Türkiye’s history has often been a “history of purges.” Successive governments, seeking to establish their own political order, targeted particular groups and subjected them to severe punishments that violated universal principles of law, frequently by effectively “inventing crimes.” Inevitably, after some time, questions arose about the innocence of those punished or the severity of their sentences.
This repeatedly brought the issue of “amnesty” onto the political agenda, often culminating in broad pardons.
Beginning in 1923, amnesty laws became a recurring feature of Turkish criminal law. After the general amnesty of 1923, another was enacted on the tenth anniversary of the Republic. Shortly before Atatürk’s death, the Yüzellilikler—literally “the 150”—were also pardoned and permitted to return to the country.
The same pattern continued during the multi-party era. The Democrat Party, for example, passed an amnesty law almost immediately after coming to power.
Likewise, the “mass and exemplary punishment” methods employed after July 15 have once again given rise to expectations of a “political amnesty,” just as happened after previous military interventions: Democrat Party members were eventually pardoned following the May 27 coup, while the March 12 military memorandum was followed by the 1974 amnesty.
CREATING THE LIST OF THE 150
During the Turkish War of Independence, the Istanbul government’s opposition to the nationalist movement had already raised, by 1921, the question of punishing those who supported such policies. Mustafa Kemal and his associates discussed who should fall within this category.
At the Lausanne negotiations, Türkiye and Greece agreed to proclaim general amnesties, although provisions were made to exclude certain individuals and send them into exile.
The fact that Ankara began discussing the matter almost immediately after the Lausanne talks were temporarily suspended demonstrates how determined it was to punish a specific number of people.
After the treaty was signed, preparations continued and an initial list of 600 names was drawn up. The list was then to be debated in the Grand National Assembly, which would determine the 150 people to be classified as “traitors to the homeland.”
The parliamentary debates revealed that almost everyone had a different conception of what constituted “treason,” and that many sought to add individuals to the list out of personal hostility or a desire for revenge.
Yusuf Akçura proposed that the principles governing inclusion should first be clearly defined. His proposal, however, was rejected on the grounds that the fundamental criterion was simply “treason against the homeland.” Numerous deputies subsequently sought to add people according to their own understanding of that concept.
As the debates dragged on, responsibility for finalizing the list was transferred to the Council of Ministers.
When the completed list turned out to contain only 149 names, Mustafa Kemal Pasha personally added the 150th. The final person was a journalist: Refet, owner of the İzmir-based newspaper Köylü.
The list encompassed remarkably diverse categories: members of Sultan Vahdettin’s entourage, individuals associated with the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres, commanders of the Kuva-yi İnzibatiye, Çerkez Ethem and his associates, participants in the Circassian Congress in İzmir, people who had gone abroad and engaged in activities against Türkiye, and journalists, writers, and newspaper publishers who had opposed the National Struggle.
The sheer breadth of these categories meant that people who would have ranked at the very bottom of any judicial assessment of culpability also found themselves on the list.
For example, Ali Galip, the governor of Harput who attempted to break up the Sivas Congress, was not included, while 29 people from villages around Gönen, Manyas, and Susurluk were included simply on the grounds that they were “Circassian bandits.”
Of the 150 individuals, 86 were Circassians and four were Kurds.
Journalists and writers also constituted a significant portion of the list. Among them were Mevlanzade Rıfat, Refik Halit Karay, and Refi’ Cevat Ulunay, who had written against the National Struggle, as well as newspaper owners who had published such articles.
Another striking detail was that Interior Minister Ferit Bey, who actually presented the list of the 150 to Parliament, was himself later forced to resign from his ministry over allegations that he had engaged in activities against the National Struggle while in Istanbul. He was replaced by Recep Bey—Recep Peker.
THE AMNESTY DEBATE
Some of those on the list were already abroad. Those who remained in Türkiye were immediately expelled.
The 150 went primarily to countries such as Romania, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Turkish diplomatic officials continued to monitor the exiles in the countries where they settled and sent reports about them to Ankara.
In 1927, they were stripped of Turkish citizenship. They were also prohibited from owning property in Türkiye, depriving them of property and inheritance rights.
The possibility of pardoning the 150 first arose in 1933, during preparations for an amnesty marking the Republic’s tenth anniversary. The idea was abandoned, however, because of opposition from Prime Minister İsmet Pasha and Interior Minister Şükrü Kaya.
Meanwhile, some of the 150 had written directly to Mustafa Kemal Pasha asking for a pardon.
The 1933 law pardoned all crimes committed before July 28 of that year. Even the convictions of members of the Progressive Republican Party (Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası) sentenced by the Independence Tribunals, as well as those convicted in connection with the İzmir assassination plot, were completely erased.
Only two groups remained outside the amnesty: “the 150 and the exiled Ottoman dynasty.”
The question of pardoning the 150 returned to the agenda in 1938.
Several factors appear to have played a role: some of the exiles wrote letters to Atatürk requesting clemency; their families drew attention to the hardships they had suffered; and the experiences of Refik Halit in exile attracted particular attention.
Around this time, letters by Rıza Tevfik and Refik Halit praising Atatürk and the new regime appeared in several newspapers.
These developments eventually led Atatürk to request preparations for including the 150 in an amnesty marking the fifteenth anniversary of the Republic.
