Alparslan Türkeş and the never-ending wealth disputes

People speak not through what they say, but through their actions. It is not our words, but our deeds that provide information about our identity. However, because actions or deeds represent the truth, it is often impossible to reach them. Sometimes, people do not want to face the truth; there are various reasons for this: let us put self-interest at the top of the list.

The issue of wealth is one of those actions we are talking about. The way wealth is acquired, its nature, and its scale point to a sensitive area of debate. As the well-known saying goes, the subject of wealth "burns those who talk about it." Perhaps superficial words can be spoken, but it does not lend itself well to being pursued, investigated, or fought over. Because behind that accumulated wealth lie great conflicts. Some visible, some invisible.

Since we are talking about conflict, let us enter our topic from here. When Alparslan Türkeş completed his eighty-year life in 1997 as the leader of a movement, he left behind not only his political ideas but also a significant fortune that would become a cause of conflict among his children.

Before we get into the details of that conflict, let us briefly recall Alparslan Türkeş. Türkeş was born in Nicosia, Cyprus, in 1917. His family is from Pınarbaşı, Kayseri. Türkeş had a military background; in fact, he was the one who read the coup declaration in the 1960 intervention. However, due to the disagreements that followed, his fellow revolutionaries separated him from the army and their own circles. Türkeş's political career took place precisely in the years following this. This process, which began with the Republican Villagers Nation Party (CKMP), ended with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). During this period—a process spanning over thirty years—Türkeş transformed into a cult figure, and his political career extended to serving as Deputy Prime Minister.

Although some sources state that Türkeş's name was Hüseyin Feyzullah, his son Tuğrul Türkeş says this claim is not true, but he gives us other information on this subject. According to the younger Türkeş, his father's name was used as Ali Arslan within the family for a time. Another claim made about the father, Alparslan Türkeş, is that he was of Armenian descent. Specifically, journalist Hrant Dink, in an interview with academic Fatma Müge Göçek, stated that Türkeş was of Armenian descent, originally an orphan from Sivas, and was later adopted by a Muslim couple from Cyprus. As we have stated, we do not know the veracity of this claim. However, we know that the "Armenian" identity is not considered acceptable by at least a segment of society in these lands. You may remember that Erdoğan once spoke in the vein of, "They said very ugly things about me, they said I was Armenian, excuse me, and so on." Following this, his son Tuğrul Türkeş clearly criticized Erdoğan. According to him, dividing people with such expressions was the greatest of sins, and on the other hand, it was a hate crime. "Furthermore," Tuğrul Türkeş said, "a person who is a candidate for the office of the Presidency has no right to utter such a sentence. It is essential for those who assume or are candidates to assume state responsibility to put aside their personal delusions, if any." Finally, Tuğrul Türkeş said, "In the eyes of President Erdoğan, not only the Armenian identity but also Alevi, Zaza, and Jewish identities are issues to be sneered at." However, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then; as the calendar pages turned one by one, it was not only the years that changed but also the people, and in the end, Tuğrul Türkeş found himself alongside AKP's Erdoğan and even became a member of parliament from that party. He still continues his duty in the AKP ranks.

Let us return to the "leader of the movement.."

Alparslan Türkeş married twice. His first wife was Muzaffer Hanım. Five children were born from this marriage. Tuğrul Türkeş was one of them. Father Türkeş's second marriage was to Seval Hanım; Ayyüce and Ahmet Kutalmış were born from this marriage. You may remember that Ayyüce Türkeş became a member of parliament from the ranks of the IYI Party, and Ahmet Kutalmış was once a member of parliament from the ranks of the AKP. We know that belonging to different political identities sometimes causes arguments within the family. However, the only reason for the argument was not the disagreements that arose at the intellectual level. Türkeş's inheritance also became a cause of conflict among the children.

So what was the content of the inheritance, what was said on this subject, and where did the traces of the conflict lead us?

