Sevgi Doğan[1]
I.
If we want things to stay as they are, we have to change everything.
Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa[2]
While reading Spinoza’s biography-based novel, which describes the life, thoughts, philosophy, intellectual environment, political, religious, social and economic conflicts of the period, war and turmoil of the 1600s, I once again saw that history repeats itself ruthlessly.[3] Certain important concepts for which Spinoza fought for, such as modernism, rationality, and civilization, replayed in my mind as an element of regression rather than a form of progress. History seemed to progress in line with the principle of gattopartism (gattopartismo).[4] Gattopartism paradoxically expresses the stance that “everything must change so that everything stays the same” (tutto deve cambiare perché tutto resti come prima) (or “change everything so that nothing changes”). This was an attitude of those who supposedly supported innovation, but did not really want to change anything important and simply aimed to preserve their privileges.
I think we can put the recent history of Turkey into this conceptual framework. A stalemate where changes are made with the promise of change, but the system remains the same in a paradoxical way… Can this statement be applied to the presidential system in Turkey? I think there is no need to doubt that. The presidential system also expresses a political practice and understanding that states are in favor of real change in society in order to avoid compromising the privileges gained. In this context, the advocates of the presidential system have sought to consolidate their privileges in the system with a gattopartist[5] understanding since it came into force in 2018.
According to President Erdoğan, “all political powers, the executive, legislative, and judiciary, should reflect the identity and objectives of the nation and should not conflict with each other.”[6] Unlike the old system, the President believes that the new presidential system is compatible with the values of the nation. [7] These values are actually values that demand homogeneity. Since coming to power, the AKP government has been trying to dissolve differences, diversity, that is, heterogeneity, into homogeneity. Especially after the 2016 coup attempt (OHAL), Turkey’s clear turn to overt authoritarianism with the Decree-Laws has clearly revealed the homogenization project. With the 2017 referendum (April 16, 2017), the Turkish political system has changed. With the 24 June 2018 elections, a new system called “Presidential Government System” was introduced and this system came into effect as of 9 July 2018. In this way, the separation of powers based on the parliamentary system was abolished and all powers passed to the president.
This new system not only changed this fundamental element of democracy, but also endangered other major cultural and social institutions. One of these institutions is the university along with their representatives, intellectuals and academics. Academic freedoms, one of the cornerstones of these democratic institutions, have worsened with the presidential system. As a result of monopolization, that is, the power gathered in one hand, these institutions have lost their scientific quality because of the institutional system has moved away from the free and democratic form of choice and expression. Arbitrary appointments, dismissals, and investigations, along with the pressure and whistleblowing, presidential system have caused these institutions become no longer serious research centers. When we look at the previous system, that is, the period before the AKP or the pre-presidential system, although the situation was not encouraging, the current situation with the presidential system has not improved but worsened. Erdoğan, who is the chairman of the AKP and also the president of Turkey, has put an end to the election of rectors in universities by his own professors, through concentrating all the powers in his own hands with the presidential system. This prevented rectors from being at the service of science, causing universities to become the cadre center of the AKP. Stance against intellectualism knowledge have become more politicized and institutionalized as the main populist discourse.
II.
State Cannibalism[8]: Anti Intellectual-Knowledge Stance and the Case of Robe-Handcuffs
Although anti-intellectualism in Turkey did not emerge after the failed coup attempt in 2016, it intensified in the following period, rendering universities, which are the production places of knowledge, dysfunctional. Not only that, anti-intellectualism laid the foundations for the institutionalization of oppression and its tools. Where democracies do not function ‘properly’, universal values have always been suppressed. One of these values is independent research and freedom of expression. History is full of examples of pressures on intellectual activities such as independent research. The most concrete example of this is that the Academics for Peace were dismissed from their jobs and citizenship rights in 2016 in our own recent history. This shame in Turkey’s recent history is very similar to the dismissal of 301 university professors as a result of the political pressure employed to universities after the 1966 military coup in Argentina. In Argentina, a total of 1,300 skilled researchers were fired or forced to flee abroad.[9] Theories, disciplines and viewpoints considered “subversive” during the military intervention were: Marxism, psychoanalysis, third world ideologies, populism, existentialism, Paulo Freire’s psychology, alternative psychiatric theories, liberation theology, structuralism, sociology, human rights, addiction theory; in short, […] not even (Saint-Exupery’s) The Little Prince has escaped the state cannibalism advocated by those who present themselves as defenders of Western Christian culture.[10]
At the same time, many books were banned in Argentina. Ironically, one of the Marxist classics, The Holy Family, was deemed worthy of protection because of its title, while the titles of some books regarded as suspicious and burned.[11] Due to exiles and dismissals, the quality of the country has decreased. It is important to investigate not only the essence or quality of the academy after the military coup, but also what happened after the coup and its consequences. For example, some scholars in Argentina could not return to their former duties for a long time.[12] The situation of Argentina at that time can be compared to the situation of Turkey today.
