Tag: Ataturk

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic and itsfirst President, stands as a towering figure of the 20th Century. Among the great leadersof history, few have achieved so much in so short period, transformed the life of a nationas decisively, and given such profound inspiration to the world at large. The Greatest Leader of ALL Time: ATATURK Soldier, Diplomat, Statesman, Orator, Teacher, Scholar, Genius Proactive Ataturk Community

Who will guard the “guardians” in today’s Turkey?

In his famous question “who will guard the guardians?” Plato places a rather challenging and provocative question mark in everybody’s mind. Throughout the course of history, political corruption and the tendency of elites to oppress the masses have been witnessed by countless examples. As Lord Acton stated “power corrupts.” In sort, the limitless and unchecked (political) power puts a considerable amount of pressure upon people.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (c) Wikipedia

In the case of Turkey, the state-building process and the nature of Turkish political culture gives important signs in analysing the political processes and nature of the relationship between the ruler and ruled. In this context, despite having free and fair elections, Turkey does not have a fully-consolidated democracy. Some argue that the Turkish political system is a procedural democracy.

In recent years, Turkey has been undergoing an enormous transformation process. The civil-military relations have started to normalise whilst separation of powers has been strengthened. In previous decades some political parties, (just like the Republican People’s Party, namely the CHP that is the main opposition party today) abused the Constitutional Court in line with their own ideologies. In addition to that, the Turkish Armed Forces in Turkey used to have an important degree of political autonomy[1] which has been challenged by the Justice and Development Party (the AKP) government in recent years.

Let’s now take a look at today’s Turkey. What has changed and why do I need to ask the famous question propounded by Plato “who will guard the guardians”? In order to answer this question a general framework regarding Turkish political history, political culture and state tradition must be explicated.

The Emergence of Modern Turkey: A Brief Summary

Turkey came into-being after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. With the collapse of the multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic empire, the military with the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk played a primary role in the establishment of modern Turkey. In the state-formation process, secularism[2] and Turkish nationalism along with Republicanism have been the most important pillars of the Kemalist ideology. It can be said that, the state formation process in Turkey like the other state-formation experiences aimed to eliminate the differences and standardise the people no matter how different they were in terms of ideology, ethnicity or faith.

The modernisation/Westernisation project which was initiated by Ataturk soon changed the institutional and legal forms and procedures in Turkey. Women’s rights were equalised and the Arabic letters were replaced by the Latin Alphabet. In short, Turkey modernised. However, with regard to universal human rights[3], rule of law and democratic ideals, Turkey’s modernisation process was not so successful.

Political Culture and State Tradition in Turkey

Political culture plays a major role in determining political phenomena. In this context, decision-making processes, political institutions and procedures are also heavily dependent on political culture. Thus, Turkish political culture has a lot to say in order to help us understand its impact upon Turkish political life in general and policy-making processes in particular.

The process through which the bureaucratic tradition was constituted and developed has always been an obstacle against the strengthening of democracy in Turkey. From its genesis, the bureaucratic tradition has had an authoritarian character. That bureaucratic structure has been one of the leading factors that paved the way for the production of elitist and tutelary political tendencies in Ottoman-Turkish political history.

Another important dimension of Turkish political culture is the political position that the Army has been holding since the establishment of the Republic. Unlike its counterparts, the Turkish Army has a considerable amount of political and institutional autonomy which ultimately emphasises its role in guarding the state from “internal enemies”, or better known as strains of political Islam and Kurdish movement. From time to time the military elites exercise direct and/or indirect political authority to a variety of extents.

On the other hand, ultra-secularist understanding in Turkey constitutes another factor that is important in shaping political culture. An important style of secularism is Inonu-style secularism (named after the second president of the Republic, (İsmet Inonu). This is more about the elitist protection of Kemalism.

It must also be underlined that the historical background of Turkey from the very beginning of the Republic experienced an evident antagonism between the state and society. In addition, until the advent of multi-party politics, the high bureaucracy of Turkey along with the military revealed a certain amount of distrust towards society.

On the other hand, the bureaucratic tradition inherited from the Ottoman times has so far played a major role in the production of elitist procedures. Since 1999, with the official European Union candidacy, these elitist and tutelary tendencies have been eroded considerably.

Who Will Guard The Guardians Today?

