The 1945-1960 Multi-Party Period and Counter-Revolutionism

[NOTE] This essay was written in sixth form for a nationwide competition. I have preserved the text as it was, and have not fixed improper and inconsistent citation practices. The content is also poorly organised, so I have added some headings. Any opinion or framing does not reflect my current attitudes.

Introduction

Speaking in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on the 18th of January 2023, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the incumbent Justice and Development Party announced that the first round of elections would commence on the 14th of May. In his speech, he reminds the present MPs of the 1950 election held on the same date, and that ‘Our people, 73 years later on that same day, are going to say ‘enough!’’¹. In recent years, many actions have been taken by the Justice and Development Party to mythicise the personalities of the Democratic Party government (1950-1960) who were overthrown during the 1960 coup d’etat. The principal personality admired by Erdoğan and his support base is that of Adnan Menderes, 9th Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey and leader of the Democratic Party. Menderes has achieved a status of martyrdom among those ideologically conservative due to his execution following the Yassıada trials set up by the military. The online newspaper of the state-owned broadcaster TRT describes the 3 ministers executed as a result of the Yassıada trials as ‘democracy’s first martyrs’² and in 2013 the island where the trials and subsequent executions occurred, Yassıada, was renamed to the Island of Democracy and Freedoms (Demokrasi ve Özgürlükler Adası)³. While it is true that the Democratic Party was beneficial for a while in the advancement of democratic freedoms within the Republic of Turkey, the years that it took power in government became increasingly authoritarian and aimed to curb democracy at every turn. It is not surprising that President Erdoğan, who is arguably an ideological successor to Adnan Menderes, would place so much emphasis on his character and politics, especially after the coup attempt in 2016 which saw his democratically elected government challenged as well. However, the amplified legacy of Menderes and his Democratic Party serves another purpose which presents a dichotomy between the grass-roots, democratically elected conservative, yet populist governments of Turkey and an entrenched secular, progressive elite. The latter clique has consistently been represented by the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) which in 2023 composed the bulk of the opposition bloc against Erdoğan, and 70 years earlier against the Democratic Party.⁴

History of multiparty politics

Multi-Party experimentation was not unusual for the young Turkish Republic, having seen two attempts in 1924 and 1930 with the formation of the Progressive Republican Party (Terrakiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası) and Free Republican Party (Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası) respectively. Despite their roles as ‘controlled opposition’ and the fact that in both cases, close associates of the President Atatürk were chosen to lead, it was not uncommon for the new parties to become concentrated opposition against progressive reforms. Hence, the mono-party system was retained due to the fear of counter-revolutionary forces.⁵

Principles and reform

Within Turkish political discourse and this essay, counter-revolutionary refers to the attempts to reverse the progressive policies of Kemal Atatürk and the RPP, represented by the ‘6 arrows’ of Kemalism: Republicanism, Secularism, Populism, Nationalism, Revolutionism and finally in 1930, Statism.⁶ After Atatürk’s passing in 1938, his successor İsmet İnönü took the responsibilities as head of state and led the neutral country through diplomatic manoeuvres of the Second World War era. It was within an environment of economic hardships, authoritarian measures during the World War era and discriminatory taxation against minority groups that İnönü’s RPP was alienated from the general public.⁷ Similarly, the lack of democracy within the RPP’s assembly group in regards to an issue involving the Law to Provide Land to the Farmer in 1945 caused a schism between the RPP’s leadership and many who favoured a liberal, laissez faire economy. Adnan Menderes, a dissident RPP deputy who had entered politics in 1930 with the FRP⁸ and was a landowner with swathes of land in Aydın⁹, led the opposition which centred itself around the newspaper Vatan.¹⁰ International pressure was also felt and the People’s Party was motivated by the ongoing San Francisco Conference and the threat of Soviet infringements on Turkish sovereignty.¹¹ All-in-all, transition to the Multi-Party system was inevitable by 1945 yet elements within the Republican People’s Party wanted the Mono-Party state to be maintained which would lead to a multitude of political failures in the period before the party was removed from power in elections. Between 1945 and 1960, Turkey saw the first successful push-back to its 6 revolutionary principles at a political level as a result of the newly established system.

