Assoc. Prof. Galip Yalman: How can we fight against the unregulated capitalist state?

Yusuf Tuna Koç

The 19 March process, in which the government crossed a critical threshold in the recent period by arresting İmamoğlu and hundreds of others, has completed 100 days. All social opposition forces gave their first reaction to the government's move on the streets.

While actions continue within certain limits today, social rage remains alive. The ruling party's agenda includes new waves of arrests and decisions regarding the Congress.

We spoke with Assoc. Prof. Galip Yalman, retired faculty member of the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at Middle East Technical University, about the significance of the past 100 days for the government and the opposition, its global dimensions, and new opportunities for opposition in the future.

The phase of the 19 March has completed 100 days. Looking back from today, what does this threshold mean for the regime?

Galip Yalman: The phase we are experiencing undoubtedly has its own unique characteristics. However, the world is also going through an interesting period, even if it is not perceived in the same way in every country. In particular, the debate about what is happening in the American state with Trump is being followed and has an impact on the whole world due to the position of the United States. It has many ramifications, from war to the financial world and environmental issues. The question ‘what is happening?’ is being asked more frequently in Western media outlets such as the Financial Times and the New York Times. Regardless of the regime – whether parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential – ‘bourgeois democracy’ or, as I prefer to call it, the democratic form of the capitalist state, has certain norms and mechanisms for the functioning of institutions. There are occasional conflicts and crises between internal forces within the system, there are class dimensions to these conflicts, and there are contradictions arising from differences in interests between different capitalist countries, but there is a tendency to adhere to certain norms and follow rule-based regulations. Today, it is the American state and those in power who are causing this system to crack. The emphasis on institutions has increased, and Acemoğlu and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize for this reason. But institutions do not fall from the sky; they are human-made. They exist through people, who adopt certain behaviours and reject others as a result of hegemonic projects formed on the basis of specific social production forms. However, there are limits to discussing this issue solely in terms of institutions. Even when discussed in relation to Trump, there are many different dimensions, from the ecological crisis to international trade. For example, students protesting against Palestine being arrested in a paramilitary style, as if kidnapping people from the streets, workers in California being rounded up and deported... All these events bring into question the existence of certain norms. We are witnessing the gradual disregard of the system expressed in the constitutional order.

THE FUTURE OF THE CAPITALIST STATE

Although figures such as Martin Wolf and Paul Krugman have raised certain criticisms of the process of financialisation and globalisation in the current neoliberal world economy, they have begun to discuss and debate these issues with an optimistic outlook in terms of the outcomes [1]. The question, therefore, is what is happening to the capitalist state?

This is not limited to the United States, of course. From India to Turkey, whether it is called authoritarianism or fascism, it is necessary to think about this new trend. The mainstream expression of this new type of governance that has emerged is the ‘Führer principle.’ Without directly calling Trump a fascist, they are concerned that the tendency to say ‘whatever the Führer says goes’ will increase the risk of crisis in both the political and economic dimensions of the capitalist economic system dominated by international financial markets. Another concept that has been widely discussed for some time is ‘deconstitutionalisation.’ Turgut Özal once said, ‘Breaking the constitution once is no big deal,’ and today we are at that point. We are experiencing a process in which both the decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which are superior to the constitution, are being disregarded. Therefore, the process we have been going through since last October, which has intensified step by step and unfortunately become normalised, is not independent of the world. So, what does this mean for everyday life in Turkey? As in the past, it is still possible to appeal to judicial bodies such as the Council of State, the Court of Cassation, and the Constitutional Court, but as we saw in the case of Can Atalay, there is no response. In fact, the deputy speaker of parliament who read out the Atalay ruling was removed from his position. We are witnessing a dire situation where the founding party of the 102-year-old republic is being disregarded – the Turkish equivalent of the term ‘null and void’ – and rendered “invalid” and ‘inoperative.’ The argument that ‘this is a matter for the courts’ is frequently invoked. However, it is impossible to consider what is happening as a legal matter. The concept of a trustee is highly controversial, but its possibility is often mentioned. On the other hand, there are two arguments that are frequently repeated but are far from effective in response to the ongoing pressure on CHP-run municipalities through the judiciary. The first is the example of Aziz Kocaoğlu from the past. Indeed, while he was mayor, he appeared in court many times, was not arrested, and was acquitted. Another frequently cited argument is why such operations are not carried out against AKP municipalities. However, these arguments are ineffective because we are far beyond discussing any norms, rules, or regulations. A final example: as of today (Friday), we have learned that an indictment has been prepared to prosecute a person whose diploma has been retroactively revoked for fraud.