Since 1999, the Turkish political system has democratised further, whilst a free-market economy has been flourishing at the same time. All these developments also pave the way for the questioning of the state establishment in Turkey. For so many years, the military, the bureaucracy and the judiciary have held undisputedly hegemonic roles in ruling the country. However, in contemporary Turkey, things have changed.

As Nicole Pope says:

“The latest row that has developed between the ruling party and the state and municipal theaters demonstrates once more how entrenched the notion of “us” versus “them” has become in Turkey. For many decades, a small elite was the dominant influence in Turkey. Today, however, the tide has turned and the conservatives are firmly in power, yet they feel the need to demonstrate their dominance in all areas…”

Apart from that, the legal processes regarding terrorist organizations like Ergenekon and KCK have been playing a significant role in undermining the supreme roles of the “guardians” in Turkey. Some of the suspects and criminals in these cases consist of top generals whom I put in the category of the “guardians”.

Turkey has made a considerable amount of progress in consolidating her democracy and empowering rule of law. All these developments tell us that the “guardians” such as the military whose political role used to threaten democracy so far are today not as strong as they used to be.

—————————————————

[1] Umit Cizre Sakallioğlu, “The Anatomy of the Turkish Military’s Political Autonomy” Comparative Politics, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jan., 1997), pp. 151-166

[2] Secularism in Turkey is called assertive secularism. It does not respect religions as seen in the case of Anglo-Saxon model of secularism.

[3] In the early Republican times, the traumas that came into being as a result of the Kemalist state-building process show how tough measures were taken in an attempt to make the society a monolithic entity. The Independence Tribunals paved the way for the deaths of lots of people who just refused to wear hats or refused other dress codes that the state dictated.

—————————————————

Editor’s Note: Begüm Burak has a BA degree in Political Science and International Relations from Marmara University, Turkey. She completed her MA degree at Istanbul University, Turkey (majoring in Turkish political life) in 2010. She is currently working as a Research Assistant at Fatih University, Turkey, where she is a PhD candidate.

May 7, 2012
Kemalism is dead, but not Ataturk

Kemalism is dead, but not Ataturk

Editor’s Note: Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a GPS contributor. You can find all his blog posts here. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Soner Cagaptay.

By Soner Cagaptay – Special to CNN

Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk (1881 – 1938).

Has Turkey’s twentieth century experience with Kemalism – a Europe-oriented top-down Westernization model – come to an end?

To a large extent: Yes.

Symbolically speaking, nothing could portend the coming end of Kemalism better than the recent public exoneration of Iskilipli Atif Hoca, a rare resistance figure to Kemalism in the early twentieth century. However, even if Kemalism might be withering away, ironically its founder Ataturk and his way of doing business seem to be alive in Turkey.

But first the story of Iskilipli Atif Hoca: In November 1925, Ataturk carried out perhaps the most symbolic of his reforms, banning all Turkish males from wearing the Ottoman fez in order to cement his country’s commitment to European ideals. Ataturk wanted make Turks European head to toe and the abolition of the fez embodied this effort.

Most Turks acquiesced to Ataturk’s reforms, not just to the “hat reform” but also to deeper ones such as the “alphabet reform,” which changed the Turks’ script from an Arab alphabet-based one to its current Latin-based form, further connecting the Turks to European culture.

Ataturk was able to achieve these reforms with minor resistance thanks to the weight of his persona. After all, Ataturk – who had just liberated Turkey from a massive Allied occupation – was considered nothing short of a father to all Turks.

Some Turks, however, objected to his reforms.

Enter Atif Hoca, a cleric in the small central Anatolian town of Iskilip, who refused to adhere to Ataturk’s “hat reform.” Atif Hoca defended his use of the fez, couching his objections in Islam. He rallied to protest against the reforms and began publishing essays in local papers. He was executed in February 1926, becoming a rare icon of resistance to Kemalism.

Recently though, Atif Hoca’s legacy has been reversed in the public eye. In February 2012, the government decided to name a public hospital in Iskilip – Atif Hoca’s hometown – after him. This dedication carries remarkable symbolic significance, as it is tantamount to honoring one of the best known anti-Kemalists to date, as well as signaling Turkey’s move to a post-Kemalist era.

Kemalism appears to have lost its influence, not just symbolically but also politically. In the past decade, Turkey has undergone a complete transformation. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has won three consecutive elections since 2002, with increasing majorities. The AKP, representing a brand of Islam-based social conservatism, has since replaced Turkey’s former Kemalist ideology and secular elites. Turkey seems to be moving to a post-Kemalist era.

Though, this is not to suggest that Ataturk is out, too. On the contrary, Ataturk shapes the Turkish mindset in the post-Kemalist Turkey. The legacy of Turkey’s liberator is too powerful to resist even if Turkey is seemingly “moving on” from his ideology.

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of Ataturk’s legacy is that he wanted to restore Turkey’s great power status. To this end, Ataturk envisaged stripping Turkey of its Ottoman legacy and instilling in it a set of European standards and beliefs so that Turkey could successfully compete against its historic European rivals. In other words, Turkey could become more powerful than Europe only by becoming entirely European itself.

Turkey’s new elites have a different view of how to make the country powerful, not by abandoning the country’s Ottoman past or secularizing its religious values, but by embracing them. Though, the ultimate goal remains the same: Become powerful enough to compete against the Europeans. Even if the post-Kemalist Turkey is not going to emulate Europe, it will still treat it as a measuring stick.

A second aspect of Ataturk’s legacy that remains alive in post-Kemalist Turkey is top-down social engineering. In the same way that Ataturk wanted to shape modern Turkey in his own image, his successors will now want to do the same, imposing their own worldview on Turkish society.

In this regard, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a case-in-point. Like Ataturk, Erdogan seems willing to use the weight of his personality to remake Turkish society to match his worldview. Erdogan has already ruled Turkey longer than any other democratically-elected prime minister, and he might replace Ataturk as the country’s longest-reigning leader if he is elected as the president of Turkey in 2014. Like Ataturk, Erdogan seems willing to use his personal charisma to remake Turkish society to match his vision.

Ataturk often said “he wanted to raise contemporary European generations” among Turks. Recently, Erdogan said “he would like to raise religious generations” among the Turks. Kemalism may be dead, but Ataturk’s way of doing business appears to be alive and kicking in Turkey.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Soner Cagaptay.

via Kemalism is dead, but not Ataturk – Global Public Square – CNN.com Blogs.

May 3, 2012
Canakkale Battles

Those heroes that shed their blood
And lost their lives.
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
Here in this country of ours.
You, the mothers,
Who sent their sons from far away countries
Wipe away your tears,
Your sons are now lying in our bosom
And are in peace
After having lost their lives on this land they have
Become our sons as well.’

March 18, 2012
Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?
Help us decide which five military leaders are represented at Enemy Commanders: Britain’s Greatest Foes, a celebrity speaker event on Saturday 14 April 2012. Find out more about the shortlist and how to place your vote.
- Akbar Khan
- Andrew Jackson
- Eduard Totleben
- Erwin Rommel
- George Washington
- James Fitzjames, Duke of Berwick
- Louis Botha
- Maurice de Saxe
- Michael Collins
- Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
- Napoleon Bonaparte
- Ntshingwayo kaMahole
- Osman Digna
- Paul von Hindenburg
- Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck
- Rani of Jhansi
- Riwha Titokowaru
- Santiago de Liniers
- Tipu Sultan
- Tomoyuki Yamashita
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Dates: 1881-1938

“I don’t order you to fight, I order you to die. In the time it takes us to die, other troops and commanders can come and take our places.”

Mustafa Kemal at Gallipoli, April 1915

A seasoned veteran of the Balkan Wars, Kemal fought a tenacious defensive campaign at Gallipoli in 1915 which forced the Allied invasion force to withdraw. He would later become the ‘Father of modern Turkey’.

Register your vote by clicking the plus (+) symbol above, or skip to the comments section below.

Mustafa Kemal was born in Salonika and began his military career as an Ottoman Army cadet, studying at the Harbiye military college in Istanbul from 1899 until 1905. His initial service was with a cavalry regiment in Syria. During this period he joined the reformist Motherland and Liberty secret society in opposition to Sultan Abd al Hamid II. Although he believed in the separation of the military from politics, Kemal was a member of the Committee of Union and Progress and played a role in the ‘Young Turk’ Revolution that ended the sultan’s absolutist rule and restored parliament.

Kemal served with distinction in Tripolitania (Libya) during the Italo-Turkish War (1911-12), repelling the Italians at Tobruk and successfully defending Derna despite being wounded in an air raid. During the Balkan Wars (1912-13), he took part in the Turkish amphibious landing in Thrace and the capture of Erdine from the Bulgarians. In 1913 he was made Ottoman military attaché to all Balkan states and promoted to colonel.

