p Haydar Kutlu—General Secretary, Central Committee, Communist Party of Turkey (CRT)

p Nihat Sargin— General Secretary, Workers’ Party of Turkey (WPT)

p The announcement that your two parties have decided to merge has been widely welcomed in the communist movement. Could you tell us how and on what basis you found a way to unity?

p Nihat Sargin. Let me begin with what may be a little-known fact. General Chairperson Behice Boran of the Workers’ Party (she died in October 1987) has been a member of the Communist Party for the past 46 years, while Comrade Kutlu and several of his co-workers have been fighting in the WPT’s ranks too since their young years. Since its foundation in 1920, the CPT has acted in the open for only two years. The Workers’ Party, established during the period of relative democracy in the early 1960s, enabled many Communists to work in more or less normal conditions.

p When the WPT was banned in 1971 after a military coup, the Communist Party expanded its vigorous clandestine activities. But over the decade of legitimate work, our party, too, had acquired a membership base and a sphere of influence of its own. After the general amnesty of 1974, the WPT again operated in the open. So there were two parties working at the same time, one in the open and the other underground, up to the military coup of September 1980, when both were banned.

p It follows that the existence of our two parties, the WPT and the CPT, is not rooted in any rift or profound ideological differences. The two have always been close, and unification has been ah item on our agenda since the mid-1970s. But the first bilateral protocol was initiated only in April 1980. It stated that both parties would work together on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism and working class interests.

p At that time we agreed that our leaders should meet every two or three months, but these plans were frustrated by yet another coup. Nevertheless, our cooperation expanded and, in 1982, was also joined by the Socialist Workers’ Party. In 1983 the question of WPT-CPT unity was raised not only in political but also in organisational terms, and a vigorous search for ways to that objective was launched.

p We came to agreement on four major points—a common name, a common programme, a common charter and a common leadership. The fact that each party reiterated its recognition of the other as a MarxistLeninist party guided by the principles of proletarian internationalism helped a great deal. The support of our joint efforts by sister parties was also valuable but it took time to finalise everything.

p The impression is that we are actually dealing with a reorganisation of a single party which adopted a different name as a cover, to be able to work in the open.

p Haydar Kutlu. That is a wrong impression. There have always been historical ties between the CPT and the WPT, but they have been two different parties, each with its own record. I would like to emphasise this point again: it is a merger of two equal sister parties, not an incorporation of one into the other.

p Did you differ on tactical questions and in your assessments of the specific conditions of struggle—that is, within the framework of your common Marxist-Leninist ideology?

p Nihat Sargin. Of course we did, otherwise the search for unity would not have taken so much time and effort. But I believe that the differences were precisely over specific questions of our struggle, over our assessment of specific events or situations. When the leaders of both parties criticised each other, they always tried to do that in a responsible and careful way. Those who favoured a different approach and refused to observe this condition which was adopted by a majority either resigned from the party or were expelled.

p Haydar Kutlu. This does not mean that expulsions were widespread. As for the character of the differences, let me cite an example. After the military coup of 1980 the WPT described the new regime as fascist while the CPT did not. But that was no obstacle to our joint struggle against it.

p Looking back at the path we have traversed, I would note first of all that when we met for talks, each side was profoundly aware that there was no alternative to unity. Our two parties analysed the causes of the defeat 45 democracy suffered as a result of the coup. We concluded that much of the blame should be put on Left disunity. If we had not been so disunited, it would not have been so easy for those who attacked democracy to succeed.

p We assessed our record self-critically, and we condemned ideological and political sectarianism. Besides, each party was familiar with examples of how easily divisions often appeared and how the fragmentation of the Marxist forces aggravated trends leading to Left disunity. It was a logical imperative, it was our duty to unite. And, since this unity was to be based on a Marxist-Leninist platform, all other differences or disagreements had to be set aside.

p Secondly, we have decided not to discuss the important but quite complicated issue of which party is now the vanguard of Turkey’s working class. Neither the CPT nor the WPT claims to be siich a vanguard—either in mutual discussions or in contacts with other Left parties.

p Nihat Sargin. The vanguard role is to be asserted by practical action, not by declarations.

p Haydar Kutlu. Thirdly, serious obstacles which are hard to surmount usually appear when a process of unification begins with abstract discussions of principles. At that level, one side may describe something as ‘white’ and the other as ‘black’, and agreement proves virtually impossible. Conversely, we have taken up urgent and topical issues of the present-day situation and our struggle. We have turned to facts which are obvious to each of the partners.

p That attitude has led our parties to see the necessity of reviewing their thinking. We have taken a hard look at the realities and become better aware of the fact that conditions have changed both in Turkey and on the world scene. The 27th Congress of the CPSU showed us new perspectives, helped us to define the method of our creative search, and made us bolder. New thinking became an organic need with us as a result of our own experience and, proceeding from this new thinking, we are working on a strategic programme of the futur/e United Communist Party of Turkey.

