6-7 EYLÜL OLAYLARI

6-7 EYLÜL OLAYLARIsored associations such as student and youth organisations, trade unions and KTC, yet. this partnershipin the onset and course of events was not taken into consideration during the preparationof the verdicts. During the hearings in Istanbul between 1956 and 1957, the role of DP members,the leaders of government, and MAH were overlooked in order to conceal the fact that Turkish Statewas accountable for the attacks. Though KTC was accused thereupon, its executive boards acquittedfrom all accusations probably because of the fact that they had threatened "to divulge in theresponsibility of the members of government" just in case of a sentence. On the other hand, duringthe hearings at military court on Yassiada. it was tried to be proved that only the government memberswere of responsible for the act s of violence. With these cases, the military invention in 1960was tried to be legitimised. KTC's, MAH's, trade unions', and student associations' interminglingwith the events were ignored during the preparation of the verdict. The innocence of KTC memberswere accepted as "verified" with respect to the verdict produced by the Court of Martial Law in 1957.MAH had still been the part of military structure in the year 1960. Pressing charges against MAHstaff might also have brought accusations against the officers of the military regime. Probably for thisreason, the court openly rejected the number of requests made by the defendant attorneys to arrangehearings for MAH administrators or executives on account that "MAH's responsibility was alreadyclarified with the memorandum prepared in 1956." In this way. members of Democratic Partywere presented as exclusive accountables of organising and operating the attacks. As a result , thehearings in Istanbul, and on Yassiada actually served to legitimise and admit the political rules in1955 and 1960 instead of clarifying the Events of 6-7 September.The Events of 6-7 September 1955 had caused non-Muslims to have extensive disappointmentabout Turkish Republic. With the establishment of Democratic Party in 1945, the singleparty regime of Republican Folk Party (CHP) that ruled for several years had came to an end, andthe transition into a multi-party regime was accomplished; it was also thought that the minoritypolicies carried on up to that time would also become liberalised parallel to the democratisationof country. Indeed, certain discriminatory treatments against minorities were abolished in this newpolitical era. Another important reason was the struggle that CHP, party in opposition, waged forthe voters. Together with the transition into multi-party regime, minorities who nearly constitutedthe one third of all voters in Istanbul became the voters whose potential votes were required to besecured.As a consequence of Democratic Party's election victory in spring 1950. the non-Muslim minoritieshoped that the liberal policies of the new government would also bring in a democratic approachtowards minorities of the country. A couple of precautions taken by DP also revealed the fact that stateelite approached the aforesaid minority groups with a considerable degree of tolerance. However, thehappy athmosphere created by seemingly recovered relationships between non-Muslim minoritiesand the government was replaced by the fact that DP's view over minorities was not really different thanCHP's. The non-Muslim minorities started to be treated as secondary citizens as in the case of Ottomanpast through the difficulties created by Turkish authorities for their activities. Nevertheless. DP's liberalminority policy since 1950 was indeed proved to be an impression constituted out of the estimates offoreign policy and party tactics. Intensification of disputes over Cyprus in 1954 brought212