Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:33:13.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FRAGILE HEGEMONY, FLEXIBLE AUTHORITARIANISM, AND GOVERNING FROM BELOW: POLITICIANS' REPORTS IN EARLY REPUBLICAN TURKEY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Murat Metinsoy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article scrutinizes election district and inspection district reports written by the deputies of the Turkish single-party government and the role of these reports in state decision making. Underscoring social discontent and the fragile hegemony of the new regime—both of which motivated the republican elite to monitor state and party administrations and public opinion—the article argues that the practice of reporting was neither a project of social engineering nor a practice peculiar to the Turkish state but rather a requirement of a polity concerned with the opinion of its citizens. In the absence of direct political participation of the people in government, the reports mediated between the state and society. Contrary to conventional accounts of the single-party period, the article argues that the republican elite did not govern the country through top-down decrees but instead sought to ascertain public opinion and its own administrative defects so as to consolidate its fragile hegemony. Based on these findings, I propose that we redefine the early republican state as a flexible authoritarian regime that was not detached from the society.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 699 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Author's note: I warmly thank Beth Baron, Sara Pursley, the anonymous reviewers and editors of IJMES, Kathryn Kranzler, Asım Karaömerlioğlu, Cengiz Kırlı, Levent Ürer, Sinan Turan, and Elif Mahir Metinsoy for their invaluable comments and contributions.

1 From Kırşehir Deputy and Inspector of Zonguldak Region to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prime Ministry Republican Archive-Catalogue of Republican People's Party (hereafter PMRA-CRPP), 490.1/723.432.1 (7 October 1943).

2 Şerif Mardin argues that the Ottoman Empire epitomized oriental despotism and the strong centralized state. This state tradition was passed on to Kemalism and the republican regime. Mardin, Şerif, Türkiye'de Toplum ve Siyaset, Makaleler 1 (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002), 24Google Scholar, 59, 104. For other examples of this approach, see Heper, Metin, The State Tradition in Turkey (Beverley, U.K.: Eothen Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Tunçay, Mete, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Tek-Parti Yönetiminin Kurulması, 1923–1932 (Ankara: Yurt Yayınları, 1981)Google Scholar; and Keyder, Çağlar, State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development (New York: Verso, 1987)Google Scholar. Another version of the state- and elite-centrist approach to Turkish history emphasizes the struggle of the nationalist, progressive, and idealist leadership against internal and external enemies and backwardness. See Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; and Berkes, Niyazi, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

3 Akkaya, Yüksel, “Türkiye'de Emek Tarihinin Sefaleti Üzerine Bazı Notlar,” Toplum ve Bilim 91 (2001–2002): 288–89Google Scholar. In some cases, sources that describe the intentions or plans of the state have been taken as descriptions of what the state actually did. Since the divergence between what the state planned and what it implemented is often not taken into account, as pointed out by Joel Migdal, the single-party state has been seen as a very strong and monolithic entity. In other words, the image presented by the state has been seen as the reality. For a theoretical discussion of this problem, see Migdal, Joel S., State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, Strong Societies and Weak States: State–Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988).

4 For examples of these recent studies drawing on new sources and approaches, see Metinsoy, Murat, İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nda Türkiye: Savaş ve Gündelik Yaşam (Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi, 2007)Google Scholar; Akın, Yiğit, “Reconsidering State, Party, and Society in Early Republican Turkey: Politics of Petitioning,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39 (2007): 435–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Aslan, Senem, “Everyday Forms of State Power and the Kurds in the Early Turkish Republic,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 43 (2011): 75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For the 1931 RPP Regulations and Program, see Mete Tunçay, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Tek-Parti Yönetiminin Kurulması, 457.

6 Circular about Inspection Districts and Inspectors, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/5.23.1 (22 August 1940).

7 Report of Bekir Kaleli, Party Inspector of Aydın District and Deputy of Gaziantep, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/620.36.1 (20 November 1935).

8 It should be noted that RPP inspector deputies were not the same as general inspectors, whose primary goal was national security in strategic locations, especially the Kurdish-populated regions. On the general inspectors see Koçak, Cemil, Umûmî Müfettişlikler (1927–1952) (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003)Google Scholar.

9 See The Submission of the Proposal Concerning the Abolition of the Inspection Organization to the RPP Council, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/456.1877.2 (25 May 1950).

