation of a Turko-Islamic bourgeoisie constitutive of the modern Turkish state that Karaveli presents.
October 31, 2021
A very important intervention, one in which a class analysis takes center stage. Very important book for understanding modern Turkish history, as well as how to analyze the current political climate of the country. We did a fantastic episode of Guerrilla History with the author: https://guerrillahistory.libsyn.com/e... or wherever you get your podcasts.
March 8, 2024
Thick, academic and theoretical. Karaveli gives us a comprehensive political history of Turkey thoroughly entrenched with Marxist analysis. If one views history intuitively through only the touchstone of Western Democratic left-right spectrum, one will be challenged. The conservative-liberal dynamic familiar to Western readers of Western history exists not in Turkey. The Marxist terminologies used to explain the tensions between and among the rural and urban, the small business and the industrial elites may scuttle the non-academic reader. But still, rewarding. Karaveli covers issues of Armenian Genocide and the expropriation of lands for subsequent profit (both economic and political) by true "Turks". His chapter covering the tenure of Bulent Ecevit is detailed. Religion, ethnicity and class underlay his history. He is current up to the 2016 attempted coup by the "Gulenists". Well researched. His overuse of blanket terminologies "fascist" and "bourgeoisie" muffle the effect of straight-up timeline history. Still, an informative read worthy of reflection. Just don't let this work be the only work you read on 20th century (and subsequent) Turkish history.
December 18, 2020
A poorly written attempt to claim that Turkey’s authoritarian tendencies derive purely from the fact that the left-wing movements have never had a chance to flourish here. Also, author’s readiness to immediately call everything that isn’t socialist a “fascist” shows evident lack of solid historical understanding of these concepts. A waste of time.
April 7, 2023
The book that analyzes the Turkish Authoritarianism in Turkey starting from late Ottoman era, which falls apart by the last chapter. Although it gives a decent overview of how political parties, their constituents and ideological makeup has changed, the book suffers from some claims that are either conspiratorial or reductionist in my view. Although I started with great excitement, I can't really recommend this book.
The author basically reduces the Armenian Genocide to an economic machination of the CUP to create Muslim bourgeoisie. Economic aspect certainly played a role, but it is hard to agree with the author that it played such a big role. Fears of a further loss of territory and the desire to remove non-Muslims from the area seems like the main reason to me, a non-academic.
There are few conspiratorial arguments that I've heard, but couldn't find any evidence for. These really weakened the rest of the arguments for me and led me to give it 2 stars. Again as a non-academic I might be missing some sources that the author has, but the sources he has provided in his notes aren't much helpful.
The author argues that US strongly encouraged the 1980 coup attempt. Although I read in many sources that it was approved by US, there is not really much evidence to suggest that military acted in accordance with US. The author implies that the target was the social democratic prime minister of the time, Ecevit, and his government, although the coup was planned and conducted during his successor government, which was a broad right wing coalition.
Another conspiratorial claim presented in the last chapter of the book is that Morton Abramowitz, an ex US ambassador to Turkey, was preparing Erdogan starting from late 80s/early 90s. It would be shocking to me if US did not meet with a rising political star in Turkey and profile them, but it is another thing to argue that US was preparing him to lead, which seems like an impossible bet to make during the chaotic political scene of 1990s Turkey. Author's source is a book written by two French authors, but there is no English or Turkish translation of the book.
Author also claims that US approved and encouraged the Ergenekon trials to punish the anti-American wing of the Turkish Military, which did not support US in its Iraq Invasion and was drifting away from NATO. This is a reductionist view of the whole political fight with many aspects and again isn't backed by evidence. There is a recurrent message that US punished those who didn't respect their military and geopolitical objectives, a popular notion in Turkish society, but again not backed by evidence.
The author basically reduces the Armenian Genocide to an economic machination of the CUP to create Muslim bourgeoisie. Economic aspect certainly played a role, but it is hard to agree with the author that it played such a big role. Fears of a further loss of territory and the desire to remove non-Muslims from the area seems like the main reason to me, a non-academic.
There are few conspiratorial arguments that I've heard, but couldn't find any evidence for. These really weakened the rest of the arguments for me and led me to give it 2 stars. Again as a non-academic I might be missing some sources that the author has, but the sources he has provided in his notes aren't much helpful.
