ALEVİ SİYASALLAŞMASI VE DIŞ POLİTİKA: ALEVİ SİYASİ PARTİLERİNDE KİMLİK-ULUSLARARASI POLİTİKA BAĞLANTISI

Abstract

The foreign policy and international relations perceptions of sub-state groups have recently begun to be discussed in the literature. The central role of the state is eroding and non- and sub-state actors are emerging as influential factors in international politics. Identity is the most dominant factor in the foreign policy perspectives of these actors. This study examines Alevi politicization in Turkey in relation to foreign policy and identity. The politicization of Alevism in Turkey has accelerated since the 1950s with the urbanization of Alevis and their rapprochement with leftist ideologies. The tension between Alevism and the state since the Ottoman period has also fed this process. As a result of this politicization, the Unity Party (1966-1980) and the Peace Party (1996-1999) were established as Alevi parties. The relationship that both parties established with their Alevi base, their perception of domestic politics and their interpretation of international developments influenced their identities. This study examines the relationship between Alevi identity and foreign policy based on the parties' programs. The study aims to contribute to the literature by making three claims. The first is that sub-state entities can also make foreign policy. Sub-state identities formulate their own foreign policy concepts independently of governments and successfully integrate domestic and international developments into their political programs. Second, domestic and international developments have a transformative impact on the politicization of Alevis. The birth of the Alevi political movement following urbanization and its subsequent ideological transformation with leftist politics illustrates this. As a result, there has been a rupture between the Alevi political movement and its traditions and institutions. Third, Alevi politicization in the 1960s and 1990s followed different paths. The first was the process of individual Alevi politicization in the bipolar order of the Cold War conditions, which shrouded micro debates, while the second was the emergence of an Alevi political movement as a result of the increased emphasis on identity after the end of the Cold War.