« Turkey Meets 'Kemalist Terror' | Main | Why The CIA Funds Me and Other Nonsense »
July 20, 2008
Is Turkey A 'Mistaken Republic?'
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
You should meet Sevan Nişanyan. A Turkish citizen of Armenian decent, he studied philosophy at Yale, political science at Columbia, and now teaches Turkish language and history at Istanbul’s Bilgi University. In the past he has written several books about tourism in Turkey that were all well received by everyone who read them, but his recent title made him a public enemy in the eyes of Turkey's staunch Kemalists. Mr. Nişanyan, with all his boldness, argues that Kemalism is, in essence, what we commonly know as fascism.
The book I am speaking about is titled "Yanlış Cumhuriyet: Atatürk ve Kemalizm Hakkında 51 Soru" (The Mistaken Republic: 51 Questions about Atatürk and Kemalism). Throughout its 440 pages, Mr. Nişanyan deconstructs and refutes many commonly accepted and hardly unquestioned maxims in Turkey. At the very core of his historical revisionism lies the shivering argument that Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, willingly established a dictatorship and never aimed at building a democracy. The Republic of Turkey, in other words, was a “mistaken” one right from the very beginning.
Historical Revisionism
Mr. Nişanyan’s book became famous especially after he gave a full-page interview about a month ago to journalist Neşe Düzel of daily Taraf, whose work has always been thought provoking and news making. “In Turkey, the Republic was a transition from the Sultanate to modern dictatorship,” he said to Ms. Düzel, “and it had nothing to do with democracy.” In fact, a democratic system had started to evolve in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire, whose parliament welcomed different ideas, identities and political parties. What the Kemalist regime did was to get rid of not just the Sultan, but also all sorts of political opposition, and establish one-man rule.
“I have read all the speeches and interviews Atatürk gave after establishing his power,” Mr. Nişanyan notes, “in those thousands of pages, democracy is mentioned only six times: two are in his statements to foreigners and others are ‘democracy is good, but…’ type of comments.”
But was Turkey ready for democracy at that time? Wasn’t the nation an ignorant, backward, “unenlightened” one that needed an autocratic modernizer? Wouldn’t Turkey be something like Afghanistan had it not been “saved” by the Kemalist revolution?
That is the standard argument you hear from the Kemalists, including some fellow commentators who write in these pages. But Mr. Nişanyan disagrees. “Turkey had been the most developed, strong, and Western-influenced part of the Islamic world since the 14th century,” he notes. And he points to the impressive achievements of the Ottoman, i.e. pre-Kemalist, reforms during the 19th and early 20th centuries: From the feminist movement to the incorporation of Western science, technology and law, “80 to 90 percent of the reforms that modernized Turkey were rooted in the Ottoman era.”
Of course, Atatürk aimed at and pushed for further modernization, but some of the steps he took, according to Mr. Nişanyan, were wrong. The “language revolution,” for example, impoverished Turkish culture. The Ottoman language, thanks to its imports from Arabic and Persian into nomadic Turkish, was very sophisticated and complex. The Kemalist effort to “cleanse” the language from these “foreign” elements soon led to the shrinking of vocabulary – and thus the shrinking of minds.
Mr. Nişanyan also criticizes the despotic nature of the self-styled secularism that Atatürk and his followers established in Turkey. He thinks that in one sense it is similar to the Soviet model because it uprooted all religious institutions. But the Kemalists also wanted to use religion for the state’s purposes; therefore they enacted a state-controlled religion. “The real purpose was not secularity,” Mr. Nişanyan argues, “It was the achievement and consolidation of absolute political power.”
The same goal led the Kemalist regime to what Mr. Nişanyan defines as the grounding of citizenship on the acceptance of a political credo:
“Those who accepted the Kemalist credo were embraced as citizens, others were deemed traitors. This approach, also known as ‘Atatürk’s nationalism,’ is in fact the classical fascism of the 1920s. The regime in Italy in those years was very similar … Atatürk’s nationalism also lies behind the usurpation of the properties of non-Muslims and their expulsion from Turkey. In the 1930s even biological racism was added to this nationalism.”
Then perhaps it is not an accident that the most Kemalist party in today’s Turkey, the main opposition People’s Republican Party, or CHP, is also a fierce opponent of any reform toward granting broader rights to Turkey’s non-Muslim communities. Many people consider this xenophobia of the CHP a deviation from Atatürk’s “modern” way. But if Mr. Nişanyan is right, then not just today’s CHP but also the very political tradition it refers to is problematic.
Facing Up To The Past
But if that is the case, then how can Turkey evolve? How can she head toward liberal democracy? According to Nişanyan, we Turks first need to face and question our history. “Unlike Portugal, Spain or Greece, Turkey has not come to terms with its totalitarian past,” he reminds us. “That totalitarian past, perpetuated by the cult of Mustafa Kemal, still lives on.”
