« The Obama Nations | Main | Why Atatürk Became a God »
November 13, 2008
A Heretical Idea: Atatürk is No God
[Originally published in Hürriyet Daily News]
Since its release on the anniversary of the Turkish Republic, Oct. 29, Turkey’s pundits have been hotly debating “Mustafa,” a documentary by Can Dündar, columnist for daily Milliyet and popular voice of the moderate left. The Mustafa in question is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Turkey’s founder, the film intends to show his “human side,” often neglected or even hidden in modern Turkey.
If you know a little bit about this country, you can sense that Dündar’s idea was ambitious. Here, Atatürk is treated not as a man, but as a God. His cult personality, paralleled only in North Korea, is depicted as an all-knowing, all-encompassing leader whose supra-human intellect left behind a flawless blueprint for the nation to follow. “O mighty Atatürk who has given us this day, I will relentlessly walk down your path,” Turkish students are made to swear in every school every week. Poets describe him as “the Sun who enlightened the nation,” and “the God who stepped in to Samsun [to start the war of liberation].”
Unveiling Historical Atatürk
Behind this curtain of deification there lies, of course, a historical Atatürk, who, like all of us, was not just a man of virtue and wisdom, but he also sinned and made mistakes. And Can Dündar’s “Mustafa” sheds light on some, only some, of the latter. The film shows that the “Supreme Leader” had many moments of ambition, anger and arrogance. He was a borderline alcoholic in later years. When he abolished the Caliphate in 1924, he was taking revenge for the beating he took from his madrasah teacher when he was a child.
According to Yılmaz Özdil, a columnist for Hürriyet, the film not only documented all of the above, but also showed Atatürk as a “cold, heartless, ruthless, egoistic, hedonistic, womanizing, megalomaniac.”
You can guess what followed. In just a week Can Dündar and his film turned into a scapegoat. Deniz Baykal, leader of the main opposition People’s Republican Party, or CHP, declared that he despised the documentary and criticized Dündar for being influenced by “the Ergenekon trial.” Many secularist commentators joined in. One of them, Yiğit Bulut of Vatan, even argued for a counter-campaign, “Do not watch this film, and dissuade others from watching it,” he suggested in his column. “Especially do not allow your children to see it and have their minds corrupted by seeds that belittle Atatürk.”
The reaction to Dündar goes on, and what makes all this remarkable is that he is no Islamist, Kurd, or even a liberal that makes him a standard “internal enemy” from the Kemalist perspective. He is actually a fan of Atatürk and his stance has been pretty firm on that. He is just not as fact-blind as other Kemalists and believes that respect of the Supreme Leader should not blind people from seeing his “human side.”
But just like the Bolsheviks who thought their “revisionist” comrades were in fact traitors, die-hard Kemalists think more realist Atatürk-admirers, are defectors. Hence Can Dündar is accused not of being naïve, but of being malicious. According to Yiğit Bulut, he turned out to be a pawn of “the imperialist powers who are carrying out a psychological operation in order to devalue Atatürk in the eyes of the Turkish nation and render the Turkish Armed Forces powerless.”
What is curious in all this mania is the lack of any factual basis. None of the Kemalists who chided Dündar tried to show that he portrayed Atatürk in a historically inaccurate way. The film was a documentary and as this definition implies, Dündar prepared it by reviewing documents in Turkish archives. A rational person would challenge him by referring to other documents, or by showing his inferences as untruthful. But I have not seen even one such empirical argument. Rather, what the Kemalists assert is the historical “Mustafa” Dündar unearthed is in conflict with the mythical Atatürk in their minds.
Against All Facts
A rational person, again, would look at this dichotomy and conclude that mythical Atatürk needs to be questioned, even deconstructed, according to the historical, i.e. real, one. Yet irrationality is simply the rule here. When facts do not fit the myth, Kemalists abhor the facts and campaign against those who reveal them.
There is a good reason for all this, besides intellectual poverty. For Kemalists, the mythical Atatürk is a source of spiritual strength and well-being. Ayşe Özgün, a commentator who used to write for the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review in the distant past, in a column for the paper in November 2006, put it this way:
“You ask where we get our inspiration and energy from. I will tell you. We get it from the one and only founder and leader of this nation, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.”
In other words, the founder needs to continue to be seen as the supra-human, flawless Supreme Leader to give “inspiration and energy” to his disciples. Even if the god-like Atatürk does not exist, as Voltaire would have said, he needs to be invented.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at November 13, 2008 3:29 PM
He was a great man indeed but it saddens me to see Turks stooping as low as to claim he is 'God'...
Posted by: Yusuf at November 14, 2008 5:50 AM
What about deconstructing the mytholigical view of the prophet Muhammad from a historical point of view? I'm sure, most of the people in Turkey, including and especially most of Atatürk's critics, wouldn't like that either.
