« Why Nationalism Works—and How Capitalism Might Help | Main | Morocco's 'AKP' Is Moroccan, After All »
June 30, 2007
Atilla Yayla and the Emperor’s Latest Clothes
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
Next Monday, on July 2, a Turkish professor will be on trial in İzmir. The prosecutor will ask the judges that he should be put in prison for three years for the crime he committed in the same city about six months ago. The alleged felony is not something like theft, robbery or fraud, though. It is about “insulting Atatürk,” Turkey's revered founder, and the accused is Dr. Atilla Yayla, who teaches political science at Ankara's Gazi University and who is also the founder of the Association for Liberal Thinking.
But how did Dr. Yayla exactly “insult” the father of all Turks? Did he swear at him, or named the Supreme Leader with some inappropriate title that would hurt the sensitivities of the widely Atatürkophillic nation? No, not really. What he did was to argue, in an academic speech, that the period of High Kemalism — during which Turkey was under the unchallenged rule of Atatürk and his political party, the CHP — was actually not much of a progressive era in Turkish history. In an additional heretical comment, he criticized the abundance of Atatürk photos and statues in Turkey and warned that the more we become global the more other nations would ask us, “Why does the same man appear everywhere?”
Interestingly the same question has been on my mind since my secondary school days. I remember that I became even more curious in the mid-80s when I watched a documentary about authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union or communist China and the way they created cults of personality in order to manipulate their societies. Those tyrannical regimes are gone, thank God, but you can still see what I mean very vividly if you comparatively observe the national days of liberation held in Ankara and in Pyongyang. Of course the two capitals host very different regimes — the former has a quasi-democracy, the latter has none — but the mass ceremonies organized in their giant stadiums in order to venerate their founding leaders have a striking, and tell-tale, similarity.
Actually these might not be appropriate issues to indulge deeply — and safely — in the Turkish media, as the trial of Atilla Yayla teaches us well. Yet let me still proceed cautiously, and at least touch a bit upon his first argument, i.e., that the era of Atatürk was a period of regression, not progress.
By Their Fruits We Know
The reasoning that led Dr. Yayla to that unconventional judgment is derived from his political philosophy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that he is the most prominent advocate of classical liberalism in Turkey: The 50-year-old professor believes that individuals should have the full power to shape their lives and states should have only a very limited control over society. He is a follower of great liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman.
Therefore Dr. Yayla values political regimes according to the degree that they value freedom. And, for him, the period of High Kemalism (1925-46) accounts to a very illiberal era: Civil society was crushed and the state dominated virtually everything. Even in the pre-Kemalist, i.e., Ottoman times, according to Dr. Yayla, Turkish society had more freedom.
Of course Kemalists — the dedicated followers of Mustafa Kemal — would offer a justification to this unpleasant reality. “You first need to suppress freedom in order to create a modern society,” they would probably say, “and Atatürk's long-term aim was to introduce liberty.” Fair enough. But then they would need to explain why they are still against freedom seven decades after Atatürk. (In case you haven't noticed, self-declared Kemalists in contemporary Turkey are the most passionate opponents of free markets, free ideas, free individuals, free Muslims, free Christians, and free intellectuals such as Orhan Pamuk, Elif Şafak, or Atilla Yayla.)
“By their fruits ye shall know them,” once said a wise Nazarene. And for people who have a taste for freedom, not only the roots but also the fruits of Kemalism seem terribly sour.
The Supra-Human Savior
Dr. Yayla's case is indeed just one of the many examples that can help us understand what Turkey's official ideology is and how it works. Another notable and recent incident was the trial of İpek Çalışlar, whose meticulous book about Atatürk's one time wife, Latife Hanım, created controversy and, once again, alarmed public prosecutors. Mrs. Çalışlar was accused of committing a “crime,” too, and that was simply an anecdote in her book: During the early days of the Republic, she reported, Atatürk's presidential palace was surrounded by a hostile gang, and he escaped from the back door while wearing the all-covering black chador of his wife. This was considered as an insult to the Supreme Leader, who, as a supra-human, is not supposed to have fears or experience disgraces like other mortals. The fact that Mrs. Çalışlar referred to the authentic memoirs of Latife Hanım was irrelevant: Such a national hero simply couldn't have escaped in travesty.
The way of reasoning that surfaces in this example is breathtaking, isn't it? We are not supposed to explore facts about Atatürk to figure out who he really was. No, the logic is rather the reverse. Our elders have already figured out who he was — a supra-human savior — and if there are facts that contradict that official picture, they need to be silenced.
