For many years, the leftist movement in Turkey was perceived not only as a political choice, but also as a morality, a conscience and an intellectual stance.
Being left meant distancing oneself from self-interest as much as distancing oneself from power. For this reason, in the eyes of society, the left has always been positioned on the fine line between “being right” and “risking to lose”.
Today, the concept of the left has been hollowed out to a great extent. Some of those who speak on behalf of the left no longer take positions according to principles, but according to conjuncture; they change direction according to the wind and legitimize these turns with theoretical justifications. Compared to the legacy of the 1968 generation, this picture points to not only a political but also a deep moral rupture.
The 1968 generation is not a romantic period in the historical memory of the left in Turkey, but rather an ethical threshold for which a price was paid. What names like Deniz Gezmiş, Hüseyin İnan, Yusuf Aslan, Mahir Çayan and İbrahim Kaypakkaya had in common was not the correctness of their ideas, but the price they were willing to pay for those ideas.
For these names, leftism was not a strategy of opening up space by getting closer to the government. On the contrary, it meant risking the price of keeping their distance from the government. Comments such as “conditions were not ripe” or “other ways could have been found”, which are often voiced today, cannot overshadow the real truth: The generation of '68 prioritized a collective ideal of justice, not personal liberation.
The periods when the Turkish left was strong were also the periods when the leftist press was brave.
Uğur Mumcu's articles deciphering state-mafia-politics relations, Abdi İpekçi's principled journalism, Çetin Emeç's populist publishing and Ahmet Taner Kışlalı's enlightened insistence were the compass of conscience of an era.
The common characteristic of these names was that they did not write with the concern of not angering anyone. The self-censorship that is widespread in the media today did not exist in the understanding of the press of that period. There was a price, but there was no fear. Today, there is fear; the will to pay the price is getting weaker.
Aziz Nesin is perhaps the clearest mirror of the Turkish left. He is not only a master of humor; he is a figure of conscience who was repeatedly put on trial, imprisoned, exiled and targeted in Madımak for his opinions. The difference between today's comfortable dissent and the life Aziz Nesin lived clearly shows why the left has eroded so much.
One of the biggest ruptures the left has experienced in recent history is the “enough but yes” line. This attitude is not only a wrong political choice, but also a symbol of a principled dissolution. The new type of left that emerged after this process has gained a clear nomenclature in the language of society:
“On your way, Inc.’
This transformation cannot be explained solely by individual preferences. Neoliberal policies, individualization, depoliticization of universities, economic precarity and the commercialization of the media have played an important role in this metamorphosis.
But these reasons are no excuse for lack of principle.
The crisis of the Turkish left today is not a crisis of power, but a crisis of credibility. The public no longer looks at what is said, but when it is given up.
When the legacy of the '68 generation, the cost culture of the leftist press and the uncomfortable enlightenment of Aziz Nesin are compared with today's pragmatic leftism, the historical gap is revealed in all its nakedness.
Unless this gap is closed, the left will continue to move away not only from power but also from the conscience of society.