The author argues that US strongly encouraged the 1980 coup attempt. Although I read in many sources that it was approved by US, there is not really much evidence to suggest that military acted in accordance with US. The author implies that the target was the social democratic prime minister of the time, Ecevit, and his government, although the coup was planned and conducted during his successor government, which was a broad right wing coalition.
Another conspiratorial claim presented in the last chapter of the book is that Morton Abramowitz, an ex US ambassador to Turkey, was preparing Erdogan starting from late 80s/early 90s. It would be shocking to me if US did not meet with a rising political star in Turkey and profile them, but it is another thing to argue that US was preparing him to lead, which seems like an impossible bet to make during the chaotic political scene of 1990s Turkey. Author's source is a book written by two French authors, but there is no English or Turkish translation of the book.
Author also claims that US approved and encouraged the Ergenekon trials to punish the anti-American wing of the Turkish Military, which did not support US in its Iraq Invasion and was drifting away from NATO. This is a reductionist view of the whole political fight with many aspects and again isn't backed by evidence. There is a recurrent message that US punished those who didn't respect their military and geopolitical objectives, a popular notion in Turkish society, but again not backed by evidence.
October 6, 2023
Although the author is politically committed to a more radical left, Halil Karaveli is honest by indicating his political positions at the beginning of the book. More than just a History book, it is an analysis of the political evolution of Turkey, drawing our attention to aspects little discussed in other works and and offering us another point of view. The book is also useful allowing us to know and appreciate two Turkish politicians Midhat Pasha and especially Bülent Ecevit.
Read
April 16, 2021First book I read as an actual book this year, as opposed to an audiobook.
It was very good - there were parts of it that I really disagreed with and I thought some of the political conclusions were really quite dire, but it has made me think about Turkish history in a different way, and I learnt lots from it.
It was very good - there were parts of it that I really disagreed with and I thought some of the political conclusions were really quite dire, but it has made me think about Turkish history in a different way, and I learnt lots from it.
February 15, 2019
At great little primer on the class forces that have shaped Turkey into the authoritarian entity it is today. It could possibly have gone into greater detail - hence the three stars - but it’s probably slightly churlish to expect that of a introductory book.
June 19, 2025
he loveeees ecevit, never mentions the notorious "return to life" operation? overall his attempt to examine the continuity of the capitalist state apparatus is laudable but he misses many important events, like Gezi wasn't analyzed?? idk could be improved sorry
December 26, 2023
A useful and interesting history
November 23, 2025
Karaveli, a leftist, argues that the traditional narrative of Turkish politics being defined by culture war clashes between secular Kemalists and Islamists in fact obscures the central role of class struggle in Turkish republican politics. He was particularly persuasive in discussing the ways in which Turkey's military coups of the 70s and 80s, rather than expressions of a Kemalist deep state striking against Islamism, in fact were motivated by threats to capital and primarily targeted the left. This time period, along with his discussion of the late Ottoman empire and the Armenian Genocide, are the best-justified portions of this short book. I also appreciated the discussion of how in the 1990s and 2000s Erbakan's class-conscious Islamism, which favored redistributive economic policies, was supplanted by Erdogan's Islamism, which embraced neoliberalism.
All in all an intriguing read which was quite educational on Turkish republican politics and advanced some provocative ideas. I'm hardly well-versed in Marxist theory but I found it easy enough to follow in most places; I just wish Karaveli had discussed events up to the present day in greater depth rather than glossing over them—the narrative hardly mentions the 20th century, and while the 2015 coup merits a mention, Gezi is entirely ignored.
All in all an intriguing read which was quite educational on Turkish republican politics and advanced some provocative ideas. I'm hardly well-versed in Marxist theory but I found it easy enough to follow in most places; I just wish Karaveli had discussed events up to the present day in greater depth rather than glossing over them—the narrative hardly mentions the 20th century, and while the 2015 coup merits a mention, Gezi is entirely ignored.
May 26, 2023
Turkey is a nation that gets heavily overlooked despite its unique situation. The old Ottoman powerhouse has history worth telling, which is painted here to show what led to Ataturk's takeover and the fact that it's remained so right wing in the realm of capitalist exploitation since the country's inception. Yet, it's a weird scenario of equally being in the imperial periphery while also part of NATO. That gets elaborated on as well, mostly with its role in aiding the U.S. against the Soviets. For a great understanding of world politics and history outside of the norm, I highly recommend this.
December 27, 2018
A little bit on the dry side, but holds some important concepts.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews