Introduction

In the immediate aftermath of the 1980 coup, the military undertook a major restructuring of the political system. Mass arrests and trials ensued, newspapers were shut down, the parliament was abolished, all political parties were closed down, and party leaders – including Süleyman Demirel, Necmettin Erbakan, Alparsan Türkeş and Bülent Ecevit – were arrested and tried for their roles in the breakdown of the regime. They were subsequently banned from participating in politics.

It is against this backdrop that Turgut Özal, a US-educated technocrat, stepped into politics to fill the breach. Although a confidant of Demirel during the 1970s, Özal was nonetheless removed from partisan politics and its devastating outcomes of the previous era. His pleasant demeanour and successful management of the economy during the years of military rule helped fuel his popularity amongst an electorate fatigued by years of political polarisation, violence and military rule. With the return to electoral politics on 6 November 1983, the generals controlled the election process and engineered two parties that would act in line with their wishes. This was extended to three on Özal's insistence, resulting in the participation of his Anavatan Partisi (Motherland Party, ANAP) and his surprise win.

This victory led to Özal's ten years in power, whereby he was able to further liberalise the country's economy. Yet, Özal's approach to leadership was a significant impediment to the democratic system: much like the leaders before him, he did not display a style of rule that was in line with the concepts and norms required for consolidated systems; rather, he reflected a majoritarian understanding of democracy. Liberalisation, for Özal, was limited to opening the economy to market competition, and even this, at times, was contradicted by his policies.

In this chapter, I will begin by tracing Demirel's attempt to use his relationship with Özal to direct the political outcomes from behind the scenes, and by showing how Özal's unwillingness to abide by Demirel's wishes fractured their relationship, as it would play out in later developments. Also analysed are the changes made to the Siyasi Partiler Kanunu (Political Parties Law, SPK) by the military junta, which demonstrate that the changes to the SPK regulated the already standard practice of authoritarian leadership and benefitted Özal's leadership style.