Despite the decision of the 2019 Constitutional Court in Turkey, the reinstatements of the academics who signed the petition “We will not be a party to this crime”, which opposed the military intervention and use of violence by the state in the Southeast in 2016 and demanded a return to peace negotiations, has not yet been possible for all of them. After dismissing many academics, Turkish president and the leader of the presidential system Erdoğan who is known as his teasing (2212 academics, along with the second signatories, signed the petition “We will not be a party to this crime”), he humorously invited to intellectuals abroad to return to serve their homeland in 2018. As we have seen in the example of Argentina, although Turkey has not yet experienced such a fierce state cannibalism, what does this invitation mean when there are many scientists who lost their jobs as a result of the violent practices of the state and are waiting to return to their jobs? While this call stands, there are many scientists who have somehow found a position abroad—but precarious—and are unwilling to return because of the troubled academic environment and issues of research and freedom of expression in their homeland. It is possible to easily find many examples of anti-intellectualism in Turkey after 2016 similar to Argentinian experience. In this regard, we can point to many symbols that we owe to the creativity of the Turkish regime:
• The cold winter month of February 2017. In front of the Ankara Cebeci Campus, academics who were dismissed from their jobs with the Statutory Decrees were faced with police violence while wearing their robes that symbolize free and independent research. The robes of academics, whom the president described as pseudo-intellectual, had been smashed under the feet of the police. The oppressed was not just a piece of cloth, but the value of knowledge and intellectualism it represented.
• January 2021 is another cold winter month of the year. This time in front of Boğaziçi University South Campus. Students protesting the trustee rector appointed by the president and the leader of the presidential system were faced with police violence and the door of the university was handcuffed. The humorist rector of the humorist president said, “The door is broken, handcuffs are put on to fasten the door. Such a practical solution has been found” and he thought it appropriate to eliminate the question of “why handcuffs”.[13] As in the case of Ankara Cebeci in 2017, although it has not yet been crushed under the boots of the police, in 2021 the robe was again on the agenda. University professors carried out their actions in their robes and were taken into custody with them.
The trampling of the robe became a symbol of anti-intellectualism. Handcuffs are the expression of institutionalized violence. Now not only individuals but also institutions can be handcuffed, detained and prosecuted. While the closure of free and independent institutions by decrees is proof of this, institutions that lost their independence with the presidential system (such as the judiciary) are another examples. Answering the following questions here is important in terms of understanding the broken and damaged relationship between the knowledge-passion (love-desire)-intellectual trio in Turkey’s recent history. What kind of regime is the presidential system? What impact has the presidential system had/have/will have on academic freedoms or free-scientific research?
Especially since 2016, individuals and institutions have been/are exposed to attacks on the grounds of terrorism. All the trials of academics and intellectuals who signed the petition “We will not be a party to this crime” in 2016 accused them of making “Terrorist Organization Propaganda” based on Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terror Law and Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code. According to this anti-terror law and penal code, both academics and journalists were sent to prison. While the USA is attacking the countries that are in conflict with herself with the idea of terrorism, the President of Turkey has attacked and continues to attack the different opinions of its own citizens, opponents and intellectuals with the allegation of terrorism.
III.
Academic Freedoms
Science should not be a selfish idle time; those who are lucky enough to devote themselves to scientific studies should be the first to put their knowledge at the service of humanity.
Karl Marx[14]
Academic freedoms, in a different form, have been under attack from both authoritarian and (so-called) democratic countries in recent years. In other words, academic freedom has ceased to be only a matter of conflict, that is, of countries where there is only war and authoritarian regimes strangle people. It has also become a problem for democratically established countries. In this context, we have witnessed serious attacks on freedom of expression, critical thinking and academic freedom all over the world in recent years. The attack is similar in some countries while it is unique in others.
To give just a few examples; In Poland, Hungary and Romania, attacks target gender studies. Last year the Greek Parliament voted to establish a university police force. In Greece, until last year the police were only allowed to intervene at the request of the administrators in universities.[15] Ethnic studies in the United States and the United Kingdom and any critical analysis of the Israeli state concerning the Palestinian issue are instantly becoming a ground for dismissal.
In Germany and France, postcolonial studies are seen as a dangerous area for European values. In recent years, we have witnessed attacks on academic freedom in France on charges of ‘Islamo-Gauchisme’ (Islamo-Gauchisme, islamogoshism), meaning “an alliance between extremists and leftist academics”.[16] The concept has become a common attacking ground on leftist and anti-racist groups accused of being separatists and allying with terrorists, threatening the Republic and its values. [17] In 2021, the French Minister of Higher Education accused Islamic-leftism of corrupting the entire society. In fact, the education minister tried to relate this concept to “race, gender and social class research”. That’s why the ministry of higher education took action against Islamic-leftism to save society and started a kind of witch hunt. It is similar to Turkey, of course. These examples not only show that critical thinking is also under serious threat in (allegedly) democratic countries, but also point out that western democracy is not that protected, but rather how fragile it is.
