Interesting times here in Turkey. Bearing witness to the total collapse of an otherwise decent relationship with Israel has been an exhausting under taking. Keeping up with all the different sources of media, processing the information and even getting into a few fights about it in the blogesphere, has kept me busy indeed. The layers of intrigue are many. The new “Syria Turkey Iran Axis” (Horsefeathers!) Turkish charities being portrayed as terrorist organizations, “Islamists” in the AKP party and the sudden interest of those outside of Europe in Turkish affairs. Welcome to the party.
As I’ve mentioned before, Modern Turkey is a complex place. Much of this has to do with its relatively brief history of the Republic. My hope today is to try and reveal a few things about the origins while leaving the heavy lifting up to you.
For most Canadians, we view much of what Americans do with regard to their national symbols with a combination of envy, and suspicion. The suspicion part kicks in when Americans demonstrate a sort of patriotism that we view to be small-minded and if not somewhat delusional. “Where are their critical faculties?” “Why must kids pledge allegiance to a flag?”. “How come there are pictures of George Washington everywhere?”
Canadians, though proud and patriotic don’t buy into the symbolism of it all. It seems over done and unbecoming to us.
So imagine then visiting Turkey for the first time and seeing a portrait of the country’s first President EVERYWHERE. Pictures of him hang in restaurants, the dry cleaners, in every public building, in my office. What’s more, people go out of their way to make sure his image is on their cell phones, on lapel pins, on their laptops. I saw at the pool the other day a young woman in her 20’s with a tattoo of Ataturk’s signature on her arm. Again, initially my gentle Canadian sensibilities were put off by what I viewed as a cult of personality. The admiration of Atatürk starts at a young age. My daughter attends a pre-school that has had the image of Atatürk mixed into the school crafts. She’s referred to him with affection. This a little girl of 6 now a budding Kemalist. Why this reverence?? Why is it so powerful? Here’s a very brief snap shot.
Mustafa Kemal was born in Salonica (what is now called Thesaloniki in Greece) and grew up and was educated during the declining years of the Ottoman Empire. He was a hero in the battle for Gallipoli having successfully repelled the British and the Anzac forces from the Dardanelles in their quest for conquering Istanbul. A proven leader in war, he also proved to have a gift for diplomacy and timing. During the Allied/Greek occupation of what remained of the Ottoman Empire, he and some like minds regrouped in the hinterland of central Anatolia and began what is now called the “War of Independence”. This war of independence was carried out successfully by a Turkish people that were totally exhausted and broken from the defeat in the Balkans in 1913 and defeat in the First World War. Many of the inhabitants of Anatolia died over this time period due to starvation, disease and intercommunal violence. The Allies were preparing to carve up the Ottoman Empire into colonies and mandates. This was mostly carried out as witnessed by Arabia, Palestine and other pieces being hived off to the British while the French took Syria and Lebanon. The Greeks, in an attempted reverse take over, had landed at İzmir and advanced into the Anatolian interior with British blessing. This was the environment that Mustafa Kemal managed to galvanize a people to rise up and fight for a sovereign Turkish state. Through deft diplomacy, and superior military tactics, Atatürk drove out the Greeks, defeated the Armenians in the east and played nice enough that by 1923 the new republic was established with capital in Ankara. The Allies packed up and left, satisfied with their haul of former Ottoman lands and respectful of Mustafa Kemal’s accomplishments and ablilities. Nothing in the American canon of presidential folklore even comes close to what this man was able to accomplish with such limited means.
With the war won, this left a population of roughly 13 million people only 10% of whom were literate. Many of the settlers of Anatolia were refugees from the Balkans and other areas in the Czarist Russia and almost all were peasants. There was diverse ethnicity as well; groups of Laz, Circassians, Kurds and others were represented among the Turkish people many of whom only had religion in common. Under Mustafa Kemal’s leadership, the population was educated to the point where in 7 years, the literacy rate doubled, the Roman alphabet was introduced and the Turkish language standardized. Women, almost immediately were given the right vote. This right to vote didn’t come out of some long drawn out struggle for equality by women’s groups like in the West. Atatürk pre-empted all of that. Such was this man’s charisma that he was able to tell people how to dress. More tellingly, they listened. He ordered an end to all Muslim headgear for women and eliminated the fez for men. For him, Turkey’s future lay in the West and the hope that she would be a part of the greater human civilization. Islam was untangled from the state by the adoption of the Swiss civil code. Much of the public administration was based on the French model. The poorly enforced ban on alcohol was lifted. These steps were taken to ensure that Turkey’s future was a Western one not an Oriental one. In addition to the military victory and the rebirth of a nation, Atatürk was also responsible for a cultural revolution. The pillars of secularism were at the core of the new Turkey. This of course came with a price. Most Turks cannot read old Ottoman script, which is essentially Arabic script with a few changes. This disconnect from the past makes it challenging for modern people to learn in depth about their past though more and more, older works are being translated. A body of work that extends over 700 years of empire will take awhile.
Today, because of all of these accomplishments (and more) Atatürk is revered as the father of the nation and as the starting point of pride for Turks. Throughout all of his undertakings his belief was that the Turkish people would overcome their backwardness through education. He’s been proven right. What’s been accomplished since is nothing short of miraculous given the circumstances of the beginning. Turkey is a member of the G20 (weighing in as the 17th economy in the world) has a sizable military and more recently has been flexing its diplomatic muscle, taking on a more outward looking foreign policy. There are now 81 universities in the country. Turks are immensely grateful for Atatürk’s vision of a modern secular republic. Many feel they owe everything to him. There are forces though that feel otherwise.
