Convergence in new party
THE TURKISH revolutionary left, one of the most powerful in the region in the 1970s, was subsequently marginalised, both through the hammer blow of the military coup d'état of 1980 and its own internal weaknesses, charac- terised notably by extreme fragmentation and a sectarianism which went so far as bloody confrontations between rival groups. The pro- cess of left-wing recomposition remains very laborious and several attempts at regroupment foundered at the beginning of the 1990s. It is in this context that we consider the foundation of the United Socialist Party (BSP), which is to hold its first conference before the end of 1994. Yeni Yol (New Course), the Turkish section of the Fourth International, are participating fully in the process of convergence inside the BSP. * the BSP, and also one of the principal leaders of Kurtulus, a group originating in the revolutionary student movement of the 1960s and 1970s which ERDAL KARA is one of the five vice-presidents of
Internationa/ Viewpoint #261 November 1994
H
OW WOULD you define the United Socialist Party
(BSP)?
From the beginning, the legal party that we wished to create was defined as is today one of the main components of the BSP.
ERDAL TAN spoke with him for International
Viewpoint in Istanbul on 15 July 1994.
28 an umbrella organisation for socialist groups. In other words, it amounts to a common framework where all the participating groups maintain their own organisation and their own propaganda. The principal lesson that we have drawn from the preceding attempts at unification of the socialist movement in Turkey around a communist programme, is that the process will take some time. Our consciousness of this reality has led us to develop other types of projects. The BSP is, then, the fruit of a conception which takes account of these lessons and bases itself on a very simple programme, which is, in my opinion, a programme of permanent action based on certain principles. It is clear that such a programme does not have a detailed perspective for the seizure of power and serves above all to assure a convergence of struggles. But it does not reject the possibility of going beyond the current stage. What is important is that discus-
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
TURKEY
International Viewpoint #261 November 1994 sion of the elaboration of a more detailed programme will take place through winning other sectors of the left to the BSP.
The process that we have been through since November 1993, with the BSA (see International Viewpoint, no. 256, May 1994) and then the BSP, shows us that this approach has revived considerable interest inside the socialist movement. If we succeed in enlarging the BSP with the addition of other sectors, which is perfectly possible, the socialist left could rapidly move out of its current marginalisation and appear as a credible alternative to society. It is the most fundamental question to resolve and the development of the BSP until now shows us that we possess the means to do it. How do you characterise your partners inside the BSP?
The BSP is currently composed of five groups: Kurtulus (Liberation), Emek (Labour), Sosyalist Birlik Partisi (Party of Socialist Unity, SBP), Yeni Yol (New Course), and Sosyalist Politisi (Socialist Party).
The SBP was founded by comrades originating from the former pro-Soviet parties (the Turkish Communist Party, the Workers' Party, the Socialist Workers' Party) and a pro-Chinese group (the Workers' and Peasants' Party). At the beginning, the SBP brought together all the comrades around a fairly rightist programme. But the elements originating from the Communist Party left the party, in opposition to the SBP defining itself as Marxist. Thus, with the departure of those who wished to transform this party into a social democratic party, the programmatic retreat was halted. But in our opinion, the approach of this party to the principal questions of socialism remains rightist.
So far as Emek is concerned, we can say that we in Kurtulus have many points in common with this group. However, we diverge on the conception of socialist democracy and women's liberation. Emek is certainly a revolutionary group, but it would not be false to say that it retains some conceptions from the (Stalinised) Third International. Sosyalist Politika is the group which remains the most attached to, and the most coherent representative of this conception, although both have evolved in a positive fashion in their approach to the current problems of socialism
As to Yeni Yol, we consider this group to also be revolutionary group.
Trotskyism is not a mass or deeply rooted movement in Turkey. But several Trotskyist groups have developed from the milieu of the 1980s. One of the principal reasons for this development was that the socialist movement began at this time to question the heritage of the Third International and had a good deal of contempt for the stereotypes of this period. One could say that for a significant part of the socialist movement, the Trotskyists were no longer regarded as "traitors", even if there are still some groups which have not budged an inch on this question. In speaking of Yeni Yol, it would be useful to compare it to the other Trotskyist groups. In my opinion, Yeni Yol has one characteristic radically different to the other Trotskyist groups in Turkey: it seeks to find a solution to the problems which face us in everyday practice, whereas the others have an approach which one could qualify as theoretical sectarianism. What is your evaluation of the common work carried out during the electoral campaign?