Elisabetta Brighi, Mattia Giampaolo and Paola Rivetti in their article Bugie demokrathe e di Regime draw our attention to the danger/threat to academic freedom and freedom of research in a democratic country like Italy and an authoritarian country like Egypt. When states find an academic research as irritating or invasive, they easily decide that related research is dangerous and should not be done.[18] The mentioned study refers to some cases where students and their colleagues were prosecuted for their research on movements found offensive, such as the NoTav[19] and NoTap[20] movements in Italy. Of course, these attacks are not just about academic freedom, but also about Islam, gender and race itself. Above, I have tried to briefly illustrate how these broad issues can be analyzed in relation to academic freedom. As can be seen in these examples, the issue of academic freedom has turned into a global problem beyond national borders. From here, we can now return to our main topic, the problem of academic freedom in Turkey.
As I mentioned above, academic freedoms in Turkey are directly related to the political structure of the country. Therefore, academic freedoms should be analyzed within the framework of the nature of the existing political structure, namely authoritarianism. It seems to me that we can divide authoritarianism in Turkey into two ways to simplify our understanding of historical facts. While the first type of authoritarianism was based on military intervention, which brought violence, violation of freedom of expression, and harsh restrictions on civil society and civil organizations, the second type of authoritarian regime, which started with the AKP’s coming to power in the 2000s—after the 2002 general elections—replaced military forces with police forces. What I mean here by police forces, in a broad sense, denotes, as Gramsci writes, “not only the civil service designed to suppress crime, but also all forces organized by the state and private individuals to protect the political and economic domination of the ruling classes.”[21] What the two forms of authoritarianism have in common is that they are both characterized by the attacks on freedom of speech, academic freedom, scientific research, etc. However, when it comes to the contemporary form of authoritarianism, democratic principles have been further broken by amending the constitution and removing the separation of powers, one of the cornerstones of democracy. This second type of authoritarianism can be analyzed in terms of Gramscian concepts such as Caesarism and Bonapartism, and the role of the intellectual in establishing oppressive control over society. In this context, we can name Turkish political regime or authoritarianism as reactionary/regressive Caesarism in Gramsci’s terms. The question must be asked here whether this administration can be regarded as hegemonic in the Gramscian sense, despite Erdogan’s growing authoritarian ‘power’.
IV.
Reading the Academy in Turkey in the Caesarist-Bonapartist Form of Authoritarianism
If the ruling class has lost its consensus, that is, if it is no longer “leading/ruling” but merely “ruling/sovereign” and has been using pure coercive power, it means precisely that the large masses have broken with their traditional ideologies, they do not believe in what they believed before. The crisis lies precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; during this interregnum, a wide variety of sick symptoms (i phenomenon morbosi) occur.
Antonio Gramsci[22]
Unlike some analyzes that argue that Erdogan has built and maintained his hegemony, the AKP government has failed to build hegemony ‘deservedly’ due to a lack of ideological and intellectual leadership in the Gramscian sense.
Gramsci sought to understand the role of Caesarism in the rise of fascism during the development of Italian capitalism. Gramscian Caesarism describes a situation in which the forces in conflict balance each other in a catastrophic (destructive) way; that is, they balance each other in such a way that the continuation of the conflict can only end with their mutual destruction.[23] According to Gramsci, this is an ‘organic crisis’ or ‘crisis of authority’, which eventually leads to a Caesarian solution, namely the definitive intervention or mediation of a third power, a ‘great personality’.[24]
In today’s Turkey, the emergence and consolidation of Erdogan’s Caesarist model bring many factors together: progressive and reactionary forces in conflict, charismatic leadership, the role of the parliamentary system, the combination of domination and consent, religious elements, the destruction of democratic and republican vestiges, and instead put the one-man regime into place as well as a kind of bureaucratic police dictatorship.
More specifically, AKP emerges out from as the ‘third power’ as a result of the ‘catastrophic (destructive) balance’ between the AKP government’s self-proclaimed ‘left’ power and Kemalism (which is most strongly expressed in the tension between secularism and Islam) along with the cleavage among the right-wing conservative, nationalist and radical religious groups. In this conflict, neither secularism nor (radical) Islamism wins, and eventually a third power emerges, intervenes and ultimately wins: Erdogan and the AKP.
They came to power with promises quite different from their Islamist origins. They managed to differentiate themselves by presenting a reformist, secular and pro-Western face. This helped it gains its first approval by both Turkey’s liberal intellectuals and international organizations such as the EU. In other words, Erdogan’s extremely reactionary political, economic and cultural project managed to hide behind a benevolent and seemingly progressive face.
