Partizan: After Saraçhane Resistance
We hereby share an unofficial translation of a statement published by Partizan.
On March 19, following the detention of Ekrem İmamoğlu and many others, street protests began. On the same day, the CHP (Republican People’s Party) called for protests in front of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality building in Saraçhane. This call transformed into a process that shook the national agenda starting from March 19. The street protests that emerged in Saraçhane are now among the most discussed topics. In this article, we will address both the protests in Saraçhane and the situation of the university students that has attracted much attention.
OVERCOMING BARRICADES AND CHANGE
On March 19, thousands of young people gathered at the call of Istanbul University students and overcame the first police barricade. This breach marked the initial spark of ongoing resistance. The students’ uprising spread throughout Istanbul. This uprising constituted the first step of developing street activism. Later, the rebellion of university students, particularly the protests by METU (Middle East Technical University) students, was an explosion of anger that had been brewing for years. From the very first day, the protests in Saraçhane continued in front of the Bozdoğan Arch, with university students actively participating. Students repeatedly charged the police barricade with the determination to march to Taksim Square. Over time, this determination rooted the consciousness of “marching to Taksim” among the student crowd. The breach of the barricade in the Istanbul University created hope that the blockade on Taksim could also be lifted, and this hope spread among the protesters, especially among university students.
Saraçhane became a center where police attacks sharply confronted resistance, especially until March 25. What we will focus on here is the ‘resistance’ aspect of this conflict.
In general, we must emphasize the following truth: While the long-standing resistance of revolutionaries and the left, along with street protests, served as significant reference points for university youth, during this process involving tens of thousands, students could not unite around common demands or consolidate their voices towards a united goal. The resistance in front of the police barricade at Bozdoğan Arch was based on the reference of revolutionary action; however, there was also a waiting aspect that undermined this resistance. The resistance continued while CHP members were watching the developments from a bus on one side of Saraçhane, and this situation did not change for a long time. This indicates that the students on the street were not merely a crowd “supporting Ekrem İmamoğlu,” but rather part of a much broader and deeper social reaction. The students we spoke with in Saraçhane and during the marches expressed a much deeper anger articulated through concepts like “democracy,” “economic crisis,” and “lack of future.”
A RIVER WITHOUT A LEADER
In social media and on the streets, the most talked-about and attention-grabbing issue was the state of “lack of leadership.” From March 19 onward, CHP statements and the resistance at Bozdoğan continued side by side. Initially, various student organizations attempted to guide the crowd. It took time for student organizations concentrated in certain universities to recognize and influence the broader student body. While we may not have sufficient information about the situation at their respective universities, it was clear that the influence of revolutionary-progressive student movements on the students in the streets was not strong. This situation also explained why a large student body, raised with the foundational codes of the State, referenced these codes to transition into “resistance.”
The resistance faced several challenges: barricades needed to be overcome, but how? It was necessary to engage in resistance, but how? There had to be demands and goals for the mass movement, but what were they? It is important to remember that for tens of thousands of students, this was their first experience of street protests and their first encounter with State violence. Of course, an analysis should also be made regarding these students’ ideological preparedness and the siege they were subjected to. Many details and differences would be the subject of such an analysis. However, in this article, we will focus on the course and outcome of the protests in Saraçhane.
The demand of the crowd that reached the police barricade in Saraçhane was the removal of the barricade to open the road to Taksim. This was a common demand in the early days. At every moment the students charged the barricade, the police responded with heavy tear gasses. The crowd resisted the police in every way possible, using water bottles, firecrackers, torches, etc. This was a reaction of the youth whose future was blocked, an expression of the anger that spilled into the streets. From the second day onward, the number of students increased. For the CHP, Saraçhane was a rallying point; for the students, it was a space of anger and resistance. This time, the crowd was better equipped to respond to police attacks. However, the young people’s defensive skills were largely based on the defensive techniques they had observed from resistance actions around the world—particularly the student protests in Hong Kong and the Gezi Resistance. Although they developed their technical skills, the students could not unite in overcoming the barricade, clarifying their goals, or voicing their demands collectively. On the other hand, they showed solidarity by setting up “first aid stations” in response to the effects of tear gasses; almost everyone took individual precautions against it. However, the intensity of the police attacks made resistance difficult. Especially after the conclusion of the rally, the police launched very violent assaults on the crowd. Students were tortured, tear gasses were fired at them from close range, and they were kicked while they were lying the ground. The reckless police violence was experienced most starkly by these “innocent” and essentially unprepared young people.
THE POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS
The issues that students agreed on were familiar problems that had been increasing from the past to the present. However, there was a lack of sufficient ideological cohesion and analysis of the root causes of these problems, which determined the ground and form of the resistance.