Celal Bayar, who had succeeded İsmet Pasha as prime minister in 1937, was now head of the government.
“LET US LYNCH THEM LIKE ALİ KEMAL!”
When the amnesty bill reached Parliament in June 1938, it met with fierce opposition.
Eskişehir deputy Emin Sazak used extraordinarily harsh language. Referring to the 1922 lynching of journalist Ali Kemal in İzmit, he declared:
“The 150 should die just like Ali Kemal. I would like to kill them one by one by tearing the flesh from their bodies with my teeth.”
Cevdet Kerim İncedayı also opposed the amnesty, invoking figures such as philosopher Rıza Tevfik and Refik Halit and arguing that Türkiye was now capable of producing its own scientists, writers, and philosophers.
Despite these objections in Parliament, the debate eventually arrived at the position that “if the Great Leader wants it, then of course this law will be passed.” The amnesty was presented above all as an expression of “Atatürk’s mercy.”
Yunus Nadi opposed the pardon in his columns in Cumhuriyet, questioning the sincerity of figures such as Refik Halit who had requested amnesty.
Ahmet Emin Yalman, Falih Rıfkı Atay, and Hüseyin Cahit Yalçın, on the other hand, supported it. They argued that granting an amnesty would amount to an explicit declaration that Türkiye’s revolutionary transformation had now been completed.
The comments of writers who “unconditionally supported” the new regime suggest that the Republic’s founders now believed that the new political order had become firmly established, with all of its institutions in place. This confidence appears to have encouraged them to contemplate a carefully “limited” amnesty.
Just two days before the amnesty law was enacted, Parliament adopted a new Press Law preventing individuals who had been convicted of offenses against the National Struggle, the Republic, or the reforms from owning newspapers.
The purpose was clear: former newspaper owners and publishers returning to Türkiye under the amnesty would be prevented from resuming newspaper publication.
Indeed, when the newspaper Tan began publishing a novel by Refik Halit, it was shut down for three months.
ONLY 40 RETURNED
The Amnesty Law was passed by Parliament and entered into force on June 29, 1938—just four and a half months before Atatürk’s death.
Despite the “National Leader’s wishes,” however, a significant number of deputies, including former prime minister İsmet Pasha, did not participate in the vote.
The dominant narrative in the newspapers was that the young Republic was giving the “sinners” another chance in order to win them back.
According to records of the General Directorate of Security, more than half of the 150 had already died in exile by the time the amnesty was enacted. Only 69 were still alive.
They were initially given fifteen days, followed by an additional two-month period, to take advantage of the amnesty. Some chose to return to Türkiye; others decided to remain abroad.
According to police records, only 40 ultimately returned.
Among those who came back were Refik Halit, philosopher Rıza Tevfik, Süleyman Şefik Pasha, Refi’ Cevat, former minister Cemal Pasha, and Çerkez Tevfik, the brother of Çerkez Ethem.
Those who chose not to return included former Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri, Çerkez Ethem himself, Ethem’s other brother Reşit, and journalist Celal Kadri.
General Directorate of Security records also indicate that those who returned remained under surveillance until their deaths and that regular intelligence reports were prepared about them.
Journalists who returned to Türkiye generally avoided writing about politics in the newspapers they worked for. They even refrained from writing about their years in exile.
A PARDON, BUT STILL AN “ACT OF GRACE”
The people sent into exile on the basis of an arbitrarily compiled list, and barred from returning to their homeland for years, had been branded “traitors.”
Yet the decision to exile them was intended in part as a warning to all opponents of the regime and was not based on any judicial ruling—even one issued by a politically dependent court.
Significantly, their pardon fourteen years later followed a similar logic. They were not exonerated by a court. Instead, they were permitted to return through what amounted to an ihsan—an “act of grace” granted from above.
The pardon of individuals who had been branded “traitors” also occurred at a time when the single-party regime had become thoroughly institutionalized: the interior minister simultaneously served as secretary-general of the CHP, while provincial governors also functioned as provincial party chairmen.
By that stage, neither the returning exiles nor anyone else had much opportunity to engage in meaningful political opposition anyway.
Despite all of this, the pardon of the 150 can be regarded as one of the most significant amnesties in the history of the Turkish Republic.
Fourteen years after branding these individuals “traitors” and sending them into exile without putting them on trial, the Republic pardoned them, restored their citizenship, and allowed them to return.
In doing so, it also established a precedent for subsequent amnesties: the state could ultimately extend forgiveness to anyone as an “act of grace.”
Indeed, some of the children of the 150 would later go on to serve in subsequent Turkish governments.
REFERENCES
N. Yazıcı, “Af Yasalarında Yüzellilikler,” Ankara University Faculty of Political Sciences Journal, 2000, Vol. 55; Resmî Gazete (Official Gazette), July 16, 1938, No. 3961; Ş. Halıcı, Yüzellilikler, MA thesis, Anadolu University Institute of Social Sciences, Eskişehir, 1998; S. Bingöl, Yüzellilikler Meselesi, MA thesis, Hacettepe University Atatürk Institute for Modern Turkish History, Ankara, 1998; H. Özoğul, Cumhuriyetin Kuruluşunda İktidar Kavgası, Kitap Yayınevi, Istanbul, 2011.