Concessions to democracy

A trend in regards to the early Multi-Party Period which is prevalent to the analyses of all aspects of society and politics is that 1945-1950 saw the Republican People’s Party attempt to retain their hegemony through concessions to the public which attempted to shrink the divide between the two parties and try to weaken the opposition’s zeal. The intended effect was unachieved, what was weakened instead was the RPP’s own revolutionary resolve.

The ideals of Republicanism and by extension Democracy were perhaps the only revolutionary principle to be advanced during this small time period, though at the expense of the other ideological aims of the Republic. President İnönü had intended for the Democratic Party to be controlled opposition¹² and former Prime Minister Celâl Bayar, as leader of the DP, had adopted the ‘6 arrows’ of the RPP as per state policy.¹³ The major differences between the parties was regarding economic freedom in 1946 and 1947 as the DP had yet to establish a comprehensive party programme which led to their prompt defeat in the unfair and unfree 1946 election. The DP had nonetheless expanded rapidly¹⁴ and would continue to do so as the public, from peasants to workers to intellectuals and business, had become so hostile to the government that they banded around the only effective tool of opposition. Meanwhile the bloc of Mono-Party advocates led by Prime Minister Recep Peker were defeated and İnönü himself had become a fierce supporter of the opposition’s right to organise. İnönü would also take many measures to secure democratic freedoms including calling an Extraordinary Party Congress in May 1946 to remove his titles of National Chief (Milli Şef) and Permanent Leader (Değişmez Başkan).¹⁵ As the DP’s future was now secure, the competition between the two parties intensified and the victim was the revolutionary values which were eroded in order to appeal to the common citizen. Therefore, it is evident that the advancement of Republicanism and Democratic freedoms had been gradually achieved during this sub-period.

When the RPP’s 9th Congress in 1951 would reflect in the 1945-1950 period, they would admit that in trying to restore their relationship with the public, the party had betrayed its Kemalist tenet of ‘In spite of the People, for the People’ (‘Halka rağmen, halk için’).¹⁶ The decisions made by the Republican People’s Party during the governments of Peker, Hasan Saka and Şemseddin Günaltay between 1946 and 1950 had attempted to cut away at the Democratic Party’s support by liberalising itself in all respective areas of governance. It was not just the RPP, but also the Democrats who had accepted laicite and separation of state and religion as the 14th article of their party platform¹⁷ yet the need to appeal to voters now forced both parties to both be pushed simultaneously into counter-reform. So, it was under the Günaltay government in February 1949 that elective religious lessons were brought back.¹⁸ Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had its first rift with the formation of the Nation Party (Millet Partisi) which would enjoy some popularity due to the involvement of ‘the Marshal’ Fevzi Çakmak who had respect comparable to İnönü’s. The party’s conservative nature was quite clear yet it was not closed down due to the notability of its leadership as well as its superficial acceptance of the values of the Republic. In contrast, the Party for the Defence of Islam (İslam Koruma Partisi) was closed in 1946, the same year of its formation.¹⁹ Between 1945 and 1950, there was nonetheless great resistance by a majority of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the political elite to resist concessions in regards to religion, even if some were considered necessary for political purposes.

Class and democracy

The arrival of Multi-Party politics redefined populism within Turkey. There was no more ‘in spite of the people’ and their wants in order to carry out reforms, and ideas of class struggle re-emerged. In fact, in meetings between Tan newspaper owner Zekeriya Sertel, former Foreign Minister and revisionist communist Tevfik Rüştü Aras, Bayar and Menderes, the original template for the opposition, the Republican Democracy Party (Cumhuriyet Demokrasi Partisi) was to be a left-wing Party which would push for closer Turco-Soviet relations.²⁰ Needless to say, the liberal views of Bayar, and Menderes’ role in the land reform debates were incompatible with the view of the socialist thinkers. Neither party wanted to create the divide between the people and the elite, though while the RPP was primarily made up of retired military men and bureaucrats, the DP was mostly of professionals and the upper middle-class. Newspapers such as Cumhuriyet and Vatan reported that of Democratic candidates which ran in 1946 their social backgrounds were: 52 were lawyers, 41 landowners, 40 doctors, 39 businessmen, 15 generals, 14 engineers and 13 teachers.²¹ The idea of class struggle was contrary to Turkey’s own revolutionary principles and during the early Multi-Party period parties which held socialist ideas were banned, such as the Socialist Workers and Peasants Party of Turkey (Türkiye Sosyalist Emekçi ve Köylü Partisi) which was founded on June 19th 1946 and closed December 16th²² as their intent was to create class division. While the DP still held on to the ideals of ‘revolutionism’ in a more diluted form which could be better described as reformism, socialists wholly rejected the Kemalist ideas and believed that the revolutionary movement was hijacked and so their parties were not tolerable within the Turkish democratic framework.