This authoritarianism is consistent with Gramsci’s definition that the Caesarian solution takes one of two forms: progressive or reactionary. Progressive Caesarism means that the intervention of the third power helps progressive forces come to power. Reactionary Caesarism, on the other hand, points out that the third force serves the victory of the reactionary forces. In the first case, the Caesarist regime is the result of an organic crisis that resulted in a ‘quantitative-qualitative’ transformation—from one type of state to another with significant improvements for the subaltern class. Reactionary Caesarism, on the other hand, is characterized only quantitatively, that is, there is no transition from one type of state to another, no amelioration for marginalized groups, only the continuation of the oppressive status quo.
Returning to the concrete example of Turkey, it is possible to briefly mention three ways in which Erdogan’s Caesarism can be considered reactionary.
Firstly, in the political arena, the AKP succeeded in transforming the country’s long-standing parliamentary system into a predominantly centralized presidential system, thus eliminating the separation of powers. The other major political change was the weakining of the historically secular and Kemalist military, which predominantly favoring the integrity of the state against Islamist, Leftist and Kurdish opposition forces and the expansion of the repressive forces of the police, which are increasingly fighting against any opposition to the Erdogan regime.
Secondly, another important element of Erdogan’s Caesarist model is the influence and role of religion in building a new authoritarianism in sharp contrast to the traditional secular state. Religion is a key element of Erdogan’s populism and Caesarism, instrumentalized in his electoral victory and creating an aggrieved environment against his secular-liberal opponents.
Thirdly, another example of Erdogan’s ‘quantitative’ reactionary Caesarism is the AKP’s misleading and so-called promises to abolish the Higher Education Council (YÖK), which aims to centralize all universities in an effort to control them under a single institution (in different election campaigns: 2002, 2007, 2011).[25] AKP promised to abolish this institution and establish a more democratic and autonomous university system. In reality, the AKP did just the opposite. Not only it did not abolish YÖK, it also placed profiles that were loyal to Erdoğan in the universities. Moreover, Turkey has further deepened the neo-liberalization of the university system; established new universities to hand over their cadres to AKP supporters and imposed a series of top-down anti-democratic practices/reforms that weakened the academic community and gave direct decision-making authority to President Erdoğan.
V.
Academic freedom includes […] freedom to teach and debate without being restricted by any established doctrine, freedom to conduct research and to disseminate and publish their results, freedom to express their opinions freely about the institution or system in which they belong, freedom of not to be subject to institutional censorship, freedom to participate professional or representative academic institutions.[26]
(Definition of UNESCO, 1997)
In terms of the third context I mentioned above, the interviews I conducted with 12[27] academicians still working at universities in rural and urban areas in 2019 prove that scientific research and academic freedom are worrisome in Turkey and that our relationship with knowledge is being tried to be reformulated.[28] This research was carried out through semi-structured interview technique with 4 female and 8 male academicians with different academic titles and different research fields. The interviews were conducted anonymously and only their age and gender were stated. Due to its reliability, this research was carried out remotely by virtual meeting, especially on the Jitsi platform. Only two interviews were made via Whatsapp. An interview was presented in written form and an interview conducted via the Jitsi platform was recorded.
This study was conducted to discuss the situation of academic freedoms in Turkey within the existing system. The main issue of the research is to reveal the situation of the academy resulting from the systematic attacks after 2016. In this respect, it has been tried to reveal what academic freedom means or whether it still has a meaning, what are the main obstacles and difficulties in front of academic production and freedom.
Interviews show that a collective insecurity and vulnerability dominate academic, scientific and free environment. These interviews revealed that academic freedoms have turned into a tool of oppression not only for those who oppose but also for those who are close to but critical of the regime. In Turkey, not only those who were expelled from the academy with the 2016 process for signing the petition, but also those who remained behind were/are exposed to pressure and restrictions in other ways. Although they have been subjected to a lot of injustice in this process, not only the Kurds, but also those who did not sign up but took part in the process in different ways and who were in the university as opponents continue to be treated unfairly.
The academics interviewed stated that they experience a collective fragility and that insecurity has become the main object of anxiety. They linked the pressures on academic freedom to different elements: 1) freedom of expression, 2) institutional boundaries, 3) self-censorship (the example given is reflection on how the lecture will be delivered before the lecture), 4) political environment/state pressure, and 5) the pressures that students cause. It is possible to classify all these factors as public and private areas of pressure. In other words, the area of private pressure corresponds to the pressure created by the individual himself through self-censorship, we can also call this self-restriction. What is meant by public pressure is the pressure created by the institution the person works for and other institutions to which it is affiliated, as well as the pressure created by the state itself with law enforcement. Apart from these, one of the academicians interviewed discussed academic freedom in the context of subject-time-language. In this context, he pointed out three important criteria:
1. Critical issue (issue of political importance),
2. Critical time period,
3. Being able to write and speak in their own language.
These factors meant that: Being able to discuss critical issues in the mother tongue at very critical times indicated that academic freedom is also related to freedom of expression. However, most of the interviewees defined academic freedom in the context of UNESCO’s definition above, as being able to freely research, freely develop oneself, and freely share research with the community.