Even if the supra-human Atatürk didn't exist, Voltaire could have said, he needs to be invented.
So, this is the gist of the “State ideology” that, according to President Sezer, all Turkish citizens have to side with. Luckily there are free minds among us such as Dr. Yayla who can think outside the box. No matter what our nomenklatura decides to do with him, we will be proud of his courage. He, despite all odds, dared to say that our Emperor has indeed no clothes.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at June 30, 2007 9:57 AM
Time and again we read these hateful secularophobic articles, but never ever does Mr.Akyol illuminates us with what should have really be done instead of what was done. Ataturk is bad, secularism is bad, female emansipation is bad, voting rights for women is bad. It is all regressive and reactionary. We should go instead the way of such great liberals as "free Muslims" like Khomeini and his likes. What a great country would it have been with all the women parading in hijabs, with no liquor stores and other by-products of this evil, inhuman secularism, imposed on freedom loving people by these despicable secular "bureaucrats".
Long live freedom. Down with Kemalism and oppression of masses.
Posted by: Eli at June 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Eli,
I don't understand you: 'what's wrog critizing a trial whihc is based upon surpression of the individual thinker.
What is wrong with the fact that people wants freedom of relgion in the personal way they want it? Ever travelled through Latin America, Japan, India, Russia, Europe, Israel etc. All secular countries where religion can be practized on the way the individual wants it.
What makes you so scared for your own religion? I assume you are a Turk...
If you surpress the religion of the people, you get exactly what happened in Iran...
Posted by: Hans A.H.C. de Wit at July 1, 2007 12:10 PM
High Kemalism is probably an accurate description of a bracketed time frame in Turkey’s history which was different from what came before it and since.
Hasan Âli Yücel was the Minister of Education (1938-46) during this period. Mr. Yücel commissioned the translation of enormous amounts of Western Classics during this period of time. He was also instrumental in the setup and training of teachers in what was called Village Institutes. These were closed later in the 1950’s but the damage was done: people were being educated to new ideas and concepts and struggling to think for themselves.
My father’s formative educational years were during this period of High Kemalism. The same could probably be said of the educators who trained Mr. Akyol’s mind at Bogazici University.
The same could also be said of the men who trained Professor Yayla. Islam has nothing to do with the thinking and the ideas propounded by either of these men even though Mr. Akyol is the one claiming some kind of intellectual debt to Islam.
It is no wonder that skepticism abounds among secularist-nationalists and others.
Posted by: Celal at July 1, 2007 2:01 PM
A journalist writes an article supporting a university professor's right to freedom of expression, and is labeled a hateful fundamentalist for it. I guess someone cought a hard-on for Mustafa Akyol.
Personality cults have no place in functioning societies today, but in those times it was reasonable considering the high period of Kemalism coincided with the high period of fascism, which was fashionable back then.
These ultraconservatives in Turkey now are trying to cling to a time when Turkey's politics and economy resembled Stalinist Russia's. They're more anti-reformist than the janissaries of the late Ottoman Empire. These people must learn to adapt to the times or make way for people that already have.
Posted by: kerim at July 1, 2007 3:49 PM
Hans de Witt,
Islam is NOT my religion, as I am a non-believer, and I have EVERY right to be so. Those who claim "freedom of religion" just miss the point, because they forget that other people have every right to be free FROM religion. Is that clear enough for you?
Anyway, I just dont understand, what kind of "religiois freedom" these poor "oppressed Muslims" need? In Turkey they are free to pray, to go to a mosque, to fast, to walk around in their headscarves and beards, etc. What else do they want? I can tell you. They want power to reshape and remodel society along-line their beliefs and worldwiew, which, if implemented, would necessarily limit freedom of people like myself.
Comparing islam with Latin America completely misses the point. Islam is not like Christianity. Islam pretends to intrude and regulate EVERY aspect of human behaviour, consumption, lifestyle, dress, etc. Only when "devout Muslims" get the power to impose this all-encompassing islamic worldview, only then will they (and the likes of Akyol, Yayla, Mustafa Erdogan, etc.) stop complaining about "opression".
Yes, I do NOT like islam, I do NOT want it to govern all aspects of my life, and I am completely entitled to hold my views and fight for them. When the so-called "democrats" will acknowledge my rights as well, not only those of poor, "devout Muslims", only then their democratic credentials can be taken seriously.