Nationalisms

Nationalism, in contrast to the other principles of Kemalism, did not see a similar level of opposition during the early Multi-Party period, likely as it would’ve served no interest for either party to advance an opposing viewpoint. However, there was some realisation of the discriminatory policies taken during the Second World War era and earlier injustices, Prime Minister Peker said in 1947 that ‘The idea of considering the Christians as second class citizens is part of history now’²³

On the other side of the country, the Kurdish minority numbered around 1.5 million²⁴ yet lacked the political organisation or will to push forward their own interests at a wider level during this specific timeframe. For example, most Kurdish students in Ankara and İstanbul were either oblivious to the formation of the Mahabad Republic in north-western Iran or celebrated it modestly; of the ones we know, student-led political discussions and organisations were miniscule in number and ineffective.²⁵

Statism

Much of the direct criticism towards the RPP from deputies and the business class were not social-cultural issues but the interventionist policies of the party since 1930. As a matter of fact, the first opposition party to be formed in the Multi-Party era, the National Development Party (Milli Kalkınma Partisi), was formed by industrialist Nuri Demirağ.²⁶ The principle of Statism was the latest addition to the six arrows of Atatürk’s ideology and they were among the first principles to be sold off for public appeal, even if Bayar himself held some statist sympathies.²⁷ Under Recep Peker in September 1946, the government took measures such asdevaluing the lira, permitting the sale of gold by banks and easing import facilities.²⁸ As elections approached, the RPP would similarly promise even greater limitations to their statist doctrine.

RPP commits to democracy

Historian of the Multi-Party period Kemal Karpat believes that the measures undertaken by the Republican People’s Party were successful in regaining the party’s popularity to an extent, yet it was clearly not enough to save them. Military officers loyal to the President such as Chief of the General Staff, Salih Omurtak, were high in number and there were fears among many of them that a Multi-Party system would be improper and warned President İnönü.²⁹ Similarly, in early 1950, Bayar was approached by General Fahri Belen who assured him that the army would oppose the Republican People’s Party if they did not hold fair elections.³⁰ Fortunately, civil strife was avoided due to İnönü’s strong belief in democratic freedoms, instead the discontent of the two parties being sorted out in the polling centres.

Democrats Triumphant

On the 14th of May 1950, ~90% of the electorate voted overwhelmingly to oust the RPP and install a Democratic Party majority of 420 seats in parliament.³¹ This assembly would go on to elect the government of President Bayar and his Prime Minister Menderes who would usher in a very short apogee of democratic, social and cultural freedoms until around the 1954 election.

Menderes would comment on his 14th May victory with the declaration: ‘We shall remember that historic day as the day of victory not only for our party but for Turkish democracy’.³² The Democratic Party had become the voice of the silent majority during the Mono-Party era and now that was clear with the landslide which the party had achieved during the election. It had been the result of the grass-roots campaigning and concentrating much of their political ammo towards unpopular RPP economic and also authoritarian policies, such as the Press Law, Police Law, Association Law and similar restrictions, so it had become the champion of both the people and the intellectuals and the business class. Despite the relative freedom which had been offered, there were instances of anti-democratic actions taken by the DP even prior to 1954. The closure of the ‘People’s Houses’ (Halkevleri) of the RPP and the confiscation of the RPP’s property was one of the steps taken the Democratic Party to reduce the organisation of the opposition. The People’s Houses were part of the ‘socio-economic’ structure of the People’s Party and in 1951 here were 478 of them along with 4,322 People’s Rooms (Halkodaları) which served a similar purpose.³³ Menderes fiercely criticised this institution as fascistic³⁴ and his party would manage to close down all by August 1951.³⁵ Effectively, the DP had sapped the grass-roots organisational ability of its only effective opposition. Yet, it could be said that these actions were positive for the development of democracy in the country – the RPP possessed great wealth which they had acquired at a time when the People’s Party was interchangeable with the state, and the People’s Houses gave an unfair advantage to the RPP as they were community centres associated with the party.