p Nihat Sargin. Our draft programme has been published, and it is really new and novel. It is not an updated and expanded document of the WPT and the CPT, of the kind that used to be released in the past. It is not an eclectic conglomerate featuring both parties’ previous policy guidelines. It is a modern strategy jointly elaborated on the basis of new thinking.

p Haydar Kutlu. And so today we can say with confidence that unity has been achieved at a higher ideological level. Significantly, the objectives and tasks set in the programme imply cooperation between the Communists and other forces. We have opened our draft programme for discussion with them.

p The record shows that divisions usually occur at turning points of history. Our country has now reached such a turning point. However, instead of division we have found our way to unity. We see the merger of the Communist Party of Turkey and the Workers’ Party of Turkey on the basis of a new programme and strategy as modest evidence of the fact that the progressive forces are not fated to be fragmented and weakened at history’s turning points.

p Nihat Sargin. There is another conclusion one can draw from our experience, and I think it will be useful to others too. It is that the unification process has its own logic. Comrade Kutlu has noted that we began with the more clear and simple questions and set aside those problems which we could not resolve at the time. That was how we gradually inched forward. Then, looking back, we realised that the degree of closeness and understanding we had reached made it possible to resolve problems which were previously stumbling blocks for us. That was the method which enabled us to overcome the obstacles we encountered on the way to unification.

p There are several other progressive, revolutionary parties in Turkey which do not assert their allegiance to Marxist-Leninist ideology. Voices are sometimes raised maintaining that it is possible for the Communists to attain unity—including organisational unity—with such forces. What is your opinion on this score, both in general terms and in relation to Turkey?

p Haydar Kutlu. Sister parties in different countries are now looking for ways leading to unity. Creative search comes natural to Communists. But we prefer a unity built on a firm ideological foundation. To the Communists, that is Marxism-Leninism. At the same time, many of its theoretical precepts are acquiring a new meaning, while others recede to the background.

p I think, for example, that fundamental concepts such as the recognition of the historical role of the working class, the necessity for it to take power together with all working people, or Lenin’s concept of the party have not changed. But would it be right to pose the question in the following way: if you advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat, we can join forces, and if you don’t, we cannot? An attitude like that will hardly help one advance towards unity. We do not use this term in our new programme.

p Another basic problem concerns cooperation with non-Marxist forces and the fundamental tasks for such cooperation at the present stage. For us,’ these basic tasks are peace and the democratic renewal of our country, and they are organically interconnected. We hold that with most of our allies for peace, we can also cooperate for democracy and social progress. However, we do not think it necessary to draw up a rigid model which, today, would determine the concrete stages we are to go through and decree with whom and how far we can travel together at each stage. This also refers to the future: we see no use in mechanically dividing the integral revolutionary process into different stages, into two or more revolutions.

p I think it is also important to recognise that we do not necessarily have to have differences with the Social Democrats at all stages—except, perhaps, in the final stage, in the struggle for socialism. But prior to that, as we tackle general democratic tasks, there are no fundamental differences between us, although we believe we are bound to act more substantially and consistently than others. Our new party strategy includes an alternative programme for solving some basic tasks already at the capitalist 47 stage. If we can now agree with the Social Democrats on these tasks, why should we refrain from that?

p Another stereotype we have abandoned is the previous practices of drawing up a programme which proceeds from the question of what we want to destroy. Now we develop our policy by first asking ourselves what we want to create.

p People throughout the broad political spectrum of Turkey, both on the Left and on the Right, say openly that it is abnormal for military regimes to come to power every ten years. The demand now is for democracy with all its institutions and features. The press writes about the Kurdish problem, although previously ‘Kurd’ was a taboo word, and quotes our statements. Legalisation of the Communist Party is now being debated even more vigorously than it was when there was more, democracy. On the other hand, the government wants Turkey to become a full-fledged member of the Common Market—something that makes the ban on communist activities a handicap.

p The government is aware that democratic sentiment is growing and it is trying to control and check this process and weaken the opposition movement. And so it is necessary to take the initiative away from the authorities and make them take a clear-cut position, to show whether they are for democracy, for enabling the Communists to operate in the open. That is why our two parties have decided, after thoroughly considering all the risks, that their general secretaries return to Turkey.

p Thank you, comrades, for an interesting interview. Let me say again that we admire your courageous decision.

Haydar Kutlu. I would like to repeat what was said on behalf of both our parties to the participants in the internationaj meeting held in Moscow during the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution. We have no illusions about this move resulting in an easy victory. It is an act of struggle. We are confident that all forces of democracy and progress will support us.