The Political alliances and the state: land reforms in the republican period of Turkey

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study analyses the various projects of intervention into the composition and relations of ownership in land-ind Tur key throughout the republican period-around the`problematique` of the constitution of the relations between the state and large landowners and its importance for political alliances and contradictions between large landownership and other agricultu ral or non-agricultural classes. I do not favor instrumentalist and reductionist ap proaches which concieved the capitalist state as a simple in strument of dominant classes. The relationship between the capi talist state and dominant classes must be defined in conjunction with and in relation to the constitution and maintenance of the domination of the ruling classes. The content of the relationship between the state and dom inant classes is an objective and historically-conditioned rela tionship The struggles over the constitution and maintenance of class domination were the bedrock of the content of the consti tution of the relationship between the state and large landown ership on the basis of the projects of intervention. The parlia ment and political party are vital in order to understand the forms of the constitution of the relationship between the state and large landownership at a political level. mcomposition and relations of land throughout republican period, but there is no essential continuation between the various in terventions. The concept of `con junctural causality` is used to understand the specific historical reality. By this analytical framework it was concluded that there are four distinct periods in the historical process of discussions and struggles over the land question. The characteristics of the first period's of projects of intervention was the consolidation of state power in the East. In the second period the non -existence of an industrial bour geoisie was the central paradox of the political power. The characteristics of the third period's of projects of interven tion was the unavoidable raising of industrial bourgeoisie. The fourth period which begins with the 1980s is not yet complete. But this continuing period allows to make some pro jections. The relatively egalitarian composition of ownership of land in cen tral and western Anatolia leads us to claim that the possibility of any intervention in the form of land reform is not high for the near future. But there are potential reasons for possible project of intervention in a form other than land reform for the eastern and south-eastern Anatolia.. IV