Early autocratic actions

While the closures of some RPP institutions were justifiable for the establishment of a proper democracy, anti-democratic actions in 1952 and 1953 would show the DP’s inability to responsibly accept opposition. This included İnönü being unable to hold a demonstration in Balıkesir on October 8th, 1952 out of concern that it may harm ‘public order’³⁶, and more significantly, the closing down of the Nation Party. The death of ‘the Marshal’ in 1950 meant that the the small party which sat at the right of the DP had no symbol comparable to İnönü to defend them from the political manoeuvre taken on July 12th, 1953. The charge against the NP was that it was using religion to subvert the Republic and that it harboured reactionary elements.³⁷ Ultimately, the minor undemocratic actions were wrong yet understandable for a mid-20th century government during a conversion to multi-party politics.

Revolution stifled

While there is no doubt that the Democratic Party was sympathetic to religious causes, or at least against the radical secularisation policies under the Mono-Party RPP, during the early years of its administration, the DP would not take extensive measures to be religiously conservative. One example of a reversal of RPP policy was bringing back the Arabic Call to Prayer³⁸ which had been massively unpopular outside of a small circle of Nationalist elites and intellectuals.

Other revolutionary ideas were stifled, such as the Village Institutes (Köy Enstitütleri), which Bayar in his 1946 meeting with İnönü had promised would be left untouched.³⁹ The village institutes were centres of learning for villagers for various practical and academic subjects but were seen by conservatives as challenging traditional social environments, especially in the South-East. Furthermore, the institutes were seen as breeding grounds for Communist ideology by the Education Minister Tevfik İleri and in January 1954 would be completely closed.⁴⁰ This position did have merit as any educational institute was vulnerable to being a hotbed for left-wing ideas, but it was damaging to the development of rural areas.

Early growth under the Democratic Party

Otherwise, the early years of DP administration was the most progressive the Republic had seen in years, and it would coincide with a rapid and temporary period of economic development. From 62 million lira in net exports in 1950, in only two years it would increase to 541 million lira showing the government’s ability to effectively organise the economy.⁴¹ These policies concentrated on the agriculture industry, which was still Turkey’s most important sector, and “de-etatising” of certain industries, such as the Turkish financial industry. In fact, it was one of the first actions taken by the DP government in July 1950 to privatise Sümerbank, and later the textile industry and to encourage foreign investment through incentive provided by law.⁴² The party’s aid to the agricultural industry was also immensely beneficial to the growth of the economy, including generous credit expansion for landowners, but it is believed only 1% of families in the industry benefited from the government’s efforts to support the sector.⁴³ These policies were contradictory to the interpretation of the principle of Etatism/Statism most commonly subscribed to previously in the mono-party era but were significantly successful until in 1952 the government began the reconsideration of some of these policies due to growing adverse effects. From that point on, the DP would adopt a “zig-zag” policy in regards to the economy of the nation.

The opposition

In 1954, Adnan Menderes declared that, ‘Now there is no People’s Party (RPP), now the People’s Party has died’.⁴⁴ The 1954 elections had been devastating for the founding party, halving the amount of seats in the National Assembly and many of its politicians deserting the party such as Dr. Behçet Uz and Feridun Fikri Düşünsel⁴⁵, the latter of which was important for holding the RPP’s influence in the East of the country. Indeed, following the election it was no longer a major concern for Menderes, so much that his wife would comment that ‘There is no need for the RPP or Ismet Pasha, there is enough opposition to the government within the DP’.⁴⁶ One of the co-founders of the DP, Fuat Köprülü was an example of opposition, possibly influenced by his dismay at not being given greater positions in government and in the party after the 1950 election despite being a well-respected academic and deputy.

