Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu’nun Gözüyle Türk İnkılâbıve İnkılâp Kadrosu

Year 2010, Issue: 23, 201 - 208, 01.02.2010

İlyas Söğütlü

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Kemalist inkılâp kadrosunun en önemli figürlerinden biri olan Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu’nun, içeriden bir seçkin olarak, inkılâp kadrosu ve yöntemi hakkındaki değerlendirmeleri üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Zira Yakup Kadri’nin bu bağlamda ortaya koyduğu eleştiriler, Türk modernleşmesi üzerine yeniden düşünme fırsatısunabilecek derinliktedir. Yakup Kadri, yaygın kanının aksine, inkılâp kadrolarınıyeterince kararlıve idealist bulmaz. O, bu durumu, eski rejimin idare-i maslahatçıbürokratlarının yeni dönemde de sahne almasına bağlar. Yapılan inkılâplarıise daha çok yasalar düzeyinde ve devlet sınırlarıiçinde kalan modernizasyon çalışmalarıolarak niteler. Dolayısıyla bu bakımdan Cumhuriyet, bütün kopuşiddialarına rağmen, Osmanlımodernleşmesinin kimi yönlerini istemeden de olsa sürdürmüşolmaktadır. Ona göre gerçek inkılâp, toplumun iç dinamiklerini harekete geçirecek bir modernleşme planının uygulamaya konulmasıdır. Bu da ancak genişçaplıbir ekonomik kalkınma seferberliği ile gerçekleşebilecektir. Zira Batıbu günkü düzeyine, büyük ölçüde bu ekonomik transformasyon sonucunda ulaşmıştır. Batı’nın ekonomik yapısına has, onun ortaya çıkardığıkurumları taklit ederekbir Batıtoplumu olamaya imkân yoktur. Eğer, toplumsal yapıda köklü değişimi başlatacak projeler devreye sokulmaz ve kurumsal değişimler, toplumsal değişimlerle beslenmezse, modernleşme, ancak yüzeyde kalacak ve eski, kendini bu biçimsellik altında sürdürmeye devam edecektir.

Keywords

Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, Türk modernleşmesi, Kemalizm, Türk siyaseti

Turkish Revolution and Its Cadre In The Point of View of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu

Abstract

Every founder regime that wants to put pressure on communities to put them in a single pattern creates an ideal period or a golden era legend. When the excitement at the first few years of revolution cools down and concrete realities make itself apparent, longing for this golden era raises and this era is dreamt as a period inside of which is fulfill with the handy solutions of common problems. Moreover, some people, by going a step forward attributes these problems to become distanced from this ideal period on purpose or as a result of blindness. By explaining basic problems that a society confronts as “deviating from an aim that has certain limits” Turkey is one of the countries applying for traditional thinking way. In our country, one of golden era legends which are often consulted is without a doubt early republic of Turkey. Like in every golden era legend, also early republic is not considered as period which is going to be approached with a realistic point of view also not the one on which it has critical assessments, it is considered to be taught, to comprehend even a reviving period. Because of this hegemony point of view, even the question of witnesses themselves of how they look this “dream period” from their own perspective and how they make sense of their activities of the period remains in the backstage. First of the impetus that directs this study is contrary to the hegemony point of view of the period, the realist evaluations of Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu, a witness closely acquainted with this golden era such good as to evaluate the era as a whole, about the conditions of the period, actors of the period and revolution method. As second, these evaluations has such realistic and consistent quality that they can make Turkish modernization regain one of its basic needs; dimension of criticism. Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu is one of the most important figures of “Kemalist” revolution cadre. He is involved in revolution movement since the beginning of it and he is the one adopted the aim of modernization of Turkey which is the core of “Kemalizm”. Yakup Kadri is close enough to Mustafa Kemal as being one of the journalists inside camp when he entered the city of Izmir. Having writings in newspapers called “Hâkimiyet-i Milliye” and “Cumhuriyet” in the side of ruling party, Yakup Kadri becomes a member of Turkish Grand National Assembly from Mardin between the years of 1923 and 1931 and from Manisa between the years of 1931- 1934. Besides being faithful toward revolutions and so close to Ataturk, the only leader of the period without doubt, Yakup Kadri is a distant and an unfriendly person towards the superior group of CHP. His honest characteristics and being a person who doesn’t come to terms with the realities easily has big proportion on that situation. Yet he is not like the ones who gravitates the magic of charisma. Instead of building reputation by acting in political way like many of his contemporaneous did, he preferred to be candidness and he didn’t refrain from bearing its results. The thing that is supposed to be done to come out as structural and locally of the “modern one” in Turkish society is not mythicizing of a certain level of it or not getting it unquestionable but to evaluate it over and over again in the critical way of thinking. So the thing we call modernity is a fact that already follows the criticism way and comes into existence. Mythicising of a period and mythologizing it will cause not to overcome problems that we already encountered, at the most it will cause to postpone facing with them, drifting away from the realities step by step and it will also cause us to become enstranged. With his writings and critics, Yakup Kadri tried to obviate becoming enstranged and connect the modernization with the society. With this behavior, he is an unusual person among Turkish revolutionists. The main feature of him which drives him forward is maintaining critical attitude towards revolution methods. According to Yakup Kadri, the revolution cadre was not idealist and determined enough. From the Yakup Kadri’s point of view, first of the biggest dilemmas of Turkish revolution is that deficiency of “cadre”. There is no emotional and idealistic unity among the current groups. Main reason of this situation is taking the stage and being incorporated into the period in this new establishment of old establishment’s dominants. Like in every period, some of them were busy with estate speculation and using their authority for their own personal convenience. Briefly, Mustafa Kemal, the leader of revolution, is not lucky as he is supposed to be about the groups. Second basic criticism of Yakup Kadri is about concept and the method of revolution. As to him, revolutions that have been done are mostly at law level and all about modernization studies within the government boundary. But the people as Recep Peker who is secretary general in the group of revolution, suppose that the revolution has reached its goal by watching present condition. However, according to Yakup Kadri, legal arrangements are the head of subject. Or else though the disengagement claims, Republic would continue some parts of Ottoman modernization reluctantly. For him, exact revolution is making a modernization project applicable which activates internal dynamics of society. If the projects which can initiate radical changes in the social structure, do not put into the action and institutional changes cannot be supplied with the social changes, modernization will only be superficial and “old” will keep carrying on itself under this spatial harmony. As to Yakup Kadri, for accomplishment of the revolutions there is need for long term projects, constant and vigorous studies that can revolutionize society. Thought of Yakup Kadri and environment of the group that he is a member of, is being attributed of the revolution to mass and carrying out of Turkish revolution within strict projects and programs. This can come to alive only if objective conditions which help revolution of modernization at the law level can be functional are built up. Or else, revolution cannot get over from being so called and existing on paper only. According to Yakup Kadri, social change can only come true with large scaled economical improvement project campaign. Also Western countries substantially reached today’s level as a result of economical transformation. There is no way that can make possible to become a “western country” by imitating the institutions emerged by western countries that is specific to their economical system. However, if essential politics aren’t called out to reflect these arrangements existing on paper only to social life and to establish them, things that have been done will be faced with danger of removing with adverse effect. These considerations of Yakup Kadri show that there is no way that a change can go beyond governmental boundaries and reach society levels besides having limited range of change by a method that has superior formatives only with political decision which is not stood up to interior dynamics of society and agent of which is not society. Moreover this method, besides being appropriate of that period for building up modernization which is fundamental and feeds itself, functions as abrasive of objective base of a change in this direction. However institutional modernization inholds disadvantage of bedevilment of modernization’s transition because of causing extinction of resources which can intervene in a more realistic changing if it is at the mercy of civil society that is underdeveloped and already has very limited amount of capital. Yakup Kadri is one of the rare revolutionists among elite republicans that can notice this reality and anatomize it. But his critics aren’t welcomed by the ruling group except Ataturk and make him suspended from the headquarters as soon as possible

Keywords

Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoglu, Turkish modernization, Kemalism, Turkish politics

References

• Atay, Falih Rıfkı (1984). Çankaya, İstanbul: Bateş A.Ş.
• Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya (1968). İnkılâp ve Kadro, (2.Baskı). Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi.
• Boratav, Korkut (2006). Türkiye’de Devletçilik, (2.Baskı). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Ertan, Temuçin Faik (1994). Kadrocular ve Kadro Hareketi, Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri (1979). “Ankara, Moskova, Roma” Kadro, Cilt:2, (Tıpkıbasım). Yay. Haz: Cem Alpar, Ankara: Ankara İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Yayınları.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri (1984). Politikada 45 Yıl, (2.Baskı). Yay. Haz: Atilla Özkırımlı, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri (1987). Panaroma, (3.Baskı). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri (1991). Atatürk, (5.Baskı) Yay. Haz: AtillaÖzkırımlı, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri (1997). Yaban, Yay. Haz: Atilla Özkırımlı, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri (2004). Zoraki Diplomat, (3.Baskı). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Karaömerlioğlu, Asım (2002). “The Peasants in Early Turkish Literature” East European Quarterly, XXXVI, No.2, June 2002, pp.127-153.
• Mardin, Şerif (1992). “Türk Siyasasını Açıklayabilecek Bir Anahtar: Merkez-Çevre İlişkileri” , Türkiye’de Toplum ve Siyaset, (3.Baskı). Derl. Mümtaz’er Türköne-Tuncay Önder, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, ss.34-76.
• Tekeli, İlhan ve İlkin, Selim (2003a). Kadrocular ve Kadro’yu Anlamak, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
• Tekeli, İlhan ve İlkin, Selim (2003b). “Türkiye’de Bir Aydın Hareketi Kadro” Cumhuriyet’in Harcı -Birinci Kitap, İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss.449-484.