Therefore, the limits of conducting the struggle solely within the judiciary are clear, and the question of ‘how to fight this’ naturally comes to the fore. It is not enough to say that these are political cases. Despite everything, the question of how to conduct the political struggle is where we are now.

What do you think about the opposition's approach to the 19 March process, and how should we proceed from here?

There is talk of a united struggle by different sections of society, and steps are being taken in this direction. In fact, a natural form of extra-parliamentary opposition has become the norm. In this sense, it is right to hold regular rallies and continue with actions. Even if they do not yield immediate results, they can prevent certain things, such as the appointment of trustees to the CHP or the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. However, as long as this can be sustained, it is necessary to say what can be done in the future with an aim to gaining power. It is important to continue by increasing and strengthening social support for the future, but it has also become important to prevent and stop the continuation of the process that began with the arrest of Ahmet Özer on 30 October 2024 and peaked on 19 March, to prevent the injustices experienced so far, and to ensure that those arrested are put on trial without detention, at least within the minimum legal framework. This has become a matter of life and death for the people inside and their families. On one side of the issue is strengthening the social struggle for the future and setting economic, social and societal goals, but there is also this dimension. Every morning there is a new wave of arrests, those taken into custody are going through exile processes, and their families are being put at risk. Therefore, a multi-faceted struggle emerges before us, and preventing this process from continuing in such a brutal manner, as well as taking preventive measures, should be on the opposition's agenda.

NORMS ARE BEING ELIMINATED

The CHP leadership is managing the 19 March process properly and is directly challenging the government. However, the question of what new tools can be used in the struggle is also important. It is not enough to say, ‘Let the trials be held on television, let them be heard without detention,’ because there is no one on the other side to listen.

Moreover, as those who opposed Trump for putting the system at risk put it, we are faced with a situation where ‘whatever the leader says goes’ is becoming not just a description of loyalty but increasingly the reality itself. Therefore, there is a problem in that followers interpret reality exactly as it comes out of the leader's mouth. From the lie that ‘they drank alcohol in the mosque’ during the Gezi protests to the latest Leman comic, we are in a period where reality is understood not so much by what it is, but by how it is expressed. This is a very dangerous situation.

There are other dimensions to this. Again, if we take the example of the United States, one of the most important factors that give the capitalist state its essence is universities. Trump is going after centuries-old, world-renowned universities, threatening to cut their funding. The media is undergoing a different transformation. We saw the latest example of this this week: without even informing the faculty members, two faculties were abolished at Boğaziçi University and two new ones were added. These decisions are no longer made by the Higher Education Council (YÖK), but by decrees of the President. What remains of the norm then? Opposing the Higher Education Council or the university rector's relationship with the university is one thing, but now that has also disappeared, and everything is being set from the top down. The question of where and on what level the struggle will be fought is becoming increasingly important. Inspired by Gramsci, new dimensions of ‘position battles’ are emerging. The presidential decree revoking the Constitutional Court's authority to appoint rectors is being brought back to the agenda through omnibus legislation. In a state of upheaval, where people are struggling for their daily food, the struggle over how to sustain the system is becoming more serious.

In the United States, it is argued that the low-income groups that supported Trump will be among the first to be affected by the negative consequences of his latest ‘big beautiful law’ battle, particularly in terms of health policies. But from another perspective, there is also debate about the extent to which a new social segment, characterised as anti-political, feeling outside political life and unconnected to politics in their daily lives, is aware of the negative impact of Trump's policies on their own lives, even if they voted for him. Therefore, how to maintain relations with the masses in terms of developing an alternative is also an important debate. The opposition of segments with high awareness may not be enough on its own. A significant segment of society has adopted an anti-political stance. If the message of the government's decisions and the laws it passes is conveyed in the way defined by the leader – ‘Everything is for the greatness of America,’ for example – then the reality is that when the lower income groups in particular are confronted with the consequences of these negative developments, the horse will have already crossed the bridge.