“Nationalism” became the fundamental dynamic that colored the resistance. Slogans particularly shifted to an anti-Kurdish National Movement stance. The “Second Resolution Process” also served as a justification for inflating nationalism. Agitations like “Let’s unite regardless of right or left,” “Today is the day of unity,” and “The homeland is at risk” overshadowed the students’ real demands. When the State’s initial detentions targeted student organizations, the area fell under the dominance of the foundational codes of fascism. Resistance against the police became passive. Attempts were made to suppress the resistance. The group that most propagated this on the ground was the Victory Party supporters [Translator’s note: the Victory Party is an ultra-reactionary parliamentarian political party of Turkey].
Outside of Saraçhane, university youth were in large numbers on the streets and in the squares, enthusiastic crowds. Many labels such as “lumpen,” “fascist,” and “adrenaline junkie” were applied to this youth, and they continue to be used. However, it is important to recognize that most of these young people were moving like a flood, driven by the energy of their anger; they were a torrent that did not know what it would destroy but was destructive nonetheless, sweeping away everything in its path. This was a fundamental characteristic of the student youth in Saraçhane and a natural reflection of their lack of organization.
“IBO PEOPLEARE COMING” AND ITS IMPACT
When discussing Saraçhane, we must also mention the phrase “Ibo people are coming,” [Translator’s note: as reference to İbrahim Kaypakkaya and his silhouette in the flags and banners of Partizan] which resonated particularly in social media. After Partizan called for participation in the protests, the movement in the area created a different impact. Upon entering the area with their flags, Partizan was met with enthusiasm both on the ground and in social media. The “Ibo flags,” seen as the “teaching of resistance” and the “symbol of resilience,” encouraged the crowd. The crowd’s embrace of the Partizan supporters, despite ideological clashes and the belief that they were not on the same side, illustrates how slippery these ideological confrontations can be. While the political level of the masses may be debatable, we once again saw the importance of being part of the masses and using the right tools to make changes. The day known for the “fireworks,” which became a topic of news and was widely shared, also had a significant impact on the masses. The power of being recognized as a “symbol of resistance” emerged right here. While the police continued their intense gas attacks, as the crowd in front of the barricade slowly retreated from the assault, shouts of “Ibo is coming” were heard. At that moment, a serious excitement arose within the crowd. Calls to “overcome the barricade” and “take us to Taksim” became louder. The presence of revolutionaries and the longing for them were once again evident in Saraçhane.
THE ANGER OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
The protests in Saraçhane were brought to an end by the CHP with the temporary cessation of the risk of appointing a trustee to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB). While the protests here transcended the CHP, they still carried the limitations mentioned above. Therefore, it is not surprising that the decision to end the protests yielded results. We must also note that the State’s various forms of attack contributed to this result.
In addition to university students, there were hundreds of thousands of people flocking to Saraçhane. The statements that “the issue is not Ekrem” certainly have a counterpart. It is impossible to overlook the accumulated anger among people of all ages and classes who came to the area; denying this would merely be a political choice. Throughout the election process, the CHP has attempted to channel this accumulated anger into the ballot box in some way. The CHP has acted as a barrier in front of the masses that want to take to the streets and shout their demands. By calling for narrow spaces and speaking in a high-tension manner, CHP leaders like Özgür Özel have tried to pacify the masses’ anger. While inviting large masses to the streets, they have constrained their demands to narrow political agendas and unsolvable goals. The reason for the CHP’s rise in popularity and its emergence as a “center of opposition” is its response to the masses’ anger through rhetoric. However, the voices rising in Saraçhane go beyond the CHP’s opposition. It is clear that the CHP is not a “center of solutions” for the broad masses—especially the youth. Among the incoming crowd, there is significant anger against Erdoğan and the impoverishment of the people. It is not surprising that this anger manifested in Saraçhane alongside Ekrem İmamoğlu. İmamoğlu, presented as an alternative to Erdoğan, has fostered the hope for “change” among the masses. But could this hope realize the dream that the system would “heal” or “improve”? We have not heard a clear expression of this from the broad masses; rather, there is a distinct ambiguity. The system’s decayed, death-dealing, and enslaving structure continues to be the breeding ground for uprisings. Uprisings without leadership are dissolving within the circle of the system’s parties and even fascist movements (as these are the parties and movements of the ruling classes). Attempts to render the protests passive and to pacify the crowd’s immense anger are being transformed into “shows” through isolated areas like Maltepe and calls for rallies. The university youth, pregnant with rebellion, are countering this with slogans like “We came for action, not a rally.” This opposition is positive and contains a strong revolutionary direction.
EXIT FROM SARAÇHANE: WHAT NOW?
