Natives, how does this style sound to you? Why does the author use so much passive, even the combination of causative and passive? Is he trying to sound smart, isn´t there a simpler way to say it or does the complexity bring some prestige to the style? Is it his personal style or does it belong to this type of texts?

Tipik endoktrinasyon yöntemlerinin (acemice de olsa) kullanıldığı bu sistem, cumhuriyet öncesi ve sonrası dönemin, ‘biz ve onlar’ düzlemine oturtularak iki boyutlu klancı algıyla değerlendirilmesini esas alıyor. Tarihin klancı bir zihniyetle algılanmasının sağlanabilmesi için öncelikle geçmişin kendisine biçilen  kalıba sığdırılması gerektiğinden, pek çok tarihi gerçeğin hasır altı edilmesi ya da ana hikayeyi destekleyecek (veya en azından ana hikayeyle uyum içerisinde olacak) şekilde çarpıtıldıktan sonra öğrencilere aktarılması şarttır. (Serdar Kaya)

(I don´t necessarily need a translation, I would just like to know your opinion about the style.)

I doubt that an ordinary or uneducated Turk can understand what the writer says or means  by that pragraph. From the very first term [endoktrinasyon which I would use "beyin yıkama" instead] would put the people off from reading further. It is written in intellectual level [scholarly] that even an educated Turks must give an extra effort to get the whole idea of the text.

He is not trying to sound smart, since he is already smart. He has a certain intellectual level of carrier. He is telling us the shaped mindset of  a nation that has been shaped by official regime using brainwashing [endoktrinasyon]. Some might agree with that and some might not.

when it comes to the "passive forms" , Since in his analysis the missing Subject "Official regime" or whoever he refers to, is not directly mentioned. His readers already knows who he refers or accuses. Active sentences can be used instead of some passive forms in the paragraph.

Confusing for many reasons. It would be more clear.

I don´t doubt that the writer is truly intelligent. The irritating thing is what he writes is very interesting but you have to undress the words from so many suffixes before you get to the core of the meaning. Like in the very beginning

                     endoktrinasyon yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı bu sistem

what else does the passive form bring to the clause but more heavy load of suffixes and what would be lost if the wrote

                     endoktrinasyon yöntemleri kullanan bu sistem

which would be much easier to understand? But probably the point is to give special stress to the missing subject, the faceless regime who is using these methods. Maybe what has been hidden into the passive forms is the author´s anger.