Despite opposing Ottoman involvement in the First World War, once it had started he threw himself wholeheartedly into the conflict. During the Dardanelles campaign Kemal commanded the 19th Division before being made chief of staff of the 5th Army. He displayed great leadership and tactical acumen, reacting immediately to the Allied landing at Anzac Cove in April 1915. He launched successful counter-attacks against the Australians and New Zealanders as they attempted to take the high ground surrounding the landing areas. By nightfall on 25 April they had suffered over 2,000 casualties and remained stuck on the beaches.

In the weeks that followed he led his men at many of the campaign’s fiercest engagements, including the Battle of Sari Bair (6-21 August), the Battle of Chunuk Bair at Anzac (7-19 August) and the offensive from Sulva at Scimtar Hill (21 August). Following these battles he was granted the title of ‘Pasha’. Personally brave, Kemal expected the same from his men, declaring: ‘I don’t order you to fight, I order you to die. In the time it takes us to die, other troops and commanders can come and take our places.’

Following these triumphs, Kemal was sent to command XVI Corps on the eastern Anatolian front. In August 1916 he launched a successful counter-offensive against the Russians, capturing Bitlis and Mus. When the Russian Army of the Caucasus collapsed during the Revolution of 1917, Kemal was transferred to Palestine. He was given command of the 7th Army, but following the loss of Baghdad, he became increasingly fearful that the war was lost.

He also expressed anger at a government that was unable to supply his men with adequate weapons and supplies, and resented the transfer of supreme command from Turkish generals to the German Erich von Falkenhayn and Otto Liman von Sanders. After resigning his command in protest he accompanied the Crown Prince to Germany, visiting the Western Front and concluding that the Central Powers were defeated. Restored to his command by the new sultan, Mehed VI, he ended the war in Aleppo after his army was forced to retreat following the Battle of Megiddo.

With the Ottoman capital occupied by the Allies, most of the Balkans gone and Turkey bereft of its Arab provinces, Kemal felt a personal duty to fight for the integrity of the remaining Turkish heartland of Anatolia. Posted in 1919 as inspector general of the army in northern Anatolia, he quickly started to act independently, resigning from the Ottoman Army and helping to arouse nationalist feeling in the aftermath of the Greek landing at Smyrna. The First Great National Assembly at Ankara, now a rival power bloc to the Ottoman government in Istanbul, gathered in spring 1920 with Kemal as speaker. It later elected him president.

In 1921 the Greeks advanced from Smyrna, but were held before Ankara at the Battle of Sakarya in August-September. Following this success, Kemal was made commander-in-chief with the rank of marshal. He went on the offensive the following year, capturing Smyrna in September and forcing the Greeks to evacuate Anatolia.

A skilled statesmen as well as a great soldier, at the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne (1923) Kemal was given a Turkey in Anatolia free of foreign troops and full control of the straits. Anger at the weakness and defeatism of the sultan in Istanbul led him to work for the abolition of the sultanate in 1922, the proclamation of a republic in 1923, and the abolition of the caliphate in 1924. As ‘Atatürk’ (Father of the Turkish Nation), Kemal steered Turkey through a period of turmoil, but it emerged as a modern secular state, with a neutral foreign policy, planned economy, westernised education system and a strong army.

Hard in battle, Kemal was nevertheless gracious to his enemies, later writing of the Allied soldiers killed at Gallipoli: ‘Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours… you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land. They have become our sons as well.’
March 18, 2012
International Gallipoli Symposium will be held in İstanbul

International Gallipoli Symposium will be held in İstanbul

Academics, scientists and researchers from Turkey, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany and Britain will attend the conference.

The 3rd International Gallipoli Symposium will be held in İstanbul in April, which many academics, scientists and researchers studying various aspects of the Çanakkale War are scheduled to attend.

The symposium, sponsored by İstanbul Culture University, the Australian National University (ANU), Çanakkale 18 Mart University and the Çanakkale Health, Education and Culture Foundation, is scheduled to be held on April 20 and 21 in İstanbul. Academics, scientists and researchers from Turkey, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany and Britain will attend the conference.