10 Becker, Jean-Jaques, The Great War and the French People (New York: Berg Publishers, 1985), 217–18Google Scholar; Flood, P. J., France, 1914–1918: Public Opinion and the War Effort (New York and Oxford: MacMillan, 1990), 146, 200Google Scholar; Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 164–75Google Scholar; Kershaw, Ian, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria 1933–1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 6–9Google Scholar; and Unger, Aryeh, “Public Opinion Reports in Nazi Germany,” Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (1965): 565–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Koçak, for example, takes for granted that the reports and inspection practices of the general inspectors are evidence of the continuation in republican Turkey of the centralist and interventionist Ottoman state tradition. Koçak, Umûmî Müfettişlikler, 293.

12 Kırlı, Cengiz, Sultan ve Kamuoyu: Osmanlı Modernleşme Sürecinde “Havadis Jurnalleri” (1840–1844) (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009), 23Google Scholar.

13 İnalcık, Halil, “Tanzimatın Uygulanışı ve Doğurduğu Tepkiler,” Belleten 28 (132): 687–90Google Scholar; Çadırcı, Musa, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1997), 197Google Scholar; Kırlı, Sultan ve Kamuoyu, 24–25; Ortaylı, İlber, İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003)Google Scholar; and Shaw, Stanford, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976–77)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Kırlı, Cengiz, “Kahvehaneler ve Hafiyeler: 19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Osmanlı’da Sosyal Kontrol,” Toplum ve Bilim 83 (1999–2000): 58–77Google Scholar; and Özbek, Nadir, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Sosyal Devlet: Siyaset, İktidar, Meşruiyet (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002), 16Google Scholar.

15 See İnalcık, Halil, “Tanzimatın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler,” Osmanlı İmparatorluğu: Toplum ve Ekonomi (Istanbul: Eren Yayınları, 1993)Google Scholar; and Uzun, Ahmet, Tanzimat ve Sosyal Direnişler (1841): Niş İsyanı Üzerine Ayrıntılı Bir İnceleme (Istanbul: Eren Yayınları, 2002), 11–12Google Scholar.

16 Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde, 197.

17 Halil İnalcık, “Tanzimatın Uygulanışı ve Doğurduğu Tepkiler,” 687–90.

18 Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde, 200.

19 Seyitdanlıoğlu, Mehmet, “Tanzimat Dönemi İmâr Meclisleri,” OTAM 3 (1992): 323–32Google Scholar.

20 Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde, 198.

21 For a concise history of the Ottoman-Turkish police, see Ergut, Ferdan, Modern Devlet ve Polis: Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet'e Toplumsal Denetimin Diyalektiği (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004)Google Scholar. See also Swanson, Glen, “The Ottoman Police,” Journal of Comtemporary History 7 (1972)Google Scholar; and Örsel, Mehmet Salkımlı-Yılmaz, Osmanlı Devleti Emniyet-i Umumiye (Istanbul: Gökso Ofset Matbaacılık, 1990)Google Scholar.

22 Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde, 321–22.

23 There are other kinds of jurnals, including nüfus jurnalleri (population reports), tahaffuz jurnalleri (quarantine reports), and istatistik jurnals (statistics reports) in the Ottoman archive. Kırlı, “Kahvehaneler ve Hafiyeler,” 59–61.

24 Ibid., 70–72.

25 İrtem, Süleyman Kâni, Abdülhamid Devrinde Hafiyelik ve Sansür: Abdülhamid'e Verilen Jurnaller (Istanbul: Temel Yayınları 1999)Google Scholar.

26 Çadırcı, Musa, “II. Abdülhamid'e Sunulan ‘Heyet-i Teftişiye'nin Geştü Güzâr Eylemiş Olduğu Mahallenin Ahvâliyle Heyeti Mezkûrun Harekâtı’ Başlıklı Lâyihâ,” OTAM 3 (1992): 413–85Google Scholar.

27 Koçak, Cemil, “Tek Parti Döneminde Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi'nde Parti Müfettişliği,” Tarık Zafer Tunaya'ya Armağan (Istanbul: Istanbul Barosu Yayınları, 1992)Google Scholar.

28 Tunçay, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Tek-Parti Yönetiminin Kurulması, 356.

29 CHF Nizamnamesi ve Programı 1931 (Ankara: TBMM Matbaası, 1931), 19.

30 The RPP Inspection Regions and Inspection Plan, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/620.36.1 (2 June 1935).