Yes, it is still alive and very much kicking. Political parties that dare to deviate from the mistaken roots are closed down, and the intellectuals who question these taboos are slandered. Mr. Nişanyan, for example, has become the target of ad hominem attacks in the Turkish media since his book came out. Kemalist pundits focus not on his arguments but on unpleasant things they discovered in his family life. The same pundits depict other critics of Kemalism as traitors, “Soros-funded” provocateurs, servants of “imperialism,” and anything you can imagine.
Alas, if the republic was really a “mistaken” one, then one could well say that its “children” are on the “correct” track. They just live up to their father’s legacy.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at July 20, 2008 4:44 PM
What a heap of trash coming from a writer who has learned the language to write and summarize a whole nation in one simple shitty and absolutely degrading book. A very subjective one indeed considering the rift created by the Armenian People toward the Turkish Nation. The Armenian heart is filled nothing but vengeance and hostility toward a nation who has lived historically in peace with them.
I frankly feel so sorry for Armenians who carry illusive ideas of past history and how they are treated in the early 1900's. To all the Armenians - Get over the crap that you have been fed and especially ones coming from the west.
Any nation that pursues knowledge, understanding, friendship, honor, virtue and finally peace is a worthy nation that will succeed any power on earth today tomorrow.
I am sick of the trouble makers who are belittling a nation based on fabricated history where there are no proofs and unlikely scenarios.
The writer of this book is obviously holding on an idea that was generated back in the early part of last century between 1900-1920's. Obviously, the situation just after a Bloody WORLD WAR against the Imperial forces who bore no notion of KINDNESS, code of ethics, unethical warring, and obviously not one "iota" of honor just prooves the situation when the countries elite were destroyed or shattered due to a crumbling of the previously run Otomon Empire. Talking of the crumbling of an empire - now hear/read this - the policy makers during the last leg of the Otoman Empire was in the hands of the Armenians, Greeks, jews, and non-muslims and I wonder why a great Empire crumbled. It crumbles because the very foundations are weak. The foundations here are those who sold out to the Imperial Forces - and who might they be? The ones who are wanting justice against the Turks based on FABRICATED HISTORY.
A nation that comes out of a war is going to be lacking the manpower, the capital and the educational systems to get the whole nation out of a deep hole and back on track, a hole that is so deep that the imperialists of this world would like Turkey to stay in for good or as long as it can.
When a nation is lacking all the foundations to prosper then OBVIOUSLY this will reflect on the EDUCATIONAL LEVEL of the whole nation. Any great scholar would know this as fact when thinking of a nations relative educational level. When a nation is at war and destroyed - obviously they will be lacking greatly in manpower to rebuild that nation - if any be remain. One just needs to look at IRAQ and AFGANISTAN as an example. Destroy the elite of the nation, destroy its spirit and control that nation indefinitely at the same time milking its prosperity out of it.
.
.
.
A Shrinking of vocabulary DOES NOT equal to a Shrinking of minds". - Absolute CRAP!
Listen there is so much to write but the Author of the book discussed here is lacking real historical facts to hold anything he says to be true or otherwise worthy of reading.
.
.
.
Let there be contructive thinking and lets stop using slandering as a way to tell someone what they are.
Great scholars are no servants to any one nation, regime, religion or thinking. They are just great scholars who value TRUTH, FREEDOM, PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, HONOR and VIRTUE within their lifes dream and see no purpose otherwise.
Posted by: Ozcan TurkOglu at July 21, 2008 3:21 PM
I wonder whether Mr.Akyol is such an impressionable person that he is able to contradict himself or is he suffering of some kind of schizofrenia? Few months ago this fellow limited himself to criticising the hated Kemalists/ultranationalists/hypersecularists, but cared to show respect to Ataturk, whom he called "a great patriot and modernizer" on these very pages. Now after reading one book he is ready to make a u-turn. Can such a person be taken seriously?
Now, as far as Nishanyan's arguments are concerned, which Akyol so uncritically reproduces here, the Ottoman empire was such an incredibly "progressive" place that it took the country to war on a wrong side, was backward in comparison to Europe in every single field of human pursuit: technology, science, law....Was it really "progressive" that men and women were not equal before law? Wasn't it Ataturk who granted legal equality of sexes? Or was that move "fascist" and "despotic" because it "uprooted religious institutions" (what a pity Mr.Akyol doesn't tell us, why Mr.Nishanyan believes that "uprooting" those institutions was an inherently bad thing, and which exactly institutions/laws should never have been "uprooted")? It is Ok to critisice and "face up the past", but not all criticism is fair, balanced and informed.It is perfectly possible to be critical with certain aspects of the Kemalist legacy, like exaggerated nationalism, while acknowledging and celebrating the positive side of this legacy. Otherwise, it is not criticism, but just simply rabid ideological crap. By seemingly uncritically accepting arguments of Nishanyan (who is not known as a great historian, political scientist or whatever) Mr.Akyol damages his credibility and exposes once again his true agenda: he is not at all interested in critical approach of Kemalism. Instead, what he pursues is a systematic discreditation of ALL aspects of Kemalism, first of all Kemalist interpretation of secularism. And this is fine with me: he is entitled to do so - it's a freedom of expression. But then he should not be perceived as a serious analyst, but rather as an ideologue, and quite superficial at that.