The experts will make presentations on various subjects such as “Military Strategy and Techniques Used in the Çanakkale War” and “Reflections of the Çanakkale War in the press and cinema.”

An academic from İstanbul Culture University, associate professor Dr. İbrahim Güran, told Cihan the aim of the symposium is to encourage more scientific studies on the Çanakkale War and to contribute to the economic, social and cultural development of Çanakkale because people will be more inclined to visit Çanakkale, thus contributing to its betterment. Güran added that those giving sessions are experts in their fields and all aspects — social, military and economic — of the Çanakkale War will be handled at the symposium.

The 1st International Gallipoli Symposium was held in March 2006 in both İstanbul and Çanakkale.

Cihan

February 24, 2012
NATO- Perry Comments Ruffle Turkey’s Feathers
By Joe Parkinson

Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is seen backstage during a debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on Monday.

Updated at 4:20 p.m. CET

For Turkey, busy riding an economic boom and preoccupied with soccer scandals and revolutionary shifts across its borders, the race for the U.S. Republican nomination hasn’t exactly been a box office draw. Until Tuesday, that is …

Late Monday, Texas governor and presidential hopeful Rick Perry said that Turkey was governed by “what many perceive to be Islamic terrorists,” and suggested the country should be booted out of NATO.

The governor’s remarks, made during the Fox News Channel and Wall Street Journal GOP debate in South Carolina, came in response to a question from the moderator over whether Turkey still belonged in NATO amid international concern over media reports of declining press freedoms, deteriorating relations with Israel and a rising murder rate of women.

“Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then … not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it,” Mr. Perry said.

In Turkey, a long-time ally of Washington and NATO’s only majority-Muslim member, the comments were too late to make the Turkish dailies, but early Tuesday, news websites and Twitter feeds here were abuzz with Turks’ angry and confused reaction. Turkish daily Milliyet ran a banner on its website calling the comments “scandalous.” Hurriyet said the governor’s words were “offensive.”

Readers comments were a little less diplomatic. “America really must be a land of opportunity if this man has managed to become governor,” one reader commented on the website of Vatan newspaper.

A Turkish government spokesman said: “I’m not going to comment, but I think you can imagine what my comment would be,” adding that the Turkish embassy in Washington would be studying the remarks to formulate a response.

Turkey’s foreign affairs ministry said in a statement that the remarks were “untrue” and “inappropriate,” and stressed that presidential candidates should be “more careful when they are making statements.”

“Turkey has been a NATO member since Perry was 2 years old,” the statement said.

Mr. Perry’s campaign, which has faltered in recent months after entering the race as favorite in August, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Some voters and international observers have been unnerved by the policies of Turkey’s Islamically-influenced AK Party government, as the country appeared to reorient toward the Middle East and clamp down on press freedoms. But the ruling party, under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, remains popular, successfully presiding over rapid economic growth and expanding diplomatic clout while maintaining good relations with NATO allies.

Analysts said Mr. Perry’s musings were all the more curious since Washington and Ankara’s alliance has been bolstered in recent months by Turkey’s strong backing of pro-democracy movements during Arab Spring uprisings.

“Ankara and Washington are now walking in lockstep… The essence of the new relationship is one where Turkey is more empowered, and more crucial to the U.S. because of its leverage,” said Atilla Yesilada, of Istanbul Analytics, an Istanbul-based political risk consultancy.

Turkish and U.S. diplomats say they cannot remember a time when cooperation between Ankara and Washington was closer, citing that President Barack Obama called Turkey’s prime minister more than any other leader except Britain’s prime minister in 2011.

What analysts call an increasing symmetry of Washington and Ankara’s policies has formed after a period of significant strain in 2009-2010, when Turkey moved closer to Iran and tensions with Israel were at boiling point over the killing of seven Turkish nationals by Israeli commandos on the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara flotilla.

In a crucial shift, Turkey agreed last fall to host a North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile-defense system, which was designed by the U.S. to contain Iran.

Turkish media outlets on Tuesday were keen to claim that Mr. Perry’s infamous “oops” moment, when he failed at a November campaign debate to recall the name of a government department he would ax if elected U.S. president, undercut the credibility of his comments.

Mr. Perry’s campaign will likely consider Monday’s comments as significantly less of a stumble, unless the Texan is planning a visit to Istanbul.
- NATO,
- Politics,
- Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
- Rick Perry,
- Turkey,
- U.S.
January 17, 2012