Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi

Öz

The Turkish War of Independence which was won under the leadership of Atatürk, ensured Turkey's independence. The Turkish Revolution that followed initiated radical changes to transition the society based on the identity of the Ummah to a secular Turkish identity. One of the most important points of the revolution was secularism. The declaration of the Republic and the radical and rapid changes made in terms of secularism were carried out with an authoritarian regime. The union of powers allowed these changes to be carried out relatively easily. The unity of powers system was supported by the partisan presidency and the two important institutions (Army and Religious Affairs) being headed by two reliable names (Fevzi Çakmak and Rıfat Börekçi). The President's ability to keep the TBMM under control was possible because he was the leader of the only party in existence. Çakmak and Börekçi kept two institutions that could oppose radical changes, especially in secularism, under control for many years. Therefore, revolutions were able to sign rapid and radical changes with an authoritarian and centralized administration.
As a typical example of non-Western modernization, the bureaucracy, not the social classes, pioneered the change. The changes were carried out quickly and rapidly, using top-down methods. As a result of this extraordinary period, a normalization process is inevitable. This situation is also valid for single-party rule. Multi-party rule was adopted between 1945 and 1950 and Turkey's Democratic Revolution was completed in 1950. The normalization that took place with the transition to multi-party rule brought about a similar situation in the understanding of secularism. The authoritarian understanding of secularism was temporary, just like the authoritarian single-party rule. The end of authoritarian practices did not mean the full normalization and democratization of the regime and the institutionalization of secularism.
The CHP Seventh Ordinary Congress in 1947 is extremely important in that the authoritarian secularism of the single-party period was questioned, criticized and proposed solutions by the CHP itself and its own highest organ. The article reveals CHP's questioning of its understanding of secularism and the non-homogeneous structure within the party. The discussions held at the Congress are parallel to the criticisms made today against the single-party period. However, what is striking here is that these criticisms are made by CHP members themselves. On the other hand, the existence of CHP members who continue to be sensitive about secularism and foresee the damage that secularism will suffer is also noteworthy.