Humanities and Social Sciences Review, CD-ROM. ISSN: 2165-6258 :: 2(1):271–278 (2013) Copyright c  2013 by UniversityPublications.net IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN TURKEY; THE SAMPLE OF JDP, RPP, AND NMP * Vahap GÖKSU Selcuk University, Turkey Political parties, in the position of a component of democracies with vital importance and still the most important participation instrument of today, participate in the political life with certain aim sand reasons. In shaping of these aims and reasons, the ideological fundamentals the parties are based on are highly effective. It is assumed that at least, in theory, the policies the parties implemented; the principles being effective in arising of these policies; manners and attitudes shown in the face of any event, situation, and contentious problem; and numerous political activities such as the activities they organized or participated in are determined and come into existence in the frame of these ideologies and the values possessed This study aims to study the ideological backgrounds of three major parties finding place in Parliament (JDP, RPP and NMP), acquiring the votes of about 80 percent of voters in Turkey for ten years, are based on In this direction, also considering the values and symbols the parties of interest from past to the present day and carrying out an analysis about their ideological backgrounds through the policies they have introduced and the actions and rhetoric they have produced, their distinctions and skills are attempted to be analyzed. Keywords: Political parties, Ideology, Conservatism, Socialism, Nationalism. Introduction In describing Turkish political life, it is observed that sociocultural approach based on the distinction centre-periphery is commonly acceptable. According to this, modernization efforts attempted in Ottoman Empire in 19 th century engendered a deep sociocultural distinction in the country between the centralists and reformist civil and military governmental elite (centre) and the remaining sections (periphery) of society, whose leadership were carried out Ottoman traditional religious scholars (ulema) and local nobles. At the beginning of 20 th century, when Ottoman monarchy allowed for political competition, modernist sections, collecting in Party of Union and Progress ( ttihat ve Terakki Frkas), while opposition in Ahrar Party, caused the social, cultural, and political separation between reformist and traditionalist sections in the country to be permanent (Gökçe et al., 2002:10). In the process reaching today from Tanzimat (political reforms in the Ottoman state in 1839), the line extending from Committee of Union and Progress to CHP attempting the effort of reform with the radical and revolutionist projects targeting Westernization was accepted as centre. Periphery, as opposed to the attitude of suddenness of surrounding and its authorizations, at the beginning with the liberal thesis such as individual attempt and decentralism, and later in conservative tons, made an opposition (Kor, 2004:17). In related with the Turkish political life, we can say easily that centre were associated with progressivism and modernization, while periphery and rightist parties with * This study was prepared , making use of postgraduate thesis with the title of “Political Identities inTurkey after 1980, Konya example ”, by Vahap GÖKSU and accepted by Social Science Institute, Selcuk University. 271