One of the interviewees listed the important factors that determine or enable academic freedom as follows: 1) the situation of political power, 2) the approach of the society, 3) the approach of the academia to the academy. This meant: How does political power approaches academic freedom, how much does society claims these freedoms, and how does academia respond to pressures and freedoms? These are influential factors that determine academic freedom and also enable it to exist. The lack of these conditions creates both insecurity, vulnerability, and resistance. One of the academics draws attention to the collective insecurity by stating that the academy is no longer such a secure place as it used to be. These three factors are related and reinforcing factors. This approach shows that freedoms should be evaluated in terms of the state-academy-society trio. When the oppression became concrete, neither academics nor society could claims these freedoms. This particularly points to how great the distance is between society and academia. There is a gap between academics and citizens. One of the reasons for this is that society never fully enjoys freedoms. This includes the academy itself.
Especially after 15 July 2016, there has been a lot of change in the academic field. Rectors and universities took a stand according to the political structure. In the context of the operations carried out by the state during this conflict and political crisis, the university left its scientific identity aside and assumed a political task – it was compelled to undertake it. These pressures have deeply affected many graduate and doctorate students and professors. As a result, these people in the academy take a back seat and close themselves into their own world. Mehmet Fatih Tıraş’ suicide is one of the examples that can be given to this situation, but it also causes us to ask the following question: Was it a suicide or a murder?
One of the interviewees stated that they are faced with situations that go so far as to become addicted to drugs: “Some of the master’s, doctoral students and even some of the teachers around me either completely retreated into their own little worlds or some of them went to substance addiction. Especially among students, the use of antidepressants […] increased, there are a lot of academics turning to drugs or addictive drugs, alcohol use has also increased”. The same person associated this condition with the inability of the mind to be free. According to him, although the pressures are not directed to the person, propagandas occupy the mind and the mind cannot be free.
As stated above, these pressures not only closed the individuals in the university, but also caused them to use anti-depressants, as the interviewee expressed. Just as the use of anti-depressants has increased among academics[29], it has been observed that the use of anti-depressants has also increased in individuals in recent years.[30] The same interviewee pointed out that the tendency towards alcohol and addictive drugs has increased among academics. One of the interviewees stated the reason for the depression among the academicians as follows: “Academic life is a field that can see a little better what society cannot see, but because they could not produce a solution for the society, they got into a depression because they knew the solution and could not actually do anything. They experienced what is called the collapse. While these are energetic people, they no longer want to do anything. We cannot say that there is academic freedom if there is desperation. I don’t think there is academic freedom in Turkey.”
In short, we can list the consequences of the oppression and violence expressed as a result of these interviews as follows: introversion; increased use of anti-depressants and other addictive substances; self-censorship; loss of energy and will to research and academic work; mobbing; exemption from funding for research and being more cautious, especially in the public sphere.
As the institutional control and hierarchy deepened after the coup attempt, the above-mentioned problems were felt more strongly. In this context, the pressure on academic freedom should be particularly associated with the concept of ‘restriction’. In other words, academic freedom should be defined as doing research without any restrictions. These restrictions are not only caused by the political structure of the country, but also the difficulties created by the traditional university structure. Of course, although the political structure and the general atmosphere of the society are reflected in the academy and it is difficult to think of them separately, the problematic structure of the university itself is an important obstacle to academic research and production. This is related to whether the structure is democratic or not.
Considering that the academy has no alternative in this sense, it is expected to be the most ideal place where research is conducted. However, in the context of Turkey, doing research is not just something that ends with academic elements, but also administrative elements play an important role. This means that finishing a PhD is an academic component, while obtaining a post-doctoral status becomes an administrative component. Administrative structure may determine your unemployment after completing your doctorate. That means an administrative structure made up of academics can be decisive. This is not only in the post-doctoral period, but also in the later period. For example, you have enough publications to become an associate professor or professor, but there may be political decisions that determine your appointment to that title. These are factors for the constraints highlighted by the interviewees.
In short, both institutional and state censorship are the determinants of academic freedoms and free-scientific research in Turkey. Although there is no direct institutional intervention in the lectures, some academics themselves interfere with their lectures through self-censorship due to the tension in the political environment, the expulsion of their friends from the university, and the frequent and easy functioning of the investigation mechanism. In addition, academics cannot write whatever they want, even if there is no interference with what they write, and thus they also practice self-censorship in their academic works. In short, we can list the constraints related to the institutional structure as follows:
1. The prevailing political environment within the administrative structure, that is, within the university’s own institutional structure,
2. The traditional structure of the university administration,
3. Restrictions created by the rules and criteria in the regulations mandated by the administration,
4. Seeing the academic as a civil servant, not being able to leave the mentality of the administrative units—such as the dean, the head of the department etc.
