Prof. Dr. I present the "Two Founding Peoples" section on page 327 of Oktay Uygun's book, FEDERAL STATE (1), to your reading as I find it very important:
***
[When the two founding people's views are examined from a legal perspective, it is useful to emphasize the following point: Claiming that Turkey consists of peoples, not a single people, has for some time been considered within the scope of freedom of expression and has not been subject to criminal sanctions (provided that it does not incite hatred). It can be said that the Supreme Court's decisions in this direction have gained stability. On the other hand, when the existence of different peoples or two founding people's views are defended through political parties, there is a possibility of encountering sanctions. Views in this direction may mean violation of Articles 78, 81 and 82 of the Political Parties Law. In the Constitutional Court's decisions on ÖZDEP, Socialist Turkey Party and Labor Party, the view of these parties that there are Turkish and Kurdish peoples/nations in Turkey was described as "discrimination based on race" and was found to be contrary to the above-mentioned articles of the CMB. In line with this jurisprudence of the court, it seems clear that the "two founding peoples" view will be considered a reason for party closure. Undoubtedly, it is possible for the Constitutional Court to change its opinion on this issue in the future and create a new line compatible with the Supreme Court jurisprudence. For political parties, the aim of harmonizing with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights may lead to such a development.
One of the views accepted without much debate in Turkey is that a party advocating the federal system would violate the "principle of the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation", which is one of the unchangeable provisions of the constitution (Article 3). Article 68 of the Constitution prohibits political parties from acting contrary to this principle. The principle in question is embodied in articles 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Political Parties Law. Among the mentioned articles of the CMB, the provision that seems directly related to federalism is Article 80, titled Protection of the principle of uniqueness of the state. The full text of the article is as follows: "Political parties cannot aim to change the principle of unity of the state on which the Republic of Türkiye is based and cannot engage in activities towards this purpose." In this article, the fact that political parties want to change the unitary structure of the state is considered a reason for party closure. The word "unitary" is not mentioned in the article, the expression "principle of unity of the state" is used. In the justification of the article, it is stated that "Our state is not contrary to the principle of unity, like the federated and confederate states, and since these and similar separations would be contrary to the principle of the integrity of the state and the nation and to the benefit of society, pursuing such an aim is prohibited by the article."
***
The legal version of the article you are reading is included in Article 3 of the Turkish Constitution: "The State of Türkiye is an indivisible whole with its country and nation. Its language is Turkish." While having the same discussions in the early 2000s, when a university professor (2) who made the miracle of the world stand out with his intelligence said, "I understand the indivisibility of the state and the country, but I do not understand the indivisible integrity of the nation," I replied, "You are talking about two founding peoples or peoples, but you are not aware that you are dividing the integrity of the nation."
Prof. Dr. Oktay Uygun writes, "Claiming that Turkey consists of peoples, not a single people, has not been considered within the scope of freedom of expression for a while and has not been subject to criminal sanctions (provided that it is not provocative to grudge and hatred)." However, we have to evaluate the political claim of "two founding peoples" in another context.
It is as if Mustafa Kemal Pasha shared the command with the (non-) chief of the (non-) Kurdish tribes union before the start of the War of Independence; It is as if the tribal lords who could not agree with each other prepared an army and placed it under the command of Mustafa Kemal Pasha... Undoubtedly, there were soldiers of Kurdish origin in the fighting army, as well as soldiers of all ethnic origins in the country. However, apart from some Kurds, no ethnicity within the context of the "Turkish super-identity" (Zaza, Arab, Laz, Circassian, Georgian, Albanian, Pomak, Kurdish, Bosnian...) claims to be a "founding partner". Those who claim to be "founding partners" are apparently too ignorant to know that a state without a company cannot and cannot have founding partners.
***
I am making a point not to be offensive even in the face of such nonsense claims, but this time I will cross the threshold: How can the separatist mentality that has not been able to get rid of the "tribal" bug even in 2026 be the founding partner of the Republic of Turkey?
(1) XII Levle Publications, November 2007.
