Historical Materialist Analysis of Turkish Foreign Policy: Class, State, and Hegemony

Yıl 2016, Özel Sayı: Türk Dış Politikası, 3 - 22, 01.12.2016

Faruk Yalvaç

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.463081

Cited By: 3

Öz

This article aims to develop a historical materialist analysis to analyse Turkish Foreign Policy (TFP) as part of what I
refer to as critical foreign policy studies. The paper utilises a critical political economy approach to TFP based on the
Gramscian concept of hegemony and extends it to analyse different foreign policy strategies as hegemonic projects
developed by ruling capital classes to sustain their rule. The paper also presents the concept of hegemonic depth to
resolve the antinomies involved in understanding foreign policy projects as the outcome of a dialectical interplay
between structures and agencies. The concept of hegemonic depth is then used to understand the dynamics of TFP
in terms of the state-capital nexus. Hegemonic depth implies the extent of the embeddedness of capital fractions in
controlling the state apparatus and the functioning of the state. The article also argues for the replacement of the
geopolitical concept of strategic depth with the sociological concept of hegemonic depth to describe this process of
deepening of the neoliberal principles of globalization, the concomitant development of hegemonic projects and their
reflection on TFP. The final section argues that there are always limits to hegemonic depth and that the current Justice
and Development Party government may have difficulties in extending the penetration of its hegemony.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Historical materialism, Turkish Foreign Policy, Class and State, Hegemony, Hegemonic Projects, Accumulation Strategy

Türk Dış Politikasının Tarihsel Materyalist Bir Analizi: Sınıf, Devlet ve Hegemonya

Öz

Bu makale, eleştirel dış politika çalışmaları adını verdiğim bir yaklaşım çerçevesinde Türk Dış Politikası’nın tarihsel materyalist analizini yapmaya yönelik bir çerçeve çizmektedir. Bu doğrultuda eleştirel bir politik iktisat yaklaşımı benimseyerek Gramsci’nin hegemonya kavramını temel almakta ve bu kavramı genişleterek dış politika stratejilerini hakim sınıfların egemenliklerini sürdürmek için geliştirdikleri hegemonya projelerinin bir uzantısı olarak değerlendirmektedir. Makale dış politikanın değerlendirilmesinde yapılar ve failler arasındaki diyalektik ilişkinin nasıl anlaşılması gerektiğine yönelik olarak hegemonik derinlik kavramını önermekte ve devlet-sermaye ilişkisinin incelenmesinde bu kavramı kullanmaktadır. Hegemonik derinlik sermaye sınıflarının devlet kurumları ile bu kurumların işleyişindeki etkilerinin derinliğini ifade etmektedir. Makale bu süreci ifade etmek üzere jeopolitik bir kavram olan stratejik derinlik kavramı yerine, neoliberal küreselleşme ilkeleri ile bunları yansıtan dış politika projelerini ifade etmek üzere sosyolojik bir kavram olan hegemonik derinlik kavramının kullanılmasını önermektedir. Makale hegemonik derinliğin sınırları olduğunu ve mevcut AKP hükümetinin bu sınırlara erişmiş olabileceğini ifade etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tarihsel Materyalizm, Turk Dış Politikası, Devlet ve Sınıf, Hegemonya, Hegemonya Projeleri, Hegemonik Derinlik.