Therefore, this institutional or administrative structure, which has a hierarchical form, is one of the biggest obstacles to academic freedom. In addition, one of the factors that force and restrict academic freedom is the constant change in publication criteria or promotion criteria. For the interviewed academics, this situation was expressed as a particularly problematic issue. Since they need to publish in order to get promotion, giving quality lectures is pushed back. Thus, academicians can neither produce nor train qualified students. One of the other difficulties mentioned is that teachers’ time is wasted by their lectures load and they do not even have time to read a book, let alone making research.
Although these phenomena do not belong only to this government period, after the presidential system academic freedoms have been regressed by institutional pressures, with the desire to transform the academy into a more conservative administrative-officer center rather than a research and training center. With these restrictions, the government in question aims to create the type of intellectual it demands, namely a uniform model of academy and academics based on homogeneity. In other words, the intellectual/academic person who does not produce, does not research, but obeys, loses his/her power and ability to oppose… Therefore, the aim here is to create his own intellectual. Thus, it will be easier to make a propaganda of the presidential system that Erdoğan wants to the public through these (so-called) intellectuals, without mentioning the existence of other systems.
The authoritarian reactionary-Caesarist system is trying to create a conservative community in this way. Heterogeneity, that is, diversity and difference, is the main enemy of this conservative system. Therefore, the desire to create an anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge segment that will be loyal to and at its disposal is essential. However, one of the academics interviewed believes that the AKP has not been successful in this project. Because in the eyes of conservative students, this project has no value anymore. The ruling government seems to be unaware of this yet. According to the interviewee, there may be several effective reasons for the failure of this project; such as the opening of many universities and the impact of the digital age. One of the most important conclusions that can be drawn from the research is that the academy is a conservative place that is not open to novelty. This is proved by the restrictions placed on academic freedoms.
VI.
Conclusion
I want to sing the song of freedom to the world. To trample evil on the throne of kings…
Aleksandr Puškin, Effervescenza[31]
In summary, today’s general political, religious, and cultural-educational situation lacks any Caesarist ‘features’, but rather is another manifestation of Erdogan’s quantitative, reactionary or regressive Caesarist authoritarianism. In other words, the above-mentioned political and social situation, with Erdogan’s relentless slogans of the creation of a new Turkey that he claims will not be born until he and the AKP come to power, that do not die shows that it is nothing but the destructive, self-serving appropriations and reformulations of the old. In this context, the gattopartism we mentioned at the beginning of the article overlaps with Gramsci’s reactionary Caesarist understanding. For things to stay the same, Erdogan’s reactionary Caesarist and gattopartist rule has to change something. Only in this way, ‘the inevitability of history subject to change’ can be prevented. By stating that he wants to kill the authoritarian form of the old and building a new authoritarianism, he gets in the way of freedoms.
One of the interviewees’ associating academic freedom with the concept of happiness was one of the most interesting definitions of academic freedom. Human development and well-being are among the consequences of freedom of expression in general and academic freedom accordingly. According to the interviewee, academic freedom has the same value as freedom of thought and expression, for the same reasons and in the same way. The greatest proof of this is given by J. S. Mill in his work On Freedom. If we leave aside the question of whether freedom is something that can be defended as a value in itself (it is not according to Mill), freedom of thought and, accordingly, academic freedom is a necessary condition for the development of reason, for the realization of progress, for the well-being and happiness of humanity. Therefore, academic freedom is the ability to conduct research, lecture freely in the classroom (as well as individual meetings with students), participate in professional meetings and organizations, and speak without interference from any authority or subject to censorship, regardless of the ideological or economic agenda. In other words, an environment in which one can lean towards knowledge with passion and love is essential for the knowledge-lover.
It is worth noting, however, that all oppressive movements and political regimes, authoritarian or totalitarian, must be considered with Marx’s analysis of capitalism in mind, although this article does not address this issue extensively. All these regimes are about the mode of production, relations of production and the outcome of the crisis it creates. It is therefore necessary to look at the works of Marx and his Marxist writings and criticisms. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx talks about the alienation resulting from the capitalist mode of production and its elements. It especially emphasizes self-actualization in labor. The capitalist mode of production does not allow workers this sense of satisfaction and self-realization. Erdogan and his government’s oppressive attitudes not only alienate citizens from their own beliefs, religious values, other people in society and their sense of humanity, but also move them away. Authoritarian, totalitarian, oppressive and despotic regimes try to eliminate possible capitalist crises and force all people to alienate from their labor, society, object, relations, etc. through violence. In The German Ideology, we can observe how Marx describes material conditions (including both economic and cultural-spiritual conditions), directing individuals to develop their social consciousness. Here, inclining towards the knowledge we mentioned at the beginning of our article with love, desiring knowledge and chasing it with passion will come into play.