31 For the main motives behind the establishment of the People's Houses, see Karaömerlioğlu, M. Asım, “The People's Houses and the Cult of the Peasant in Turkey,” in Turkey Before and After Atatürk, ed. Kedourie, Sylvia (London: Frank and Cass, 1999)Google Scholar.

32 CHP Teftiş Talimatnamesi (Ankara: Sümer Matbaası, 1943), 3–7.

33 Ibid., 6–7

34 Ibid., 10–12.

35 On the secular reforms, see Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey; see also Turan, Namık Sinan, Hilafetin Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Kaldırılması (Istanbul: Altın Kitaplar Yayınevi, 2004)Google Scholar. For contemporary accounts of the impact of the Great Depression on Turkey, see Hatipoğlu, Şevket Raşit, Türkiye'de Ziraî Buhran (Ankara: Yüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü, 1936)Google Scholar; and Effimianidis, Yorgaki, Cihan İktisadî Buhranı Önünde Türkiye, vol. 2 (Istanbul: Kaatçılık ve Matbaacılık A.Ş., 1935–36)Google Scholar. For a recent account, see Akçetin, Elif, “Anatolian Peasants in the Great Depression, 1929–1933,” New Perspectives on Turkey 23 (2000): 79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the widespread corruption of the Kemalist politicians and the rumors about them circulating among the people, see Tunçay, Mete, ed., Arif Oruç’un Yarın'ı (1933): Tek-Parti Yönetimine Yurtdışından Muhalefet Eden Bir Yayın Organı (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1991)Google Scholar. For a recent study on urban and rural unrest in the face of Kemalist policies and on daily interactions of the state with the peasantry and the working class, see Murat Metinsoy, “Everyday Politics of Ordinary People: Public Opinion, Dissent, and Resistance in Early Republican Turkey” (PhD diss., Boğaziçi University, 2010).

36 On social reactions to Kemalist reforms, see, for example, Mazıcı, Nurşen, “Menemen Olayının Sosyo-Kültürel Analizi,” Toplum ve Bilim 90 (2001): 131–46Google Scholar; and Brockett, Gavin D., “Collective Action and Turkish Revolution: Toward a Framework for the Social History of the Atatürk Era, 1923–1938,” Middle Eastern Studies 34 (1998): 44–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Kurdish resistance in Turkey during the interwar period, see McDowall, David, A Modern History of the Kurds (London: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 191–212Google Scholar; Watts, Nicole, “Relocating Dersim: Turkish State-Building and Kurdish Resistance, 1931–1938,” New Perspectives on Turkey 23 (2000): 5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and T. C. Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı Resmi Yayınları, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Ayaklanmalar (1924–1938) (Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 1972). On the FRP opposition, see Emrence, Cem, 99 Günlük Muhalefet: Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2006)Google Scholar.

37 Tüfekçi, Gürbüz, ed., Atatürk'ün Seyahat Notları 1930–1931 (Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 1998), 48–49Google Scholar.

38 See Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism, 164.

39 Ibid., 165.

40 Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Stalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 16Google Scholar.

41 Holquist, Peter, “Information Is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work: Bolshevik Surveillance in Its Pan-European Context,” Journal of Modern History 69 (1997): 614CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Davies, Sarah, Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia: Terror, Propaganda and Dissent, 1934–1941 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Gellataly, Robert, “Denunciations in Twentieth-Century Germany: Aspects of Self-Policing in the Third Reich and the German Democratic Republic,” in Accusatory Practices: Denunciation in Modern European History, 1789–1989, ed. Fitzpatrick, Sheila and Gellataly, Robert (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

43 See Unger, “Public Opinion Reports in Nazi Germany,” 572–78.

44 Yılmaz, Mustafa and Doğaner, Yasemin, Cumhuriyet Döneminde Sansür (1923–1973) (Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, 2007)Google Scholar.

45 Aydemir, Şevket Süreyya, İkinci Adam: İsmet İnönü, 1938–1950, vol. 2 (Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2000), 215–16Google Scholar.

46 See Toprak, Zafer, “Türkiye'de Toplumbilimlerin Doğuşu,” in Türk Toplum Bilimcileri, ed. Kongar, Emre (Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1996), 29Google Scholar; and Muzaffer Sencer, “Mehmet Ali Şevki,” in Türk Toplum Bilimcileri, 405.