The first break from Saraçhane occurred with a student gathering in Beşiktaş Square. The police violence in Saraçhane and the imposed passive defense allowed students to channel their anger outward. On March 24, tens of thousands of students gathered in Beşiktaş Square, perhaps with a crowd not seen in the student movement for a long time. The police violence and torture experienced on March 23 changed the relationship between students and the police. The slogans of “our police” began to crack under pressure. However, this was not a complete break. The perception of the State and police among the student body underwent a transformation, bringing many questions along with it. The phrase “violent attacks on non-violent actions” increased students’ inquiries about their methods and forms of protest. Students who took precautions against being targeted found themselves directionless in resisting the attacks. Throughout the march in Beşiktaş, clashes continued between students and the police. The police, who had used intense tear gasses and inflicted violence on students on March 23, were “docile, polite, and gentle” on March 24. While students’ demands for the march were heard, the police dictated the route; every step toward Taksim was blocked under the guise of “dialogue” as slogans calling for Taksim increased. Tens of thousands who set out from Beşiktaş marched without knowing where to turn. During the march, they expressed their confusion with cries of “Are we going to Saraçhane again?” and “Why are we going to Saraçhane?” The group leading the crowd with the slogan “our police” did not represent the voice of the tens of thousands and succumbed to the ignorance on the street. Among the crowd turning toward Taksim, the meaning and significance of Taksim were weak. The question “Why should we go to Taksim?” was met with responses like “Taksim has a history; it has a history from Gezi.” Once again, the aimless influx of tens of thousands, the lack of common demands, and the directionless marches raised a series of questions. The masses need to take to the streets and make their voices heard. However, this voice was complex, narrow, and insufficient. Even if tens of thousands reached Taksim, the lack of demands and direction would make Taksim meaningless. The Gezi Resistance holds a powerful experience and reference for students. However, we unfortunately do not see the clarity of demands from Gezi reflected in student protests. Slogans mixed with nationalism create uncertainty both in social media and on the streets. Sexist insults, weak slogans, and directionless marches are certainly situations that the State would approve. However, we also saw that in the end, the police inflicted torture on hundreds of students with their intense violence.
The march that began in Beşiktaş Square ended in Saraçhane. Additionally, there was a youth group staging a sit-in at the Galata Bridge. This group wanted to turn their location into a protest area against the police violence in Saraçhane. By the end of the day, the police again resorted to violence, and the situation did not change.
The student exit from Beşiktaş on March 24 was followed by another gathering in Maçka on March 25. Police torture, home raids, and arrests did not break the students’ rebellion. Tens of thousands of young people gathered again in Maçka. The target for March 25 was the Şişli Municipality, which had been appointed a trustee. University students gathered in Maçka Democracy Park and began a march toward the municipality. The March 25 gathering was one of the clearest meetings in terms of objectives. This march against the appointed trustee was a response to the State’s trustee attacks. However, once again, the political consciousness among the broad masses was weak. The municipal target did not align with the slogans being chanted. The students’ longing for the streets and their desire to rebel were so strong that tens of thousands wanted to march and chant slogans across kilometers in Istanbul. The people¡s support for the students was also quite significant. The students responded to this support with slogans, inviting everyone to the streets. The march’s municipal target and its connection with the people expanded the protest. Many people from the neighborhoods joined the march alongside the students. The police, who heavily surrounded the area in front of the Şişli Municipality, insisted for a long time on ending the protest. The police threatened to attack, claiming that the slogan “Erdoğan Dictator” was prohibited. University representatives wanted to express their demands and issues from a stage. However, as emphasized repeatedly above, since the demands were not unified, the voices of the university representatives were not heard much in the area. Thus, the students’ march on March 25 came to an end.
THE STREET TEACHES AND GUIDES US
Finally, it is worth mentioning the educational power of the street. Tens of thousands of students took to the streets for the first time. They faced police violence and witnessed how struggles for rights are suppressed. With these experiences, the thousands of young people flooding the streets will find their direction. This will certainly happen through the revolutionary leaders paving the way, meeting with the masses, and growing alongside them. Today, slogans and rhetoric may be backward and insufficient. However, every revolutionary leadership that connects with the masses will grow, develop, and provide guidance. Student activism continues not only in Istanbul but also in Ankara, Izmir, Eskişehir, and many other cities. Meeting with the masses is a way to understand them. The State is carrying out widespread arrests with fabricated justifications and baseless claims to suppress the student youth. This method highlights how the freedom of expression, which is a pillar of “bourgeois democracy,” is a class issue and a right that is generally, if not always, obstructed in countries like ours. The freedom of expression of the rebellious people is under attack worldwide today. The assaults faced by the struggle against the massacre in Palestine underline this reality. We know that the youth, which is growing and striving to find its way everywhere, including in our country today, will continue to try to overcome the barriers in front of them. This is their law.