It seems that there will still be dark clouds on the horizon, maybe not only in Turkey but all over the world: fascist dark clouds! However, despite these pressures and censors, as Rosa Luxemburg said, “the revolution cannot be killed with silence.”[32] On the contrary, it creates its opposite in this silence. Likewise, Aslı Vatansever points to Rosi Braidotti in an article and states that vulnerability/fragility is a common feature of all living beings. Based on this idea, she argues that an experience of collective vulnerability can potentially lead to a “renewed sense of interdependence.”[33] We can attribute this to the interrelatedness of the subjects through collective-acting and collective-solidarity against collective fragility and insecurity. Solidarity survives. But it should be revolutionary solidarity rather than liberal solidarity.
[1] Research Assistant, Scuola Normale Superiore, İtalya.
[2] ‘Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi’: Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Il Gattopardo, Feltrinelli, 2005 (first published by the same publishing house in 1958), s. 21. I would like to thank Hjalmar Jorge Joffre-Eichhorn, who drew my attention to this work of Lampedusa and inspired me to analyze the concept of gattopartism in the context of Turkey.
[3] Maxime Rovere, Spinoza Tayfası, (translation) Osman Senemoğlu, Kolektif Kitap, 2020.
[4] The expression gattopartism (gattopartismo) is conceptualized based on the above quote in Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s book Gattopardo (Leopard, Can Yayınları, 1998). The dictionary, Dizionario italiano Ragionato, refers to gattopartism as a politically skeptical and conservative attitude and belief that, in essence, favors keeping everything as before, but is aware that it cannot resist the coming change and allows everything to change (Paolo Squillacioti, Tutto cambia o tutto resta com’è? Il Gattopardo e la storia Appunti per la lezione seminario di formazione per insegnanti Orizzonti aperti. Raccontare la storia e la letteratura, Roma, CNR, 28 febbraio 2018, s. 3). This attitude is derived from the expressions used by the protagonist in the novel, Tancredi, the nephew of Fabrizio Corbera, the prince of Salina. It implies the preservation of the status quo.
[5] This expression has also been associated by historians with Machiavelli’s Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy. Especially Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg (Leggere tra le righe, https://www.lindiceonline.com/letture/narrativa-italiana/noterella-su-il-gattopardo/) states that this expression was turned inside out by Lampedusa. The phrase Ginzburg refers to is ‘Chi vuole riformare uno stato anticato in una città libera, ritenga almeno l’ombra de’ modi antichi’ (Whoever wants to transform an old state into a free city, must at least keep the shadow of the old ways) (Discourses, Book 1 , chapter 25).
[6] Sinem Adar ve Günter Seufert, “Turkey’s Presidential System after Two and a Half Years”, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Research Paper, 2021, s. 8.
[7] A.g.e., s. 8.
[8] It has been inspired by ‘state cannibalism’ that Jorge J. E. Gracia used: Jorge J. E. Gracia, ‘Introduction,’ Philosophy and Literature in Latin America: A Critical Assessment of the Current Situation, Jorge J. E. Gracia-Mireya Camurati (ed.), State University of New York Press, 1989, s. 16.
[9] Pradeep Barua, The Military Effectiveness of Post-colonial States, Brill, 2013.
[10] Gracia, “Introduction,” s. 16. Italic part belongs to me.
[11] Gracia, “Introduction,” s. 16.
[12] Gracia, “Introduction,” s. 16.
[13] Evrensel, ‘Boğaziçi Üniversitesi kapısına takılan kelepçeyle ilgili inceleme başlatıldı,’ Evrensel, 6 Ocak 2021, https://www.evrensel.net/haber/422927/bogazici-universitesi-kapisina-takilan-kelepceyle-ilgili-inceleme-baslatildi.
[14] To quote these words is Paul Lafargue, who met Karl Marx in 1865. Published in German in Neue Zeit (IX, vol. 1, n.1-2) between 1890-1891, under the title “Personal Memoirs”. Translated by the author from the following Italian source: Paul Lafargue, ‘Ricordi Personali,’ Ricordi Su Marx, Rinascita: Roma, 1951, s. 42.
[15] Marina Rafenberg, ‘Police presence on campuses in Greece causes uproar’, Le Monde, 30 Mayıs 2022, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/30/in-greece-police-presence-on-campus-causes-uproar_5985028_4.html.
[16] Peter Yeung, ‘If You Thought the Culture War in the US and UK Was Dumb, Check Out France’s’, Vice, Şubat 2021. https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgq9m4/if-you-thought-the-culture-war-in-the-us-and-uk-was-dumb-check-out-frances.
[17] Lucie Delaporte, ‘Emmanuel Macron’s Government is Mounting a Witch Hunt Against “Islamo-Leftism” in France’s Universities’, Jacobin, Şubat 2021.
[18] Elisabetta Brighi, Mattia Giampaolo, Paola Rivetti, ‘Bugie democratiche e di Regime,’ il lavoro culturale, 7 Mayıs 2021, erişim: 15 Haziran 2022, https://www.lavoroculturale.org/bugie-di-regime/elisabetta-brighi-mattia-giampaolo-paola-rivetti/2021/.