The year is just the beginning of the two-thousands. I am quoting exactly from the Milliyet newspaper: "After the death of former MHP Chairman Alparslan Türkeş, his daughters Umay Günay and Ayzıt Türkeş were acquitted in a fraud case, while it could not be understood where the trillion-lira fortune that pitted the family against each other was spent." The person who sued Umay Günay and Ayzıt Türkeş was Ayyüce Türkeş, who is now an IYI Party deputy. So, what did Ayyüce Türkeş say in the lawsuit petition? For the answer, let us go to a newspaper of that period again: "It is alleged that Günay and Ayzıt Türkeş did not notify the bank of their father's death, revealed their bad intentions by transferring money from Türkeş's bank account to their personal accounts, and siphoned off the shares of Türkeş's other heirs."

Ayyüce Türkeş also spoke about the amount of money in the banks in question. According to this, her father had accounts in banks abroad, primarily Deutschebank in England, containing 757 thousand marks, 845 thousand dollars, and 367 thousand pounds. And this money was equivalent to 1.2 trillion liras under the conditions of that day. By the way, there was another important problem regarding the mentioned money. Because this money did not appear in Alparslan Türkeş's declaration of assets. The money not appearing in the declaration of assets was not limited to this. Real estate in İzmir, Kocaeli, and Eskişehir did not appear in the 1990-1991 and 1994 asset declarations either.

How did Türkeş, who lived his personal life as a politician, earn this money? MHP circles remained silent on this issue at the time, but there was information that journalists learned. According to this, a fund had been created to be used for the Turkic world, and the money accumulated in the fund had been collected in accounts used in Türkeş's name. With the fund in question, investments were made in cultural areas for the Turkic world, and a television transmitter was established for the Gagauz Turks. According to the information obtained by journalists, this was the source of the money over which the siblings were suing each other.

What Tuğrul Türkeş said on this subject also turned eyes back to the party. Türkeş said the following on this matter: "Money and some real estate belonging to the MHP were in Alparslan Türkeş's name. He said that if he were to pass away, these assets should be given to the cause of Turkish nationalism. We informed Bahçeli of this on March 25, 1998."

The allegations presented to the court and the news reports, especially the information that journalists said they had obtained, were all controversial, of course. There were many problems, from the source of the money to its use. At this point, it is necessary to look at what the parties said, of course. Let us now return to those days and remember who said what.

Tuğrul Türkeş had said, "I do not want to talk at this stage in order not to cause unnecessary discussions on a matter that has been referred to the judiciary." However, there was an accusation directed at him. According to this, he had taken the money found in the safe upon his father's death. But according to reports in the press, Türkeş had requested a disclaimer of inheritance upon this accusation. Son-in-law Hamit Homriş also spoke at that time: "I have no information about whether he had this much wealth or not. My wife (Selcen) also has no information; she was also very surprised."

MHP Minister of Transport Enis Öksüz was also among those who spoke. Let us read together: "If there is a basis for this money, the proof of how it was obtained is a separate issue. In an 80-year life, the amount of money stated could have been saved. It is sad that the family is in court." On the other hand, according to reports in the press, a former MHP member who was a close colleague of Türkeş and followed his money affairs abroad said, "Türkeş's smallest account was in England. The main accounts in Germany and Switzerland should be looked at. The MHP never had any assets. They were all in the form of Türkeş's personal account."

Mustafa Mit, the Deputy Chairman of the Türkeş era, said the following about the issue: "We always suffered financial difficulties. Let them argue as much as they want. When you look at those left behind, may everything be lawful for him." A similar statement came from Sinan Ocak, one of the names close to Türkeş, who said that the party had no money and that they even collected the building rents among themselves and paid them. The words go on like this.

In the dominant political order, it is not easy to talk about political parties with a focus on money and to include money in the subject while tracing the movement. However, if we are going to analyze political parties and the events surrounding them, regardless of ideology, we must put the issue of money at the top, and if possible, we should not leave this area without shedding light on it.

Now let us return to Alparslan Türkeş.

Alparslan Türkeş, who is undoubtedly one of the first names that comes to mind when Turkish nationalism is mentioned, said in a speech: "If the men of a cause do not live the conditions and requirements of that cause in their own personalities, they cannot take that cause a step further." We do not know whether those involved in the MHP movement have lived their "cause" in their own personalities, and that is a separate article topic in itself. On the other hand, what is a cause, what does it aim for, what does it bring us to where it arrives, and what has it brought? These are also separate questions that need to be answered in themselves.

So, what remains of this article, and do the things told and conveyed throughout the article offer us another reading and discussion area? That depends on your discretion.