Later autocratic actions

The tyranny imposed by the Democrat Party was gradual starting between 1953-1954 and exponentially increasing with the greater concentration of democracy-eroding regulations being imposed in the last years of their administration. It has been described by some contemporaries with the following: ‘The clique in power after 1954 trampled on all the rights of the people. They deceived the nation and dragged the country into economic and social ruin…’⁴⁷. It exercised its authoritarianism through restrictions imposed on universities beginning in July 1953 reducing university control over their budgets and their personnel followed in 1954 with the forced retirement of 17 professors in Ankara.⁴⁸ As a result, universities increasingly became hotbeds of opposition towards the DP government. Meanwhile opposition in the party led to the creation of the Freedom Party (Hürriyet Parti) in December 1955, temporarily eclipsing the RPP in seats and later attempting to form a triple alliance to compete against the DP in 1957 alongside the party which succeeded the Nation Party. Actions were thus taken against the actual opposition – in 1954, the city of Kırşehir was demoted in status due to its ardent support for the NP⁴⁹ and a propaganda campaign was undertaken to create a ‘front’ against the RPP, a divisive manoeuvre.⁵⁰ Such populist tools would result in İnönü, who had quickly set to contesting the next election, being assaulted.⁵¹

Istanbul Pogrom

While not political in nature, the DP’s heavy involvement in and failure to prevent the Istanbul Pogrom of 1955 damaged their reputation internally and abroad, with criticism even from party-members such as the ethnically Greek MP Aleksandre Haçopulos, yet it was communists who were scapegoated for the heavy looting and murders committed by what was in fact a far-right Turkish mob.⁵²

Zig-zag Economics

The decline in political freedom coincided with a senseless economic policy which would see a reimposition of the National Defence Law in 1956⁵³, a statist policy, before reverting once more to economic liberalisation under a western-supported deal between 1959-1960, showing that the party lacked direction or principle.

Fall

On April 18th, the Assembly created the Investigation Committee (Tahkikat Komisyonu), a group given unconstitutional powers in order to find legal transgressions of the opposition. Despite bitter criticism, the committee was further empowered by law on the 27th giving it the ability to censor the press and imprison those who interfered with its activities. Protests by students sprung up the following day in Ankara and Istanbul.⁵⁴ While clandestine military factions to overthrow the government had been in existence since the mid 1950s, the instability created by the complete erasure of democracy in 1960 gave them the justification to overthrow the government through the seizure of important points in Ankara and Istanbul.

Trial

Menderes’ last words being led to his hanging, after what could be called a kangaroo court overseen by the army which overthrew him, were: “I am not resentful at all! Yes, I do not hold resentment!.⁵⁵ Such words have strengthened the myth of the martyred guardian of liberty that the conservative base has formed around the figure, ignoring the authoritarian measures imposed in the latter half of his regime. On the other hand, the trials which followed the coup was an attack on the public image of the party members in order to justify the military intervention even further and a similar mythology has built up denouncing Menderes as a degenerate and tyrant. While both viewpoints have merit, the outcome was that Menderes’ Democratic Party was instrumental in stopping Turkey’s social and political progress and severely limiting democratic freedoms between 1954 and 1960.

Citations and Notes:

1 - “14 Mayıs 1950’de Ne Oldu? 2023 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçimi 14 Mayıs’ta Mı Olacak?” Cumhuriyet 18 Jan. 2023, www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/14-mayis-1950de-ne-oldu-2023-cumhurbaskanligi-secimi-14-mayista-mi-olacak-2022714.

2 - “Türk Demokrasi Tarihinin Kara Lekesi: 27 Mayıs.” TRT Haber, 27 May 2021, www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/turk-demokrasi-tarihinin-kara-lekesi-27-mayis-583843.html.

3 - “YER ADININ DEĞİŞTİRİLMESİNE DAİR KARAR” T.C. Resmî Gazete 14 Dec. 2013

4 - The Republican People’s Party was closed after the 1980 coup d’etat. The current Republican People’s Party was reformed in 1992.