Posted by: Parviz at July 22, 2008 3:20 AM
Self-castigation by "liberals" is a usual practice and it's pathetic!
Being a practicing Muslim and a staunch supporter of AKP (although I'm not a Turk and haven't lived in Turkey; only short visits), I acknowledge that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a great leader who united people of Turkiye (both Turks and Kurds) to reclaim their homeland from Western sykes-piko type “nation-builders”. Under the leadership of Ataturk people of Turkiye defeated the united aggression of almost the entire Western world (Churchill was one of the battle losers!). It is a VERY important achievement both by Ataturk and the people (not only the former or the latter).
Aside from regaining Turkiye’s sovereignty, Ataturk should be given credit for stopping clericalism. There is legitimacy in claims of “kemalists” that Turkiye could have become “Afghanistan” because of clerics. Clerics monopolized interpretation of Islam, one of the many examples is how al-Afghani was vilified by the Ottoman clergy for his proposal of adding natural sciences and maths to madrasah curriculum.
The role of personalities in history is indeed crucial and Ataturk’s legacy should be paid due respect, while Ataturk’s idolization is surely absurd!
Ataturk has had his mainly positive role in the history of Turkiye (only during his life), it is time for “kemalists” to step aside and let AKP make Turkiye a modern nation by standards of the 21st century!
We can regard Mr. Nishanyan as a Turkish Noam Chomsky, let him express his views and both “AKPists” and “kemalists” can either agree or not…
Posted by: Behruz Himo at July 22, 2008 8:33 AM
Akyol's writing is biased trash, but he has the decency not to censor the comments. I give him thumbs up for that.
Posted by: emre at July 24, 2008 3:22 AM
I was struck by the absurd claim Ozcan makes regarding the Armenians:
"The Armenian heart is filled nothing but vengeance and hostility toward a nation who has lived historically in peace with them."
I'm not sure what fills Armenian hearts these days (I don't think it's love for us!), but the second part of that statement is factually incorrect. If we lived in peace with them, what happened to the Armenians of Anatolia? Did they peacefully get up and go, leaving behind entire villages, churches, or their lives? As a nation we may not yet be able to admit to the tragedies of those years, but at least as individuals we should be open to the idea that we Turks may have done a few wrongs ourselves.
Posted by: Yaşar at July 25, 2008 3:49 AM
It's absurd that one equates criticism of Ataturk and Kemalism as criticism of Turkey. Even more absurd that one starts blabbing on about 'imperial forces' etc because this criticism comes from a scholar of Armenian origin.
The M. Akyol bashing above is unrefined. If one goes beyond the indoctrination Turks suffer from and contradicts the Kemalist (official) version of history in Turkey, he is called 'biased' and an 'idealogue'. Is the reverse not true too? Ones ideas can always be considered biased depending on another's viewpoint.
Just a note to our brother Behruz Himo (and relevant to Parviz's comment): Ataturk was undoubtedly one of the best soldiers modern history has seen and the war he lead successfully was an astounding achievement in any respect. His much needed leadership during wartime displayed his patriotism.
You should also note though that during the war he was aided by all segments of society including the 'clerics' in order to rally the people to 'save the Khalife'. But Ataturk had other ideas which he did not reveal initially. I, as many, perceive his politics to have been disastrous. There are better ways of stopping clericalism than hanging the clerics for example. I should also mention that some men were hanged for simply refusing to take off their traditional turbans under the accusation of being 'clerics'.
Posted by: Ceyhan at July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
Posted by: blue at July 27, 2008 12:49 PM
Lol, I appreciate your desire to re-word the english... and although it is rather vain the point is well taken. Such a degradation of language surely has an effect on intellectual life, discourse, nuance, and progression something that the soldier in Ataturk couldn't come to grasp.
The notion that Turkey has always lived as peaceful neighbors to Armenia is rather absurd, as is the demeaning of the author due to his Armenian roots(although the Armenian bitterness is oft-present in modern academia and media when any Turkish question is addressed).
It suffices to say here that Akyol consenting with the anti-Kemalist revisionist view of Turkish history is highly predictable. Whether or not one chooses to call him an ideologue for this, it is of note that most views in support of "secularism" in Turkey are based on moral assumptions which run contrary to those presupposed by democracy, and the formulation of the Turkish state under Kemalist politics provides a perfect example of this sort of autocratic ideology manifesting itself. The imposition of legal codes necessitating submission or risk of capital punishment is surely cruel and unjust, and forced and legislative secularism and restriction of individual and organizational freedom is indicative surely of authoritarianism.
The real ideological interpellation of individuals through propagandizing of states is made evident by the readings of this revisionist history by some supporters of Kemalists, that is to say, a reactionary reading which immediately presupposes some ideological mischief and is unable to cope on any sort of intellectual grounds, instead assuming this must be 'crap' without sufficient opposing evidence. If one accuses Mr. Akyol of blindly supporting an ideological stance, at least I can understand why he chooses to support this one.
Posted by: Raiyan at July 30, 2008 2:40 AM