Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi

Öz

Despite coming to power in 1950 on the promise of a free press, the Democrat Party (DP) continued efforts to keep the press under control. In contrast to the difficulties the press had faced throughout the period of single-party rule, the DP pledged support for it during both the party’s time in opposition and the early years of its rule. The result was a false honeymoon between the party and the press during the DP’s first years in power. The DP’s restrictive initiatives toward the press were largely ignored until late 1953. That changed in December 1953, with the passage of Law No. 6195 on the Return of the Unjust Acquisitions of the Republican People’s Party. Although this law was enacted to transfer properties acquired by the Republican People’s Party during its rule to the state treasury, it also led to the closure of the opposition newspaper Ulus. The DP’s imposition of such a harsh sanction on an opposition newspaper in the fraught political climate of the day caused a rupture in the party’s relations with the press and showed the lengths the party would go to silence its opponents. The press’s reactions to the closure of Ulus offer a valuable window into the relationship between the media and politics in Turkey. Through the lens of discussions in contemporary newspapers, this study focuses on perceptions of the DP’s different approaches to the press during its years in opposition and its time in power, including Ulus’s closure as a result of Law No. 6195. To this end, the study thematically analyzes relevant issues of the newspapers Vatan, Hürriyet, Ulus / Yeni Ulus, Milliyet, Zafer, Dünya, Akşam, and Cumhuriyet, as well as the Resmi Gazete, the published proceedings of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, relevant documents in the Presidential Republican Archive, and relevant laws. Although Law No. 6195 was enacted to transfer the ill-gotten assets of the Republican People’s Party to the state treasury, it caused a newspaper that opposed the DP government to lose circulation and income just before the elections. This study finds that the law, though it exacerbated political conflict with the press, did not receive much negative criticism in the newspapers of the day, most of which acted to legitimize the DP’s legislative activity. The study finds that debates on Ulus’s closure played out under three general headings: Ulus’s naming rights, Atatürk’s will, and the legality of the law and the freedom of the press. It further shows that the deterioration of relations between the DP and the press began in December 1953, months before the closure of Ulus on 17 March 1954, which is accepted as the beginning of the deterioration in the existing literature.