On the Yön Manifesto

Yön, which began its publication life as a weekly newspaper on December 20, 1961, featured a manifesto in its first issue. In this manifesto, announced on the cover page as the "Common Manifesto of Intellectuals," it is evident that those seeking solutions to the country's problems following May 27 had penned and shared with the public the social and economic principles that needed to be implemented.

This weekly newspaper, also referred to as the Yön movement, continued its publications under the ownership and editorship of Doğan Avcıoğlu.

In an article titled "Young Turks" published on 12Punto on March 30, 2025, I mentioned that the name of Doğan Avcıoğlu is being invoked among the youth who write, draw, and most importantly, take action regarding the country's problems today, and that new editions of his books are attracting interest.

Last week, the topic came to the agenda in a different way: A photograph shared by a former Minister of Justice, who is currently a deputy parliamentary group leader for the ruling party, showing him in a bookstore holding Avcıoğlu’s book titled 'Türkiye’nin Düzeni' (The Order of Turkey), became a subject of debate.

I believe it is pointless to attack the Minister over this photograph—whether it was shared consciously or unconsciously—simply to sniff out the spirit of the times and send a message to a desired political camp. It does not matter what we read; what matters is what we understand from what we read. I wish the Minister happy reading.

I re-read the 1961 Yön Manifesto. I see with regret that the problems our society was waiting to solve 64 years ago still exist today. Hunger, unemployment, and homelessness remain burning issues before us. Unfortunately, our 102-year-old Republic has not been able to permanently solve vital issues such as healthy nutrition and housing, which are basic human needs.

Similarly, issues such as tax justice, planning, and the balance between public and private investment were addressed in the manifesto. The reason why the manifesto and Avcıoğlu, who led it, still attract interest today may be the youth's search for solutions to the conditions they live in. The young people we see protesting on the streets today are the only generation in the history of the Republic to have become poorer than their parents. It is extremely natural for them to look for a way out.

In my opinion, everyone can see that in the social and economic conditions we are experiencing today, the order established on January 24, 1980—the milestone of the current regime—and thereafter has reached its end.

I believe that the content of the manifesto and its proposed solutions remain relevant today. I agree with principles such as a mixed economy, planning, tax justice, and development based on social justice.

However, there is one issue in the manifesto that piques my curiosity. The environment in which the manifesto was prepared was a period when the leading segments of society—intellectuals, youth, officers, workers, and academics who wanted to build a new country after May 27—felt victorious and believed they had carried out a revolution.

In the manifesto published by this movement, which offered concrete proposals for solving the country's problems and, in a sense, aimed to complete the Turkish Revolution led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the subject of law was barely addressed.

If development and social justice are to be achieved, and if an order that looks after the well-being of citizens is to be established, one of the most important guarantees—in my view, the primary one—for this order to function is the rule of law.

A judiciary that exercises judicial power on behalf of the Turkish nation to ensure the realization of justice; a judiciary that those who obtain power by any means cannot shape as they wish or issue instructions to.

While the word 'constitution' was even included in the name of the holiday celebrated as 'Constitution and Freedom Day' until 1982, what could have been the reason for so little being written about law in the manifesto?

Is the judiciary not at the forefront of the institutions that will guard a revolution after it occurs? The concept of 'Public Prosecution,' which we still use today, is a fine example of this.

I cannot help but wonder why the representatives of a view that rightly criticized the unlawful and unjust practices of the government between 1950 and 1960, in order to legitimize May 27, gave so little space to the concept of law in their manifesto.

I would have liked to ask this question to my father, who signed the Yön Manifesto with the title of assistant at the Istanbul University Faculty of Law, had he been alive today.

*All issues of the magazine https://www.tustav.org/sureli-yayinlar-arsivi/yon-dergisi/ can be accessed at this address.