5 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Af airs, 1977,

6 - The word used for Secularism is Laiklik, or Laicite in French. Populism (Halkçılık) means something slightly different to its use in English. There is no juxtaposition between ‘people’ and the ‘elite’. Revolutionism will be discussed further down in the essay proper. Statism refers to the French concept of Etatism.

7 - Feroz, Ahmad. “The Making of Modern Turkey.” Routledge, 2002, pp. 70

8 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “Menderes’in Dramı”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, pp. 70-72

9 - Menderes inherited an estate of around 40,000 dönüm, though there are claims as to if it was less or more. Discussed in Aydemir’s biography

10 - Shaw, S., & Shaw, E, “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume II”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp.402

11 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 265 and pp.246-247. The Soviet Union had claims on the provinces of Ardahan and Kars and demanded privileges in the Bosphorus Straits.

12 - Feroz, Ahmad. “The Making of Modern Turkey.” Routledge, 2002, pp. 105

13 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “Menderes’in Dramı”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, pp. 149

14 - 16 Branches out of 63 provinces were created within the first 2 months. See Karpat, Kemal. “Turkey’s Politics” Princeton University Press. 1959, pp.152

15 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.15

16 - Ibid., pp.108

17 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 264

18 - Shaw, Stanford J., & Shaw, Ezel K., “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume II”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp.404

19 - Karpat, Kemal “Turkey’s Politics” Princeton University Press, 1959, pp.283

20 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 263

21 - Karpat, Kemal “Turkey’s Politics” Princeton University Press, 1959, pp.163

22 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.28

23 - Karpat, Kemal “Turkey’s Politics” Princeton University Press, 1959, pp.257

24 - Ibid., pp.259

25 - Béatrice Garapon, Adnan Çelik, “From Tribal Chiefs to Marxist Activists” in the “Cambridge History of the Kurds” edited by Bozarslan, H., Güneş, C., Yadırgı, V., Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp.232-235.

26 - Karpat, Kemal “Turkey’s Politics” Princeton University Press, 1959, pp.148-149

27 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “Menderes’in Dramı”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, pp. 161-162

28 - Feroz, Ahmad. “The Making of Modern Turkey.” Routledge, 2002, pp. 107

29 - General Tınaztepe, commander of the 1st Army, approached İnönü for this reason

30 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 263

31 - Shaw, Stanford J., & Shaw, Ezel K., “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume II”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp.405-406

32 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.35

33 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 331

34 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “Menderes’in Dramı”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, pp. 198-199

35 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 332

36 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.47

37 - Shaw, Stanford J., & Shaw, Ezel K., “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume II”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp.410

38 - Mehmet Kurt, “Religion and Politics in Turkey’s Kurdistan“ Cambridge History of the Kurds” edited by Bozarslan, H., Güneş, C., Yadırgı, V., Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp.515

39 - Başbuğ, İlker. “1923-1961 Güç Odaklarının Mücadelesi”Kırmızı Kedi, 2019, pp. 267

40 - Ibid, pp. 339

41 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “İkinci Adam III. Cilt 1950-1961”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1987, pp.147

42 - Ibid. pp.128-131

43 - Karpat, Kemal “Turkey’s Politics” Princeton University Press, 1959, pp.305

44 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “Menderes’in Dramı”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, pp. 70-72

45 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.107 and pp.112

46 - Aydın Menderes, “Babam ve ben”. 2012, pp.74

47 - Orhan Erkanlı, quoted from Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.147

48 - Shaw, Stanford J., & Shaw, Ezel K., “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume II”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp.410-411

49 - Walter F. Weiker, “The Turkish Revolution 1960-1961”, Brookings Institute, 1963, pp.40

50 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.107 and pp.112

51 - “İSMET İNÖNÜ’YE DE SALDIRMIŞLARDI” Cumhuriyet 10 May. 2023, https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/sinan-meydan/ismet-inonuye-de-saldirmislardi-2079498

52 - “6-7 Eylül’de devletin ‘muhteşem örgütlenmesi’” Taraf 7 September 2008

53 - Feroz, Ahmad. “Experiment in Turkish Democracy.” Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1977, pp.139

54 - Shaw, Stanford J., & Shaw, Ezel K., “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume II”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp.413

55 - Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya. “Menderes’in Dramı”. Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, pp. 504