Kaynakça

• Ahmad, Feroz. The Young Turks, London, Oxford University Press, 1969.
• Ahmad, Feroz. “Vanguards of a nascent bourgeoisie: the social and economic policy of the Young Turks 1908-1918”, O. Okyar and Halil İnalcık (eds.), Papers presented to the “First International Congress of the Social and Economic History of Turkey”, Ankara, Meteksan, 1980.
• Akça, İsmet. “Hegemonic Projects in Post-1980 Turkey and the Changing Forms of Authoritarianism”, İsmet Akça et al. (eds.), Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal Hegemony, Londra, Pluto Press, 2014.
• Allinson, Jamie and Alexander Anievas. “The uses and misuses of uneven and combined development: an anatomy of a concept”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol.22, No.1, 2009, p.47-67.
• Atasoy, Yıldız. Islam’s Marriage with Neo-Liberalism: State Transformation in Turkey, 1st ed., London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
• Ayhan, Berkar and Seher Sağıroğlu. “İslami Burjuvazinin Siyasal İktisadı”, Praksis, No.27, 2012, p.117-144.
• Babacan, Mehmet. 2011. “Whither an Axis Shift: A Perspective from Turkey’s Foreign Trade“, Insight Turkey, Vol.13, No.1, 2011, p.129-157.
• Bekmen, Ahmet. “State and Capital in Turkey During the Neoliberal Era”, İsmet Akça et al. (eds.), Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal Hegemony, London, Pluto, 2014, p.47-74.
• Bieler, Andreas and Adam David Morton. “A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations” Capital and Class, Vol.28, No.1, 2004, p.85-114.
• Bieler, Andreas and Adam David Morton. “Globalisation, the state and class struggle: a ‘Critical Economy’ engagement with Open Marxism“, British Journal of Politics, Vol.4, No.3, 2003, p.467-499.
• Boratav, Korkut. 1980’li Yıllarda Türkiye’de Sınıflar ve Bölüşüm, 3rd.ed., Ankara, İmge, 2016.
• Buğra, Ayşe. State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994.
• Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Pricenton, Princeton University Press, 1993.
• Cox, Robert W. Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York, Columbia University Press, 1987.
• Çağaptay, Soner. “European Union Reforms Diminish the Role of the Turkish Military: Ankara Knocking on Brussels’ Door”, The Washington Institute, Policywatch 781, 12 August 2003.
• Davutoğlu, Ahmet. Stratejik Derinlik:Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, Küre Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004.
• De Graaf, Nana and Bastiaan van Apeldoorn. “Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics”, Critical Sociology, Vol.37, No.4, 2011,p.403-427.
• Delibas, Kayhan. The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey: Urban Poverty, Grass Roots Activism and Islamic Fundamentalism, London, Tauris, 2016.
• Düzgün, Eren. “Class, State and Property: Modernity and Capitalism in Turkey”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol.53, No.2, 2012, p.119-148.
• Geyikdagi, Mehmet Yasar. Political Parties in Turkey: The Role of Islam, NY, Praeger Publishers, 1984.
• Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, (ed. and trans.), Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.
• Gülalp, Haldun. “Patterns of Capital Accumulation and state-society relations in Turkey”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.15, No.3,1985, p.329-348.
• Gülalp, Haldun. “Capitalism and the Modern Nation-State: Rethinking the Creation of the Turkish Republic”, Journal of Historical Sociology, Vol.7, No.2, 1994, p.155-176.
• Gürel, Burak. “İslamcılık: Uluslararası Bir Ufuk Taraması”, Neşecan Balkan et al. (eds.), Neoliberalizm, İslamcı Sermayenin Yükselişi ve AKP, İstanbul, Yordam Kitap, 2013.
• Gürsoy, Yaprak. “The Impact of EU-driven reforms on the political autonomy of the Turkish military”, South European Politics and Society, Vol.16, No.2, 2011, p.293-308.
• Harvey, David. The New Imperialism, Oxford and New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Heper, Metin. The State Tradition in Turkey, Walkington, Eothen Press, 1985.
• Herring, Eric. “Historical Materialism”, Alan Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Herring, Eric and Doug Stokes. “Critical Realism and historical materialism as resources for critical terrorism studies”, Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol.4, No.1, 2011, p.5-21.
• Hoşgör, Evren. “Islamic Capital/ Anatolian Tigers: Past and Present”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.47, No.2, 2011, p.343-360.
• Hoşgör, Evren. “AKP’nin Hegemonya Sorunsalı Uzlaşmasız Mutabakat”, Neşecan Balkan et al. (eds.), Neoliberalizm, İslamcı Sermayenin Yükselişi ve AKP, İstanbul, Yordam Kitap, 2014.
• İnan, Huricihan. “Osmanlı Tarihi ve Dünya Sistemi: Bir Değerlendirme”, Toplum ve Bilim, Sayı 23, Güz 1983, s.9-39.
• İslamoğlu, Huri and Çağlar Keyder. “Agenda for Ottoman History”, Review, Vol.9, No.1, 1977, p.101-130.
• Jessop, Bob. State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place, Cambridge, Polity, 1990.
• Joseph, Jonathan. “A Realist Theory of Hegemony”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol.30, No.2, 2000, p.179-202.
• Joseph, Jonathan. “Hegemony and the Structure Agency Problem in International Relations: a Scientific Realist Contribution”, Review of International Studies, Vol.34, No.1, 2008, p.109-128.
• Joseph, Jonathan. “On the Limits of Neo-Gramscian International Relations: A Scientific realist Account of Hegemony”, Alison J. Ayers et al. (eds.), Gramsci, Political Economy and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperor, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2008.