Posted by: Eli at July 1, 2007 4:21 PM
Dear Celal,
Apparently translating Western classics and setting up Village institutes was all wrong, reactionary and regressive. Why would anyone need Western classic, if the only book worth reading is the Koran? Why Village Institutes, if village mosques with illiterate grey-bearded imams are so much more useful, enlightening, progressive and freedom-loving?
Posted by: Eli at July 1, 2007 4:26 PM
Dear Celal,
I think you fall in the trap. You are talking now about some kind of High Kemalism, like something superior. Exactly where MA pointed too. I get scared already scared by the idea of something that's absolute. Ideas or thoughs serve only a time frame. When it stays there forever, it became a doctrine.
Translating Western Classics (you mean the French philosophers, the Frankfurter Schulle?) into Turkish don't set people free if they can not practice what they read, for example 'Existentialism'...or more controversial for Kemalists: Erasmus.
It's time to teach Turkish children philosophy next to kemalism. It's that what set a mind free.
Ever heard about the great Thinker's as Gandhi and ML King?
Posted by: Hans A.H.C. de Wit at July 1, 2007 6:24 PM
İ keep saying this but İ want to thank Mr Akyol for such a brilliant piece once again. This time İ am not going to name anyone because they know who they are. Once again fear is the motive. İt is a disgrace how people allow fear to consume their lives. Ataturk is no god. He did not create the world. Ataturk was a mortal like everybody else. So the ideas of Ataturk and his policies are open to debate. This is what is meant by a free and open society. Critical thinking is seriously lacking in the followers of Ataturk. Kemalism is a ideology of failure and regressiveness. The best example is the CHP, the CHP has never in the last 57 years won an election outright to govern the state. This result is an indictment on Kemalism. Playing with peoples emotions and looking down on people is not the way to build a civil society. The society built by Ataturk and CHP is not an example to the world. Why is it that people in Turkey are willing to immigrate to countries US, UK and other Western European countries but not the other way around? This goes to show that ideology of Kemalism has been a great failure.
May İ also add that the most successful and most prosperous era of Turkish History has been during the İslamic era. My advice to the all those İslamophobic religion hating people to go and check their facts and learn Turkish history properly.
Forcing alien beliefs on the local population is never going to produce a favourable outcome. İ agree with Dr Atilla, also İ would like to add that the Kemalists can't even read their own laws. The alleged crime is 'insulting Ataturk'. 'İnsulting' is different to 'Critisizing'. Again failure and fear is the motto of the Kemalists. What a sad day for Turkey July 2nd promises to be.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at July 1, 2007 8:32 PM
Thank you Mustafa Akyol. There are so few people who dared to articulate the truth. Kemalism is now and always has been a political religion. Let me quote you:
...Inspecting some soldiers in Anatolia, Kemal once asked, “Who is God and where does He live?” The soldier, anxious to please, replied “God is Mustafa Kemal Pasha. He lives in Ankara.”
Lord Kinross, Atatürk, p. 365
"He is omnipresent. He is on postage stamps and money, both bills and coins. Statue of Atatürk are everywhere, and his words are chiseled on the stone façades of buildings. His photograph is found in government offices and in the corner grocery store. His name has been bestowed on boulevards, parks, stadiums, concert halls, bridges, and forests. When the Turks seized the northern sector of Cyprus in 1974, busts of Atatürk were brought ashore with the troops and erected in every liberated Turkish village"
Vamik D. Volkan, Norman Itzkowitz, The Immortal Atatürk, The University of Chicago Press, p. 350
"An extreme form of nationalism with the attendant creation of historical myths, was used as the prime instrument in the building of a new national identity, and as such was intended to take the place of religion in many respects"
Zürcher, Turkey… p.189
In the official Turkish dictionary, the example given for religion is that: “Kemalism is the religion of the Turks”. The dictionary was published with this phrase until the 1960’s. Murat Belge, “Mustafa Kemal ve Kemalizm”, In Kemalizm, edited by Ahmet İnsel, İletişim, 2004, p. 37
"Kemalism never became a coherent, all-embracing ideology. This ideological void was filled to some extent by the personality cult which grew up around Mustafa Kemal…"
Zürcher, Turkey… p.190
Political religion is “a type of religion which sacralises an ideology, a movement or a political regime through the deification of a secular entity transfigured into myth, considering it the primary and indisputable source of the meaning and the ultimate aim of human existence on earth.” Emilio Gentile, “Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion: Definitions and Critical Reflections on Criticism of an Interpretation” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, Winter 2004 pp. 328-329
“While dealing with traditional or institutional religions, it [political religion] either assumes hostile behavior, aiming at their complete elimination, or tries to establish a relation of symbolic coexistence with them in the sense that political religion aims at incorporating a traditional religion in its own system of beliefs and myths, attaching to the latter an instrumental or auxiliary function.” Ibid p. 329
Posted by: onur atalay at July 1, 2007 8:43 PM
if you are going to criticize the trial, i am all with you. these "insulting turkisness" trials are going nowhere good and actually they are what really insulting turkisness.