47 Faroqhi, Suraiya, “Political Activity among Ottoman Taxpayers and the Problem of Sultanic Legitimation (1570–1650),” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 35 (1992): 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Political Initiatives ‘From the Bottom Up’ in the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire,” in Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte: In Memoriam Vanco Boskov, ed. Hans GeorgMajer (Wiesbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 1986).

48 For the petitions sent by ordinary people to the RPP, see Öz, Esat, Tek Parti Yönetimi ve Siyasal Katılım (Ankara: Gündoğan, 1992), 166–69Google Scholar; and Akın, “Reconsidering State, Party, and Society in Early Republican Turkey,” 435–57.

49 Öz, Tek Parti Yönetimi ve Siyasal Katılım, 189–90.

50 Prime Ministry Republican Archive-Catalogue of General Directorate of Transactions (hereafter PMRA-CGDT), 30.10/44.283.6 (13 May 1938).

51 Since there are a number of procedural obstacles limiting researchers’ access to police archives, little is known about how the secret police reports functioned in this system. However, we have some clues about the existence of a large number of police reports on public opinion in the police archive. See Türkoğlu, Ömer, “Hüseyin Sami Bey'in Hayatı ve Ankara'daki Ajanlık Yılları,” Kebikeç 4 (1996)Google Scholar.

52 Unger, “Public Opinion Reports in Nazi Germany,” 567.

53 Smith, J. Malcolm and Cotter, Cornelius P., “Administrative Accountability: Reporting to Congress,” The Western Political Quarterly 10 (1957): 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Tunçay, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Tek Parti Yönetiminin Kurulması, 356.

55 Öz, Tek Parti Yönetimi ve Siyasal Katılım, 103.

56 Uran, Hilmi, Hatıralarım (Ankara: n.p., 1959), 231–32Google Scholar.

57 Ağaoğlu, Ahmet, Serbest Fırka Hatıraları (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994), 63Google Scholar.

58 CHF Büyük Kongre Zabıtları (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası, 1931), 79.

59 Tunçay, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nde Tek Parti Yönetiminin Kurulması, 304.

60 Uran, Hatıralarım, 206–207.

61 See, for example, Working Report of the Aydın Provincial Administrative Board of the RPP, 1936, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/620.36.1 (31 December 1936); and Üsküdar Kazası İdare Heyeti Raporu (Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası, 1942).

62 From the RPP Secretary-General to the Çanakkale Provincial Administrative Board of the RPP, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/633.88.1 (23 January 1936).

63 Goloğlu, Mahmut, Devrimler ve Tepkileri (1924–1930) (Ankara: Başnur Matbaası, 1972), 221–23Google Scholar.

64 In 1927, the Second Congress of the RPP introduced a more centralized party organization. See Öz, Tek Parti Yönetimi ve Siyasal Katılım, 221–22.

65 Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu is a good example of a prominent Kemalist politician and intellectual who was at odds with the widespread corruption among the high bureaucracy. As a keen observer of his time, he vividly portrayed corrupt politicians in his famous novel Ankara. See Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri, Ankara (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2002), 105–106, 151Google Scholar.

66 Atatürk, M. Kemal, Tamim, Telgraf ve Beyannameleri 1917–1938 (Ankara: TİTE, 1964), 529–33Google Scholar.

67 See Beşikçi, İsmail, Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkasının Tüzüğü (1927) ve Kürt Sorunu (Istanbul: Komal Yayınları, 1978), 171Google Scholar. On the populist discourse of the Kemalist elite, see Karaömerlioğlu, “The People's Houses and the Cult of the Peasant in Turkey.”

68 Dağlar, Yalçın, Köylerimizden Örnekler: Köylerimiz Hakkında Bir İnceleme (Istanbul: Kader Basımevi, 1951), 108Google Scholar.

69 See CHP Teftiş Talimatnamesi, 7. The same directives can be seen in Article 111 of the RPP Regulations and Programme of 1931. CHP Nizamnamesi ve Programı 1931 (Ankara: TBMM Matbaası, 1931), 19. Some of the deputies’ inspection travels and contacts with the people were praised in national newspapers. See “Halkın Dilekleri,” Cumhuriyet (7 September 1929); and “İstanbul Saylavlarının Temasları: Dün de Beyoğlu'nda Dilekleri Tespit Ettiler,” Son Posta (14 August 1935).