• Joseph, Jonathan. “The limits of governmentality: Social theory and the international”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol.16, No.2, 2010, p. 223-246.
• Karaveli, Halil. “Turkey at 90: Capitalist Development has Determined the Political Journey of the Republic” The Turkey Analyst, 06 November 2013.
• Karaveli, Halil. “Turkey’s Journey from Secularism to Islamization: A Capitalist Story” The Turkey Analyst,, 13 May 2016.
• Kaya, Yasin. “Turkey’s Turn to the East and the Intra-Class Contradictions in Turkey”, Global Discourse, Vol.2, No.2, 2012, http://global-discourse.com/contents.
• Keyder, Çağlar. State and Class in Turkey: a Study in Capitalist Development, London, Verso, 1987.
• Keyder, Çağlar, Türkiye’de Devlet ve Sınıflar, İstanbul, İletişim, 1989.
• Kılınçoğlu, Deniz T. Economics and Capitalism in the Ottoman Empire, London and New York, Routledge, 2015.
• Kirişçi, Kemal. “Turkey’s ‘Demonstrative Effect’ and the Transformation of the Middle East”, Insight Turkey, Vol.13,No.2, 2011, p.33-55.
• Kirişçi, Kemal. “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the Trading State”, New Perspectives on Turkey, Vol.40, 2009, p.29-57.
• Kut, Şule. “The Contours of Turkish Foreign Policy in the 1990s”, Barry Rubin and Kemal Kirisci (eds.), Turkey in World Politics – an Emerging Multiregional Power, London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001.
• Lesser, Ian O. “Bridge or Barrier? Turkey and the West After the Cold War”, Graham E. Fuller, et al., Turkey’s New Geopolitics: From the Balkans to Western China, Boulder, CO, Wesview, 1993.
• Morton, Adam David. “Social forces in the Struggle over Hegemony: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Political Economy”, Rethinking Marxism, Vol.15, No.2, 2003, p.153-79.
• Morton, Adam David. “Reflections on Uneven Development: Mexican Revolution, Primitive Accumulation, Passive Revolution”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol.37, No.1, 2010, p.7-34.
• Morton, Adam David. “The continuum of passive revolution”, Capital and Class, Vol.34, No.3, 2010, p.315-342.
• Morton, Adam David. “Sosyolojik Marksizmin Sınırları?”, Praksis, No.27, 2012, p.9-40.
• Morton, Adam David. Revolution and State in Modern Mexico: The Political Economy of Uneven Development, Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2011.
• Mufti, Malik. “The AK Party’s Islamic Realist Political Vision: Theory and Practice”, Politics and Governance, Vol.2, Issue 2, 2014, p.28-42.
• Oğuzlu, Tarık. “Soft Power in Turkish Foreign Policy”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.61, No.1, 2007, p.81-97.
• Oğuzlu, Tarık. “Middle Easternization of Turkey’s Foreign Policy: Does Turkey Dissociate from the West?”, Turkish Studies, Vol.9, No.1, 2008, p.3-20.
• Oran, Baskın. Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt I: 1919-1980, İstanbul, İletişim, 2005.
• Öniş, Ziya. “Entrepreneurs, Democracy, and Citizenship in Turkey”, Comparative Politics, Vol.34, No.4, 2002, p.439-456.
• Öniş, Ziya. “Turgut Özal and his Economic Legacy: Turkish Neo-Liberalism in Critical Perspective”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.40, No.4, 2004, p.113-134.
• Öniş, Ziya. “Multiple Faces of the ‘New’ Turkish Foreign Policy: Underlying Dynamics and a Critique”, Insight Turkey, Vol.13, No.1, 2011, p.47-65.
• Öniş, Ziya. “The Triumph of Conservative Globalism: The Political Economy of the AKP Era”, Turkish Studies, Vol.13, No.2, 2012, s.135-152.
• Öztan, Güven Gürkan. “The Struggle for Hegemony Between Turkish Nationalisms in the Neoliberal Era”, İsmet Akça et al. (eds.), Turkey Reframed: Constituting Neoliberal Hegemony, London, Pluto Press, 2014.
• Pamuk, Şevket. Osmanlı Ekonomisi ve Dünya Kapitalizmi, Ankara, Yurt Yayınevi, 1984.
• Pamuk, Şevket. Türkiye İktisadi Tarihi 1500-1914, Ankara, Gerçek Yayınevi, 1999.
• Poulantzas, Nicos. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism, London, New Left Books, 1975.
• Poulantzas, Nicos. State, Power, Socialism, London, Verso, 1978.
• Poulantzas, Nicos. Political Power and Social Classes, London, New Left Books, 1973.
• Rapkin, David P. World Leadership and Hegemony, Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1990.
• Robinson, William I. “Gramsci and Globalisation: From Nation-State to Transnational Hegemony”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol.8, No.4, 2005, p.559-574.
• Saraçoğlu, Cenk and Özhan Demirkol. “Nationalism and Foreign Policy Discourse in Turkey Under the AKP Rule: Geography, History and National Identity”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.42, No.3, 2015, p.301-319.
• Savran, Sungur. Türkiye’de Sınıf Mücadeleleri: 1919-1980, İstanbul, Turkey, Kardelen Yayınları, 2010.
• Secor, Anna. “Turkey’s Democracy: A Model for the Troubled Middle East?”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Vol.52, No.2, 2011, p.157-172.
• Şen, Mustafa. “Transformation of Turkish Islamism and the Rise of the Justice and Development Party”, Turkish Studies, Cilt 11, No.1, p.59-84.
• Tekin, Beyza Ç. and Barış R. Tekin. “The Limits, Dilemmas and Paradoxes of Turkish Foreign Policy: A Political Economy Perspective”, LSEE Papers on South Eastern Europe, March 2015, p.1-63.
• Toktaş, Şule and Ümit Kurt.“The Turkish Military’s Autonomy, JDP Rule and the EU Reform Process in the 2000s: An Assessment of the Turkish Version of Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DECAF)”, Turkish Studies, Volume 11, No. 3, 2010, p.387-403.