such trials also shadow the real debate, because both dr. yayla and mr. akyol are severely wrong in the way criticizing the first era of the turkish republic. however, as we see in this case, mr. akyol and likewise "liberals" base their arguments on a trial which can hardly be supported, and derive funny conclusions about an era which they either know anything or dont understand what it was about.
Posted by: super hero at July 2, 2007 9:39 AM
By the way, Mustafa Akyol is distorting the truth again. It was not an "academic" event. It was a AKP meeting, which completely changes the whole perspective of this issue. So it was a political statement, not scientific speech. Even so, I dont think this "great liberal thinker" must be prosecuted. It will only create an extra interest in his rather mediocre persona. However, what I really find objectionable is this creeping historical revisionism taking place in Turkey. Of course, you should be able to freely investigate history. But there is one thing to remember. As Andrew Mango points out in his brilliant book, one´s attitude towards Ataturk depends on one´s view of Enlightenment. Enlightenment and its most cherished products, like democracy, human rights and freedom of speech came about not thanks to religion, but DESPITE the religion and, in many cases, AGAINST the religion. Yet the "great liberal thinker" argues on his site against the freedom FROM religion. So it is useful to know WHO passes for "liberal" nowadays in Turkey.
Posted by: Eli at July 2, 2007 10:05 AM
I did some research on the web, and found plenty of very interesting information on Mustafa Akyol. Did you know that he is an ardent proponent of the "intelligent design" nonsense? Did you know that he defines his mission as "defending faith and fighting unbelief"? How much do these words differ from those of Al Qaeda likes? After all, Ben Laden also sees his role as "fighting unbelief" and "saving the Muslim faith".
Now, I think it should be crystal clear who Mustafa Akyol really is. Behind "liberal clothes" a real fanatical Islamist hides. Dangerous fanatic with desire to fight science and modernity while incessantly targeting and threatening all those who disagree with his fundamentalist ideas.
Posted by: Eli at July 2, 2007 1:47 PM
Mr Akyol this forum has turned into a religion namely İslam hating forum. Your previous articles are right on the mark. The Kemalist can't comprehend a drop of religious expression anywhere in society. My advice to these Kemalist try hard wannabe secularists is to migrate to North Korea they can live happily freely of religion and worship their leader. Also they can receive their subsidy from the state of North Korea and be thankful for their freedom.
Kemalism has two characteristics; Failure and Fear. Failure to acknowledge achievments and failure to achieve basics have been the norm of the Kemalists. İt is argued that Kemalist introduced women's rights into Turkey. Oh really? İf there is women's rights can anybody show me please? On my recent trip to Turkey İ was surprised to see how badly women are treated. They are treated with contempt unless accompanied by a man. İf this is the idea of women's right's by Kemalists then you have failed miserably.
Failure and Fear cannot be tolerated in an open society. A state that fears its citizens goes to show how Kemalism has failed Turkey. My advice to the Kemalists, your day under the sun is over. You had your chance but you didn't succeed. The show is over time to move on and get with it.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at July 2, 2007 8:06 PM
Is it just me or do these brainwashed ultraconservative elitist self-hating prick authoritarian Kemalists make Kim Jong-Il's personality-cult look like a fan club?
Posted by: Kerim at July 3, 2007 6:57 AM
Kerim, dont worry, it is YOU. Go to North Korea, then come back and make your "valuable" contributions on personality cults.
"brainwashed ultraconservative elitist self-hating prick authoritarian Kemalists"....how nice! You, "democrats", are showing real "tolerance" and "good manners". Your real nasty face. Is it that what you´ve learned in US, Australia, etc.?
