Union Autocracy, Mechanisms and Contradictions

General arguments and assertions about the inevitable oligarchic nature of trade unions are of long standing in the social sciences (Webb and Webb 1897; Michels 1959) and debate continues to the present day (Waterman 1999; Voss and Sherman 2000). But particularly in the case of developing countries – in relation to which cultural stereotypes are so often deployed – we take the view that much is to be gained from analysis of the specific historical conditions and mechanisms through which such autocracy operates. It is from this standpoint that the case of Türk Metal is examined here. Türk Metal is only one part of the trade union federation Türk-Is, and it should not be assumed that all of the federation’s affiliates are organised in the same way and still less that they endorse the same politics. Türk Metal is none the less the biggest union in the metal industry, which is of major importance to the Turkish economy and its export performance. Any ranking of the trade unions that are important to the modern sector would have to put Türk Metal at the top of the list. As a trade union, it embodies the worst aspects of the corporatist ideology and practice that characterised the early years of the Republic.