Until the elections, the timing of which is difficult to predict at this point, it is conceivable that the current social opposition will grow and progress, and there is reason to be hopeful. However, there is another side to the matter: if what we have experienced over the past 6-8 months continues to intensify over the next 18-24 months, how will it be possible to stop it? Saying, ‘Let's stand firm, we'll show them at the polls,’ is one thing, but how can we overcome the helplessness we feel in the face of the heavy price we will have to pay in the meantime? Furthermore, there is the issue of bringing a new process on the Kurdish question to the agenda. We will see how this will affect the dynamic of public power. It is being discussed a lot in the context of the constitutional debate, but it is not easy to predict what role it will actually play.

A TWO-NATION SOCIETY

What could be the long-term consequences of this “Führer” tendency?

The media plays a very important role in all this leadership and messaging. As we have seen with the recent blackout decisions, there is no tolerance even for the few opposition channels that remain. In discussions about how neoliberal hegemony was established in the 1980s, some Marxist theorists, in their assessment of the Thatcher era, introduced the concept of the ‘two nation project.’ [2] One group, so to speak, benefits from neoliberal policies, while the other is left behind. However, this is not solely a class distinction; within capital itself, there are those who bear the brunt, while a segment of the working class may benefit. Similar discussions were held in Turkey regarding the ANAP era. It was an assessment that examined the outcomes of a crisis exit strategy implemented in favour of capital. Although the results largely favoured capital, there was a strategy aimed at encompassing certain segments of the working class through carrot-and-stick tactics, such as granting shares to workers in privatised institutions, which were referred to as ‘popular capitalism.’

When we look at the media today, it reminds us of this ‘two-nation project.’ On one side, there are three TV channels and three newspapers. On the other side, there are numerous TV channels and newspapers, including TRT. This division is constantly reproduced, from colleagues at work to neighbours. At the same time, two TV channels either cover completely different agendas or cover the same agenda in completely different ways. If you only follow events through the channels of that segment, your perception of reality will be completely different, and this reproduces itself on platforms such as YouTube. This raises the question of how the unity of this society can be ensured. Looking ahead, how can the ‘historical bloc’ be re-established in connection with this?

Because I still do not think that what is happening is a crisis of neoliberalism; there is a crisis within neoliberalism, and attempts are being made to resolve it within the parameters of the international financial system. The continuity of the crisis has also led to it being defined as a crisis of neoliberal crisis management. For this reason, Gramsci's characterisation of an ‘organic crisis’ does not apply; in other words, the conditions for a qualitative transformation are not ripe, but the formation of a new historical bloc is also in trouble. Therefore, it is often said that we are in an interim period, but this is not a situation that can be overcome simply by the dilemma of coercion and consent. How this unity can be achieved is a question mark for both the United States and Turkey. From the perspective of those in power, in both countries, whether it takes the form of MAGA or ‘localism and nationalism,’ as long as they construct reality in a certain way, they hope to achieve unity in the direction they desire. However, the possibility that the conjunctural crisis, as Gramsci put it, could potentially turn into an organic crisis must, of course, be discussed. However, the urgent issue on the agenda is how to carry out social struggle in a way that will pave the way for a democratic state form that will ensure that the negative effects of the ‘two-nation project’ are left behind.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/ ac62327c-e3b9-45cb-bb9c-a41743aee657, 2.7.2025.

[2]https://newleftreview.org/ issues/i147/articles/kevin-bonnett-simon-bromley-bob-jessop-tom-ling-authoritarian-populism-two-nations-and-thatcherism.pdf

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Doç. Dr. Galip Yalman: Kuralsızlaşan kapitalist devletle nasıl mücadele edilir? published in BirGün newspaper on July 6, 2025.