| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174173
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article aims to offer a valid answer to the question why Turkey’s official stance on the Cyprus problem experienced frequent shifts - from indifference (1950) into supporting colonial rule (1954) then into Taksim, or partition (1956) and, finally, into independence (1959). Drawing upon the main assumptions of neoclassical realism, it argues that the existing systemic explanations in the scholarly literature that focus on Cold War rivalry are insufficient to grasp why there were such remarkable shifts in Turkey’s Cyprus policy in the 1950s. Instead, the article will focus on the domestic dynamics to make better sense of these policy changes. Accordingly, it will first discuss the main assumptions of neoclassical realism as a sound theoretical framework. Second, it will scrutinise in detail how Turkey experienced such shifts in its Cyprus policy throughout the 1950s. Third, the article will discuss the extant literature that overwhelmingly concentrates on systemic explanations for Turkey’s volte-face in Cyprus. In response, the article will offer alternative explanations by focusing on Turkey’s depleting resource extraction capacity and the political leadership of Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, in order to fully understand the underlying reasons behind Turkey’s shifting Cyprus policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
187545
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article intends to broaden our understanding of Turkish politics of the 1950s by focusing on the Freedom Party (1955–1958) (FP) founded by the former leading members of the Democrat Party (DP). Unlike earlier studies which mostly concentrate on the ideology and the leading political figures of the party, an attempt has been made to locate this experience in its historical context. After presenting a detailed account of the literature, we analyze the party by focusing on the power struggles of the internal factions inside the DP. By so doing, this study suggests that factionalism was a major cause of many noteworthy political developments of the era. Moreover, rather than strict ideological differences, we argue that this factionalism rested upon personal disputes and micropower struggles. Thus, the FP was born out of the DP not simply as a result of social discontent, but mainly of factionalism from within.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
110116
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
116663
|
|
|