70 The RPP Inspection Regions and Inspection Plan, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/620.36.1 (2 June 1935).

71 1935 Report of Izmir Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/664.224.1 (14 July 1936); Report of Zonguldak Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/722.470.1 (3 December 1942). One inspector even wrote a book about his journey to the region he inspected; see Us, Asım, İstanbul'dan Çoruh'a (Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası, 1948)Google Scholar.

72 1935 Report of Benal Nevzat Arman, Izmir Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/664.224.1 (14 July 1936).

73 Report of Kamil Dursun, Izmir Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/664.224.1 (1 November 1935).

74 Holquist, “Information Is the Alpha and Omega of Our Work,” 449.

75 Unger, “Public Opinion Reports in Nazi Germany,” 567.

76 Smith and Cotter, “Administrative Accountability,” 405.

77 As of 1932, there were fourteen bureaus within the RPP General Executive Committee (Parti Umumi İdare Heyeti), with the following mandates: Organization, Elections, Congress (First Bureau); General Requests (Second Bureau); Investigations into Associations and Parties (Third Bureau); Inspection (Fourth Bureau); National Culture, Scientific Movements, and Publications (Fifth Bureau); Sports and Youth (Sixth Bureau); Courses for the People, Literacy, People's Orators (Seventh Bureau); The Press, Publications of the Party, Dissemination of the Party Program, and Propaganda (Eight Bureau); Labor and Associations of Traders (Ninth Bureau); Investigation and Economic Research (Tenth Bureau); Social Aid Organization (Eleventh Bureau); Harmony between the Practices of the Party Actions and Laws (Twelfth Bureau); Budget, Donations, Membership Fees, and Other Accounts (The Thirteenth Bureau); and Preservation of the Historical Treasures (Fourteenth Bureau). CHF Kâtib-i Umumiliği'nin Fırka Teşkilatına Umumi Tebligatı, vol. 1 (Ankara: Hâkimiyet-i Milliye Matbaası, 1933), 18–19.

78 Ibid., 19.

79 From the Minister of Health and Social Assistance, Hulusi Alataş to the RPP Secretary General, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/510.2048.1 (3 April 1943).

80 Summaries of the Report by Fahrettin Tiritoğlu, Inspector of Gaziantep District and Deputy of Balıkesir, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/510.2048.1 (10 February 1943).

81 From the Minister of Public Works, Sırrı Day, to the RPP Secretary-General, PMRA-CRPP, 490. 1/510.2048.1 (25 May 1943).

82 From The Second Bureau to The Fourth Bureau, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/510.2059.1 (11 March 1940).

83 From the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance to the RPP General Secretariat, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/510.2050.1 (3 February 1942).

84 On the demands of plows, seeds, and other agricultural equipments and financial aid, see Summaries of Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (10 February 1936); Requests in Inspection Reports, 490.1/514.2062.1 (9 February 1939); Report of Sivas Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/10.2059.1 (1941); Report of Inspector of Zonguldak, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/732.472.1 (3 August 1944); 1940 Reports of Eskişehir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/651.167.1 (27 February 1942); Report of Inspector of Gaziantep, 1942, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/510.2048.1; and Report of Eskişehir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/652.169.1 (26 November 1943).

85 Reports of Tokat, Sivas and Kayseri Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/724.477.1 (7 February 1931); Report of Edirne Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/724.478.1 (16 March 1931); Report of Mersin Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/724.478.1 (16 March 1931); 1934 Reports of Eskişehir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/651.165.1 (5 August 1936); Report of Erzurum Deputy (1936), PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/648.151.1; Summaries of Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (10 February 1936); Report of Izmir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/664.225.1 (7 December 1938); Requests in Inspection Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/514.2062.1 (9 February 1939); Report of Sivas Deputies, 1941, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/510.2059.1; and Report of Eskişehir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/652.169.1 (26 November 1943).

86 Summaries of Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (10 February 1936); Requests in Inspection Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/514.2062.1 (9 February 1939); Summaries of 1935 Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/725.481.1; Reports of Eskişehir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/651.165.1 (20 November 1934); Reports of Party Inspectors of Giresun, Ordu and Zonguldak, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/655.182.1 (14 September 1931); Report of Aydın Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/620.36.1 (1 December 1935).

