Why didn't Atatürk have children?

First of all, let us state this: Atatürk loved children very much. He mostly addressed everyone as “child” and always wanted to see children around him. He used to say, “Love for children is a necessity for the love of humanity.”

He was a world leader,

He was a general, he was the President. He had brought the whole world to its knees. Moreover, women admired him. He was very handsome. Given this, of course, like everyone else, he would have wanted to have children, but he did not.

He, too, knew how to establish a harem for himself and have dozens of children. To build palaces and declare himself a sultan. Did he have the power to do this? Of course, he did. However, he did not want to. There were those who proposed it, and he rejected them. Because regimes of sultanate and one-man rule would bring an end to a society. That is why he wanted a Republic. Furthermore, he knew how he had fought to the death for 18 years for the Republican regime and the blood shed for this cause.

With the Battle of Gallipoli, the Turkish society had evolved from an ummah (community of believers) to citizens, and with the War of Independence, from citizens to a nation, and to the sovereignty of the nation. The Turkish people had won their sovereignty by fighting, shedding blood, and paying great prices. These wars were, in fact, wars of sovereignty against the Palace. Atatürk knew this very well.

That is why he was almost trembling to ensure “National Sovereignty,” that is, to keep the sovereignty of the Turkish people superior to the sovereignty of the palace elites.

In this sense, the following statement he made in 1928 is important, and he said it for the sovereignty of the Turkish people.

“Sovereignty does not accept partnership in any sense, in any form, in any color or sign. Whether the title is caliph or something else, no one can claim a share in the destiny of this Nation. The Nation can never, ever turn a blind eye to this. There cannot be any member of parliament who would propose this.”

In other words, he is saying that no one can even be a partner to the sovereignty of the Turkish people in any form or sense, and no member of parliament can propose this. But today, we have done the opposite. We have given our sovereign powers to someone from the palace.

What are we discussing today? What comes after Erdoğan.

After all, if Erdoğan leaves politics one day, who will replace him? Will it be the keeper of secrets Hakan Fidan, his son Bilal, or his son-in-law Berat? Or will it be his other son-in-law Selçuk Bayraktar or someone like that?

This is always being talked about.

It is even said that at the point reached, a decision has been made on his son Bilal Erdoğan, and the sons-in-law have been persuaded on this matter.

But no one is talking about national sovereignty or the will of the people. It is all about sons-in-law, in-laws, sons, heirs, and so on. That is, a certain group. Unfortunately, at the point we have reached, there is nothing left called the will or sovereignty of the people.

Because it does not exist.

We fought so many wars and shed so much blood a hundred years ago to get rid of the palace administration and a certain group, but now we have returned to those administrations. Atatürk foresaw this concern and said;

“Even the government being in the hands of certain people or certain classes is a situation that the nation can never accept. These situations are nothing more than a group usurping the sovereignty that belongs to the entire nation in order to secure their own interests.”

What more can he say.

So, wouldn't Atatürk have wanted to have a child, for his lineage to continue, to take the lead, and for them to rule the country after him? To have countless grandchildren, for them to do what the current ones are doing. Of course, he would have wanted to. Who wouldn't? He could have done it very easily. In fact, most of the public would have supported it.

But he did not want to.

He wanted the Turkish people to rule the country after him, not a certain group, even if it were his own lineage. A farmer's son, a tradesman's grandson, and so on. Even a shepherd could have come out and ruled. This was a prerequisite for democratization. It was a precondition for a 600-year-old illiterate society to transition into a nation-society. He knew that for democracy to take root, the sole condition was not palace sovereignty or a certain group, but popular sovereignty.

If Atatürk had had children, popular sovereignty would have been out of the question; the sovereignty of a certain lineage, the sovereignty of a certain group would have been in question, and this would have brought back the kingdom and the sultanate. He knew very well that even if it were his own child, this situation would lead to one-man rule, and one-man rule would drag the country into disaster.

In short, Atatürk, who sacrificed his life for the Turkish Nation, suppressed the ‘love for children’ within him and sacrificed that love for children so that the sovereignty of the Turkish Nation would not be left to a lineage, a family, or a certain group, and so that the people's sovereignty would not be usurped by this method.

Is there such a sacrifice made for us?

No.

Bravo to you, Atatürk, bravo,

Shame on those who still do not understand what you did for us...