Even if we have encountered difficulties here and there due to the fact that we had different traditions of work, one could say that it was satisfying overall. The necessity of jointly fighting the electoral campaign and the construction of a common party presented us with some difficult moments. But we thought from the beginning that these two processes should be intimately linked. If not, we would commit the same error as the preceding attempts at regroupment; in other words, we would content ourselves with making mutual declarations on our theoretical and programmatic divergences. Indeed, the platform of work realised in common during the electoral campaign has allowed us to genuinely found the party in action, in a very short time.
It is clear that one cannot expect that groups like ours, which have rooted traditions, will instantly abandon their identity. That will take time. But one could say that, in little time, we have learned to be sensitive to the problems of our partners and have tried to resolve them together. For example, the Emek group, which participates in the BSP, had decided to boycott the elections, whereas the BSP participated. But this did not block the process, because of our attitude to Emek, and the reasonable behaviour of this group. What is the point of view of the BSP on the Kurdish question? What are your relations with the Kurdish organisations?
The diverse components of the BSP have different attitudes to the Kurdish question. But we have adopted a common attitude from our first public declaration. This common framework is the unconditional recognition of the right of self-determination of peoples. This means the recognition of the right to found a separate state. Certainly, the recognition of a right and the fashion in which this right is implemented are two distinct things,
The BSP organises in Turkey but refrains from doing so in the Kurdish provinces. For us, it amounts to a question of principle on which we are intransigent. But we believe that this
29
International Viewpoint #261 November 1994 principle is also valid in an inverse sense for the Kurdish organizations. It is only thus that solidarity between the two peoples can be established in a healthy fashion. The Kurdish organisations, and in particular the PKK, represent the Kurdish people and we must oppose attempts to search for interlocutors inside the regime. What is the approach of the BSP to international relations between socialist movements?
The BSP considers itself as a component of the international socialist movement. But it is not enough to say this, it is necessary to act on it. Even if the conditions do not exist today to construct an International, this should not lead us to remain within purely national limits. One of the principal objectives of the BSP is to institute durable and regular relations with the international socialist movement. To the extent that the Kurdish question in particular is very important, as much for us as for neighbouring countries, we must devote ourselves to the task of building a durable and regular solidarity movement on a regional scale in the Middle East, to the construction of a regional organisation, which will itself be linked to the international socialist movement. * 30
MASIS KÜRKÇÜGIL, a member of Yeni Yol and one of the other five vice-presidents, adds: THERE are only two leftwing parties which are legally registered in Turkey today. The first is our BSP. The second is the Workers' Party the successor to the Workers' and Peasants' Party, the Maoist TIKP), which has been legal for a long time now. But the numerical strength of the BSP has already exceeded it and there should be around 2,000 members by the time of the first congress. When the congress takes place a common programme and statutes will be adopted. The delay in holding the founding congress is necessary in that the BSP, as it exists today, cannot be considered a finished product. It is hoped that other currents and a whole range of independent militants will join us, and that they too will have the chance to participate in the debates on the programme and statutes. In particular the unitary dynamic will encourage young militants who do not identify with any of the currents which formed in the 1970s. It should not be forgotten that the socialist movement has been in crisis for 15 years, and the debates of yesteryear do not hold a great deal of meaning for youth. The numerical forces within the BSP are certainly unequal, yet from the start the party decided to tunction by consensus, even while it is recognised that this has some disadvantages. If everybody is in agreement the organisation acts in unison, but in cases of disagreement there is paralysis. All the component groups are attempting to find remedies to these problems of functioning. These questions and challenges will be at the heart of the debates at the founding congress, in order to go beyond the old cleavages and programmatic disagreements. So far as the position of Yen Yol in these debates is concerned, it must stressed that there is no question of an "entryist" approach; on the contrary, we take our full place in the construction of the BSP, even while we maintain (as far as it proves necessary) our freedom to constitute ourselves as a tendency and to diffuse our ideas. It is not a question of having one foot in and one foot out. Our partners respect our political and programmatic traditions. They know also of our international links, but have no objections to them. On the contrary, the different experiences (both happy and unhappy!) of construction, had by the sections of the Fourth International throughout the world, reverberate inside the BSP, and are considered a useful contribution to its own process of construction. ©