Choosing the times to speak and sometimes determining when to keep silent with its class preferences, at times supporting the coups, other times emphasizing the “urgency of democracy,” sometimes proposing new Constitution by bringing the constitutional experience in Turkey up for debate even including occasionally the founding articles, however, not holding onto its proposal when conjuncture is changed, TÜSİAD (Turkish Industry & Business Association) the largest organization of capital in Turkey, is on stage again with an enthusiastic start.

CONJONCTURAL CONTEXT

It would be fitting to read the new start entitled “Building the Future with a New Understanding: People, Science, Institutions,” which TÜSİAD prepared as a project for its 50th anniversary, comprised of a proposed road-map for the new development notion that it will embrace, together with its preferences and reflexes in Turkey’s historicity, but at the same time under the conditions of current conjuncture. It is possible to make an assessment in wide range without necessarily having to get stuck between the ignorance of ‘What importance does TÜSİAD have?​’ and applauding it.

By blistering it, attempting to fix TÜSİAD was also included in the moves of AKP (Justice and Development Party) rule under Erdogan’s leadership in the process of building “single man” regime. In the face of bourgeois options AKP tried to reinforce on its own side, we can summarize the position of TÜSİAD’s approach as trying to carry out the ongoing argument with AKP in the balances of the ‘single man’ process while taking it as the crucial junction point, as the stability it needed from the view of its class interests during the process of building the ‘single man’ regime.

In an interview with Evrensel regarding TÜSİAD report, it was important that Associate Prof. Umit Akcay drew attention to the timing of this report that coincided with the period in which the vote expectation of the opposition block increased in the polls. Summing up Akcay’s analysis, the following emphasis about the transition arguments he made is also important: “This would only be possible with a political and economic program that would watch out for the interests of wide social sections. Otherwise, the people’s anger for corruption and high cost of living could be made an instrument in a battle of different capital fractions.”

TÜSİAD report coincided with the period when it was debated that the power loss of AKP increased in the polls research conducted recently, specifically in industrial centres. The polls research demonstrate that the breakaways from AKP showed a partial image that they tend to join the opposition parties. Therefore, from this point of view, where the process will lead to in the upcoming period is directly linked to what the opposition, in turn, will do or will not do.

TÜSİAD’s announcement is overlapping with the period EU’s calls, related to the cases of Selahattin Demirtas and Osman Kavala, are followed up by the announcements on the problems of freedom of speech in Turkey. For this reason, the relations, which EU has been pursuing on the basis of its interests, are noticed to evolve into an exploration of a new power alternative in Turkey, before EU breaks ‘the relations’ with AKP for good.

Without literally mentioning the name, but directly targeting the government, TÜSİAD’s criticisms and the wording used in programmatic sense seem to stand as a program frame in conjunction with “Nation Alliance,” as well. At the same time, this frame is the one that has focused on containing references of purposes reserving those frustrated by the oppression of AKP rule.

TÜSİAD-AKP RELATIONS IN THE LAST 14 YEARS

The signs of the process originating from TÜSİAD’s last announcement had been reflected on some of its earlier announcements.

For example, speaking at the opening of High Advisory Board meeting at Sabanci Center on September 21, 2007, Mustafa Koc, emphasizing, in the context of the initiative the government advertises as ‘civil constitution’, that the constitution should not only be coming from the ruling party, had called for a “broad compromise,” and stated “New laicism definitions should not be chased around.”

Arzuhan Yalcindag, in her speech where she reminded the concerns regarding laicism and emphasized the importance of the relations with EU, had commented that a constitution, which would imply that “fight for regime continues,” would be damaging for the country.

Within the past 14 years, the relations of TÜSİAD with the government has sometimes been at outs, sometimes relatively close, and sometimes a bit cloudy. Now, we witness that, in a conjuncture that it finds suitable, TÜSİAD talks more clearly and aloud. The tune TÜSİAD uses can also be called the one a political party would have, however, without forgetting that it stands on a more general level than the parties of capital do.

TÜSİAD, TRANSITION, GROWTH AND WORKERS

Here, the point of key importance to be stressed, on the other hand, is the conflict between the high profitability and growth figures, which the companies of TÜSİAD bosses announced, and the continually down-sized breads of workers who work in their factories. The problems and struggles of the workers working in those factories often get reflected on the pages of Evrensel and its website. If looked into Evrensel’s archive in the pandemic period, many news articles would be found drawing attention to a steep difference between the conditions of their workers and the companies’ growth figures.

Consequently, in the process of transition that Turkey debates streamlined with the upcoming elections, it weighs great importance what this transition means from the workers’ and labourers’ stand-point, and their demands in the political sphere. A transition, which skips that, would be the one in which the gears of exploitation is preserved to continue with a different option.

Let this be an introductory assay, we will continue to discuss the issue