Yet it is also clear that this sort of hysteria is being relentlessly promoted by the likes of Mustafa Akyol, Atilla Yayla, etc. Blind in their hatred of Ataturk, these people spend their time slandering, insulting, cursing, swearing, diffaming, lying, provoking... And they find audience in some immature, feeble minds who think that just because they happen to live in US they are entitled to insult the man whom Turkey by any account owes a great deal, comparing him to some execrable dictators. You must really have a perverse mind to do such a thing. Learn serious books of Western authors, dont repeat islamic bulshit, then come and open your mouth!
Posted by: Eli at July 3, 2007 5:56 PM
Eli,
1. Do you think Ataturk should be a taboo? Do you think what he said 80 years ago is still valid?
2. Are you happy with so many statues, busts, pictures hanging on the wall, all the buildings, streets, airports, schools named with Ataturk? Don't you think we're a bit exxagerating things?
3. Don't you think that all political parties, establishments, etc. is manipulating his name in some way? What's your solution to this problem?
4. Do you think the Kemalism project is successful after so many decades? What's the "success" you define?
5. What is the reason of your hatred? Why you can't stand on Akyol's articles?
Just I want to understand your mood & ideas...
Thanks.
Posted by: blue at July 4, 2007 8:28 AM
If to you, liberalism and freedom of thought is "Islamic bullshit", then torture, authoritarianism, and poverty must be Kemalist progress.
I don't care much for fundamentalism, religious or secular. I drink, party, smoke, do pretty much everything your people consider modern (never mind education, tolerance, freedom of speech, that's not modern). At the same time, I don't owe anything to Mustafa Kemal (I'd never even heard of him until I went to Turkey). Neither do a lot of people born in Turkey getting screwed over right now by his brainwashed state-cultivated followers determined to force his delusional philosophies down everyone's throat, sometimes killing people in the process (like Kurds).
If you're so bothered by people being apathetic to your god Mustafa Kemal, just drown your frustration in liquor like he did. It's fun and effective.
Posted by: kerim at July 4, 2007 10:56 PM
Kerim, your arrogant ignorance is not worth even paying attention to. You really know nothing about history or politics. Keep living in your ignorant universe and be happy. The most fanatical mullah from Tehran would have been proud of your words. This is what really is close to your mentality. And this is why you hate Ataturk.
By the way, it is a bit stupid to proudly announce you never heard of Ataturk before coming to Turkey. Speaks volumes about your American "education".
Posted by: Eli at July 6, 2007 11:06 AM
"Learn serious books of Western authors, dont repeat islamic bulshit, then come and open your mouth! "
Mr/Ms. Eli,
Speaking of above statement; you represent who you are and what you represent. I don't think you will get acceptance from world around except your 1 sq. feet place that you occupy. You have a lame brain, disrespectful-hatred personality/approach.
Rehabilition is not essential only for inmates but for low-self esteem, disfunctional people like you.
I do really pitty you and kindly ask you to get a life-good one if any left. At least practice your faith-whatever it is; so that you gain some human morals to get yourself manipulated in to the society.
Posted by: Smarthumb at July 6, 2007 2:18 PM
What I simple don't understand here in Turkey, is that when you have an opposite opinion, people became personal and insult each other.
Being critical means: being interested.
Posted by: Hans A.H.C. de Wit at July 9, 2007 2:16 PM
Mr.Hans de Wit,
Regarding your questions, I have the following answers:
1. Do you think Ataturk should be a taboo?
No, I do not think so. Nobody should be a taboo in a democratic society. But nobody has the right to insult. Critisising some aspects of his rule and his legacy is Ok. Insulting is not.
Do you think what he said 80 years ago is still valid?
It depends on what you mean. Yes, I believe what he said on secularism is fully valid today. On nationalism, however, I have more mixed feelings. But you should understand the context of his day.
2. Are you happy with so many statues, busts, pictures hanging on the wall, all the buildings, streets, airports, schools named with Ataturk? Don't you think we're a bit exxagerating things?
Yes, there may be some exaggeration, but generally it does not bother me. Better to have Ataturk´s pictures than of khomeini.
3. Don't you think that all political parties, establishments, etc. is manipulating his name in some way? What's your solution to this problem?
Of course, some people manipulate his name and his ideas. But then some people also manipulate islam to serve their political interests. The solution, in my opinion, must be that we follow Ataturk not only in words, but in deeds and in spirit. And to me that means moving towards the EU and full embrace of Western democracy.