Posted by: A. A. B. at November 17, 2008 9:55 PM
What is so great about Ataturk? There are no myths about the prophet Muhammed (s.a.v). He is the most documented man in history and is a religious figure. Whereas Ataturk is a former political leader who's politics deserved to be reviewed by history and by everyone. Constructing myths and making people hero worship is a sad indictment to Ataturk and his ideas.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at November 18, 2008 10:22 AM
Goksel Doganay,
The "documents" about Muhammad are froma purely religious, subjective perspective. Other religious groups have other beliefs, did you know for example that Alevism believes that Khadija (Hatice) was his only wife? Sunnis believe he has 11 wives, quite a difference.
Some non-Muslim scholars actually doubt whether Muhammad even existed. Fro ma scientific point of view, there is no difference between your Muhammad myth and Kemalists' Atatürk myth.
Posted by: A. A. B. at November 18, 2008 4:22 PM
A. A. B,
What is your point? "The documents about Muhammad are froma purely religious, subjective perspective". Good afternoon A.A.B, is there something your trying to mention that Muslims and Islamic scholars have missed here. The prophet Muhammed is a religious figure. Obviously the documents are going to have a religious overtones. As for your irrelevant comment about the number of wives the prophet Muhammad had, who cares? Seriously who cares? You can have 1 wife or a million wives, what has this got to do with myths and legends. There are a lots of beliefs by Alevi's who cares?
Mustafa Akyol has written an article which makes perfect sense. What has he written? Ataturk is no god. Muslims don't worship the prophet Muhammed, the worship Allah. If you didn't know that, then I suggest you pay more attention to Islamic beliefs.
In regards to non-Islamic scholars doubting the prophet Muhammed existed. Well hello, that is why if you believe in Islam and its tenets that makes you a Muslim and if your not then your not a Muslim. There is a grave in Medina with the prophet Muhammed's remains. So you don't need a PhD in Harvard to try and prove that the prophet Muhammed existed.
If your interested in Science my friend, how about explaining how a simple human being is worshiped like a god and any criticism of him is considered taboo. What is your scientific explaination for this situation?
Let me make a contribution to Mustafa Akyol's article and state some basic facts. Ataturk is no god. Ataturk was mortal. Ataturk was a dictator and finally Ataturk is dead. Ataturk's Turkey is nothing but a third world country with many social and political problems. If one man is to blame, it is Ataturk. If its good enough to give worthy acolades to Ataturk in regards to so called successful reforms, then it is also true to blame him for failures as well.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at November 23, 2008 3:02 PM
Goksel Doganay,
Think of the fact that people call their sons Mehmet instead of Muhammed so that they dont risk abusing the name of the prophet. Think of the veneration of the prophet's relics in Istanbul. We can also think of these stories that the prophet's nae was mentioned on God's throne even before creation (which gives some degree of uncreatedness, a divine attribute, to the Prophet...). Actually in the Teslim, it says that God prays to Muhammed! (And Ibrahim). Turkish Muhammed-worship has all characteristics of worshipping a God, he is a non-God in name only.
Actually, no Kemalist would explicitely say that Atatürk is his God either. It's the same kind of de facto-deity as Muhammed. And that's also the explication why he is considered so much above criticism etc.: He simply has the same role in Kemalism as Muhammed has in Sunni Islam.
Posted by: A. A. B. at November 27, 2008 12:05 AM
We, kemalists, do not see Ataturk as God.
PS: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Posted by: nyoped at November 29, 2008 7:40 AM
A.A.B
I think the main problem you have here is ignorance of the other, namely ignorance of Islam. This is getting very frustrating explaining simple concepts to supposed intelligent people. My advice to everyone single person is to know what you are talking about and understand basics. Your comments go against the Turkish culture and Islamic practices. I think the people of Turkey are happy and at peace it is ashame that Kemalists and Ataturk lovers are not.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at December 1, 2008 3:25 PM
Göksel, I have a university education in Ilahiyat, and I think I understand Islam very well.
Posted by: A. A. B. at December 5, 2008 8:06 PM
A.A.B I got a degree in Science and I'm still learning. Ilahiyat education education in Turkey is a joke. I think you need more than an education in Ilahiyat in Turkey to understand Islam.
Posted by: Goksel Doganay at December 9, 2008 3:08 AM
Ataturk was a rationalist for excellence.His ideas about grounding a modern society were/are perfect and further than everybody from his time.He spent all his life for saving the people of his country from a horrible spirituel & menthal misery and establishing a very solid democratic independent state called Republic Of Turkey. It seems as he was influenced very much by Thomas Paine,Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson but his most important point was/is being the first great man who created a new concept which is based on the principles of rational islam,european enlightining and modern human rights.
Posted by: U. Ozkan at October 9, 2009 4:51 PM