Observant Muslims were left out of the march toward modernity. In many ways they were shut out of public life. This changed recently with the election of the Justice and Development Party or AKP. First elected in 2002 and then re-elected in 2007, this party and their Prime Minister Erdoğan are an expression of the “outs” finally getting “in”. Underlying much of what guides this party and government is that religion (Islam) should be permitted to reassert itself in public life that it be “freed from the prison of the mosque”. This rightfully, scares the bejessuz out of the modern secular middle class Turks. They view everything that this group of politicians does with suspicion. This is where things get tricky for an outsider such as myself.
Should a judge be able to close down a political party? My feeling immediately is no, however, in Turkey, political parties have had overtly religious objectives. In having such objectives, they violate the constitution, which characterizes Turkey as secular. If allowed to stand as a party, beyond the fear that they form a government, they could also reverse all that has been achieved in terms of modern goals. The AKP, after winning an election in 2007 with 47% of the vote, narrowly escaped closure by the Constitutional Court. Should Canada’s Supreme Court ban the Marijuana Party? Or should this one be left up to the voters?
Should civilian authorities control the military? The answer of course is yes for most Westerners. In Turkey however, the military has long been viewed as the guardian of Atatürk’s legacy and through exerting pressure in 1997 in what’s been dubbed the coup by memorandum the military checked the rise of religious movements much to the pleasure of those who prefer a secular lifestyle. By checking the power of the military, you remove in effect an institutional barrier to religion taking over in public life.
Should minority rights be extended to the Turkish Kurds? Again most Western observers will answer yes. What’s the big deal right? We in Canada have the province of Quebec. Quebecers have a different legal system, different language and different culture than most of the rest of Canada. What we also have is a few hundred years of wrestling with the idea of separate but equal. Canadians also had the benefit of having these discussions without an extended armed insurrection in the background. Turks are only now beginning to have that discussion. As I mentioned earlier, an ethnically diverse population founded the Turkish republic. Assimilation was long the objective and that has largely held with Laz, Circassian and others. Kurds too have assimilated to some degree if they’ve moved away from the eastern part of the country. The “homeland” though remains Kurdish. The fear again is, and keep in mind the fate that awaited Turkey at the hands of the Allies, was the partition of the country, the creation of “two Turkeys”. More than once I’ve had someone point out the fate of Yugoslavia when discussing these issues of recognition. These are reasonable fears for the future of Turkey given the reality of the not to distant past.
The current AKP government has initiated each one of the above democratic reforms. The first two items appear on the surface to be self-serving. All however are requirements for Turkey becoming a member of the European Union. The fear is that Atatürk’s legacy will be jeopardized in the process. At the same time its difficult to see how Atatürk would have opposed such things given his desire to emulate a modern Western country. In this case, it appears the messenger is the issue not so much the ideas. The stakes are high for Turkey should the country turn in a more religious direction. A legacy squandered and a modern lifestyle banished. My sense is that these fears have been over done to some degree. I appreciate where they are coming from. Democracy has had a tricky time here in Turkey. Turks are distrustful first until proven otherwise. Having faith in the intention of public officials is even rarer here than in Canada, regrettably for good reason. The AKP hasn’t done too much to quell the concerns of their fellow secular citizens. Most recently, Tayyip Erdoğan went out of his way to bash Atatürk’s long time lieutenant Ismet Inönu, Turkey’s second president. This was what I called the “dog whistle” approach. Erdoğan cannot by law criticize Atatürk directly, so he goes through the back door critizing the second in command. There are many Turks who are dismissive of Atatürk’s secular legacy casting doubt that he was even a real Turk (he had blue eyes and was from Salonica) and bemoan the diminished role that religion has played in modern Turkey. This constituency finds an outlet in the AKP and Erdoğan obliges accordingly.
When the AKP had won at the municipal level, they chose to ban the serving of alcohol on municipal property. Some of these properties are the most beautiful in Istanbul being former Ottoman palaces or the summerhouses of Paşas. These items are the sorts of things that rightfully raise the suspicion level of government opponents that the AKP in fact has a secret agenda that does not include the ideas of a modern secular country.
Turks remain deeply divided along these lines of secular and religious. A “red state blue state” parallel if you will. The reality though is that day-to-day life in Turkey remains deeply rooted in Atatürk’s vision. Much ink has been spilled in recent years regarding Islam and whether it is compatible with democracy. Amazingly, much of what I’ve read has completely ignored the reality that Turkey, a Muslim majority country, has been a functioning democracy for over 50 years. Yes there have been interruptions, yes there have been growing pains, but by and large a democratic framework is fully in place. Come and visit the cafes and boutiques of Baghdad Street and you’ll be amazed by some of the style and fashion sense. Even the headscarf crowd goes designer which in and of itself is a good sign that taking a hard religious turn is not in the cards. Democracy is functioning, and the “outs” will replace the “ins”. Atatürk, though concerned, would be pleased. Ataturk's charm is still disarming. I would have loved to have met him. We could have spoken French, and drank rakı. His image is everywhere today as he represents a set of values for Turks and demonstrates what sort of success can come out of very difficult circumstances. His lapel pins and cellphone pictures reflect back to people the values they themselves now hold dear. He is a hero in the truest sense.
****Note: Andrew Mango who wrote the excellent biography "Atatürk" would be recommended additional reading and was the source of some of the details I provided.****