4. Do you think the Kemalism project is successful after so many decades? What's the "success" you define?
It is successful, of course. It created a modern nation-state from the ashes of the empire. It established secularism as a founding principle of Turkey. Erdogan may hate secularism, but he is obliged to show his respect to this principle, because he knows that otherwise he would not last as PM a minute.
That, of course, does not mean that Kemalism needs no renovation and reform. Particularly, its approach to nationalism is not very modern, and needs to evolve. But on secularism there can be no concessions.
5. What is the reason of your hatred? Why you can't stand on Akyol's articles?
Because he manipulates his readers. He picks up the most stupid comment made by some of his opponents, and then portrays it as a representative of the views of his Kemalist opponents.
Thank you for interest and sorry for some delay in replying. Good luck!
Posted by: Eli at July 11, 2007 11:18 PM
Dear Eli,
Its funny to see that you aks questions and at the same time your give the answers ready.
Yes, I like Ataturk but don't like his followers.
I don't have any hate in my body. And as a matter of fact, Mustafa his ideas are a good starting point for discussion. And yes, in general, I like his writings, since he is a truly independent thinker, who tries to build a bridge between Islam and Christianity.
Yours,
Hans
Posted by: Hans A.H.C. de Wit at July 14, 2007 11:13 AM
Eli,
For crying out loud wake up. Ataturk is dead and buried. Go to Anitkabir and see for yourself. I like many other participants have not insulted Ataturk but rather are critical of his policies and reforms. If you can understand clear English I suggest you go back and carefully read what firstly Mr Akyol has written and secondly what some of the participant have suggested. It is you Eli who has been very rude and arrogant and you have not represent Kemalism very well at all. In fact you have confirmed what Mr. Akyol has suggested all along. Kemalism is a backward and very dark ideology which has really offered Turkey nothing.
Why is it that countries that not only participated in the First World but also the Second World War namely US, UK, Germany, Italy, France etc are the wealthiest countries in the world yet Turkey is still languishing behind these countries. Turkey has a GDP of around 6000 USD whereas those countries mentioned have a GDP of more than 40000 USD. Now that is more than 6 times Turkey. You can make all the excuses in the world. That the illiteracy rates were low, Turkey was at war for more than 10 years, Infrustructure wasn't there and sofourth. The bottom line is that Kemalism is a dead ideology that has failed to deliver Turkey results.
It is results that make a government successful not rhetoric and slogans. Ataturk and his beloved followers have failed to deliver. If Ataturk had concentrated on real reforms such as building a civil society, improving the economy, lifting unemployment levels maybe Turkey could have been a successful country like a Australia or US.
For the millionith time Turkey is not a fully secular country. Secularism is a clear separation of religion and state. This is clearly not the case in Turkey. The biggest failure of Ataturk is secularism which is ironic when it has always been suggested that secularism has been implemented successfully in Turkey. Sorry but this isn't the case.
Secularism isn't an ideology of anti-relition on the contrary it is a practice where citizens can practice their religion freely without intervention from the state or any other person. What many people and the current AKP argue is for a clear seperation of religion and state. Two bodies acting independently coupled with religious freedom which includes freedom to worship and religious expression. Separation of religion from society is not secularism. Forcibly removing the headscarf from women is not secularism. Forcing alien beliefs and foreign lifestyles is not secularism.
What is the legacy of Kemalism? Fear, failure to deliver, repression of minorities and non-acknowledgement, low standard of human rights and treatment of citizens which also includes the bad treatment of women, incorrect application of secularism, rebellions and finally a dysfunctional state.
Now talk about the emancipation of women. This is the most overated illusionary fiction going on in Turkey. Women in Turkey are treated badly not because of religion but due to Kemalism. Choosing to have sex with men like pizza, going on dates, wearing miniskirts, having boyfriends by the age of 13 is not exactly a success story in Turkey. If this is the idea of emancipation well then Kemalism has failed a long time ago. Also can I mention that under the previous Turkish Civil code a husband was allowed to rape her wife. However, the current AKP government changed this backward and perverse law and made rape of any kind illegal.
Finally in conclusion Ataturk is a mortal and his policies are open to debate. Failure is the lasting achievement of Kemalism. When closely examined Kemalism is a ideology of backwardness and open to ridicule. My suggestion to the Kemalists is to go away and think about your futures and think of a more positive and better ideology or else you will continue to fail and be a laughing stock to the world.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at July 16, 2007 7:49 PM