[19] Christian Raimo, Francesca Coin, ‘Condannare una tesi sui No Tav minaccia la libertà di ricerca,’ Internazionale, 28 Haziran 2016, https://www.internazionale.it/opinione/christian-raimo/2016/06/28/no-tav-processo-ricerca-chiroli. No Tav (Train ad Alta Velocità (Yüksek Hızlı Tren) (TAV’a Hayır) The movement emerged in the early nineties in the twentieth century. It includes criticisms of the construction of high-capacity and high-speed train infrastructures, which are taken as a symbol and example of an administration that is thought to be inadequate in common goods, public expenditures, lands and politics.
[20] No Tap (Trans adriatic pipeline/trans Adriyatik boru hattı) (Tap’a Hayır): The 878 km long trans-adriatic pipeline (TAP) is a project that is planned to bring 10 billion natural gas per year to Europe via Turkey, Greece, Albania and Italy. No Tap opposed the work, denouncing the possible harm to the environment and the population: However, the Giuseppe Conte gpvernment had approved the construction.
[21] Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the prison notebooks (SPN) Q. Hoare, G. Nowell-Smith (Eds.), Lawrence-Wishart, 1992, 221; Antonio Gramsci, Quaderni dal Carcere (QC, paragraf §), V. Gerratana (Ed.), cilt. 1, Torino: Einaudi, 1977.
[22] Gramsci, QC3, §34, volume. 1, s. 311 (‘Se la classe dominante ha perduto il consenso, cioè non è più “dirigente”, ma unicamente “dominante”, detentrice della pura forza coercitiva, ciò appunto significa che le grandi masse si sono staccate dalle ideologie tradizionali, non credono più a ciò in cui prima credevano ecc. La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi più svariati.); SPN, s. 275-276.
[23] Gramsci, SPN, s. 219. Italic part belongs to mine.
[24] Gramsci, SPN, s. 210.
[25] Aytunc Erkin, ‘AKP, yeni anayasada YÖK’ü kaldıracak mı?’, Sözcü, 4 Şubat 2021, https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2021/yazarlar/aytunc-erkin/akp-yeni-anayasada-yoku-kaldiracak-mi-6242396/.
[26] Accepted by ‘Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel,’ the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 1997.
[27] As the interviewees started to give similar answers after a certain period of time, the interview was concluded with twelve people.
[28] The data of these interviews were used in a joint study written in the journal Globalisation, Societies and Education in 2021 under the title of Authoritarianism and Academic Freedom in neoliberal Turkey. Sevgi Doğan ve Ervjola Selenica, ‘Authoritarianism and academic freedom in neoliberal Turkey’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2021.
[29] On the health status of academics and the use of anti-depressants, see. Demirel, A. Cansu, Feride A. Tanik, Nermin Biter, Alsi Davas, Lulufer Körükmez, Hanife Kurt, Gulden Ozatagan, Zeynep O. Barkot ve Nilgun T. Kilinc, Akademisyen İhraçları: Hak İhlalleri, Kayıplar ve Güçlenme Süreçleri, İstanbul: Türkiye İnsan Hakları Varkfı Yayınları, 2019.
[30] According to the 2020 Health Statistics report announced by the Ministry of Health, there has been a 70 percent increase in the use of anti-depressants in the last 10 years (https://www.dokuz8haber.net/gizlenen-rapor-nihayet-aciklandi-saglikta-cokus). M. Kemal Temel points out that since the 2010s, reports of the increase in the use of anti-depressants have been voiced by the media and academics. See. M. Kemal Temel, ‘Antidepressant Use Disorder, the Work of Modern Psychosocioclinic Factors: A Case Posing a Problem in Medical Ethics’, Anadolu Clinic Journal of Medical Sciences, September 2019, volume 24, issue 3. Lale Elmacıoğlu, ‘The rise in antidepressant use in Turkey alarms: Sales increased by 10 million boxes in the last 2 years,’ Independent Turkce, 27 Nisan 2022, https://www.indyturk.com/node/503126/sa%C4%9Flik/t%C3%BCrkiyede-antidepresan-kullan%C4%B1m%C4%B1ndaki-y%C3%BCkseli%C5%9F-alarm-veriyor-son-2-y%C4%B1lda-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar.
[31] Aleksandr Puškin (1799-1837), ‘Effervescenza,’Quatation is taken from this text: Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev, Le fonti e lo spirito del comunismo russo, Milano: A. Corticelli, 1845, s. 93. Translation belongs to mine.
[32] Rosa Luxemburg, ‘Revolution in Petersburg!’, Complete Works of Rosa Luxemburg III: Political Writings 1: On Revolution 1897-1905, London-New York: Verso, s. 59.
[33] A. Vatansever (2018) ‘Academic Nomads. The Changing Conception of Academic Work under Precarious Conditions’, Cambio cilt. 8, n. 15: 153-165, s.162.
Fotoğraf: Leon Wu