87 1930 Journey Report of Gaziantep Deputy Ali Cenani, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/1454.34.3.

88 Reports about the Situation of the RPP Organizations in Some Provinces and about Their Reorganization and Enlargement, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/724.477.1 (7 February1931).

89 1930 Journey Report of Gaziantep Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/1454.34.3.

90 Eskişehir Election District Reports, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/651.165.1 (20 November 1934).

91 For RPP Edirne Deputy Mehmet Faik's Report about the RPP Organizational Structure in Edirne dated 20.01.1931, see Reports about the Situation of the RPP Organizations in Certain Provinces and about Their Reorganization and Enlargement, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/729.478.1 (16 March 1931).

92 See Reports about the Situation of the RPP, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/729.478.1 (16 March 1931).

93 1930 Journey Report of Gaziantep Deputy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/1454.34.3; Report of RPP Gümüşhane Deputy Hasan Necmi, Konya Deputy Ahmet Kemal, and Aksaray Deputy Musa about the Organization and Enlargement of the RPP Branches in Konya and Aksaray Provinces, PMRA-CGDT, 30.10/79.520.3 (5 January 1931); RPP Edirne Deputy Mehmet Faik's Report, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/729.478.1 (20 January 1931); Reports of Eskişehir Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/651.165.1 (20 November1934); Reports about the Situation of the RPP, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/724.477.1 (7 February 1931); for Report of RPP Denizli Deputy dated 26 February 1931, see Reports about the Situation of the RPP, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/729.478.1 (16 March 1931).

94 Birtek, Faruk and Keyder, Çağlar, “Agriculture and the State: An Inquiry into Agricultural Differentiation and Political Alliances: The Case of Turkey,” The Journal of Peasant Studies 2 (1975): 446–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Acun, Niyazi, Toprak Mahsulleri Ofisi ve Kuruluş Gayeleri (Istanbul: Sinan Matbaası, 1947)Google Scholar.

96 “Türkiye Ziraat Bankasının İpotekli ve Müteselsil Kefaletli Ziraî Alacaklarının Taksitlendirilmesine Dair Kanun” (The Law on the Installment of Joint Debts with Mortgage to the Agricultural Bank of Turkey), Law No. 2814. See Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette) 3036 (24 June 1935): 5394–395. See also Atasagun, Yusuf Zaim, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ziraat Bankası, 1888–1939 (Istanbul: Kenan Basımevi ve Klişe Fabrikası, 1939), 290Google Scholar, 293–96.

97 Turan, Kemal, Yeni Vergi Kanunları’nın Tatbiki Mahiyeti ve Tediye Kabiliyeti Hakkında Tahliller (Izmir: Hafız Ali Matbaası, 1931), 82–84Google Scholar; For the reduction in the livestock tax rates in 1936, see “Hayvan Vergisi Kanunu” (Livestock Tax Law), Law No. 2897, Resmi Gazete 3218 (29 January 1936): 6005–6008.

98 “Vergi Bakayasının Tasfiyesine Dair Kanun” (The Law on the Discharge of the Arrears of Taxes), 4 July 1934, Law No. 2566. Resmi Gazete 2750 (12 July 1934): 4126–128. According to this law, half of the peasants’ debts to the Agricultural Bank was to be forgiven on the condition of payment of the remaining half.

99 From the RPP Secretary General to the Minister of Agriculture, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (22 February 1936).

100 From the Minister of Agriculture to the RPP Secretary General, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (14 August 1936).

101 From the RPP Secretary General to the Provincial Chief of the RPP and to the Ministry of Economy, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (1 January 1936).

102 From the Secretary General to the Minister of Public Works, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/726.485.1 (15 January 1936).

103 From Balıkesir Deputy Hacim Muhiddin to the RPP Secretary General, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/1438.3.2 (20 March 1933).

104 For the protective albeit limited legal regulations regarding labor, see Makal, Ahmet, Türkiye'de Tek Partili Dönemde Çalışma İlişkileri, 1920–1946 (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 1999), 419–30Google Scholar.

105 Report of Istanbul Deputies, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/662.218.2 (6 November 1942 and 7 September 1943); Reports of Istanbul Deputies Submitted to the RPP General Secretariat, PMRA-CRPP, 490.1/663.219.1 (5 November 1945).

106 Metinsoy, İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nda Türkiye, 66–132.