Understanding Atatürk

On this November 10th, as we bid farewell to eternity, we remember Atatürk with respect, love, and longing.

Atatürk was a true anti-imperialist, a communalist, and an enlightenment thinker. He was a historical figure who transformed the society from which he emerged, established principles and took actions to create an egalitarian social order while doing so, and at the same time, served as an example to colonial and semi-colonial countries through his successful war against imperialism.

HOW DID THEY EVALUATE ATATÜRK?

If you wish, let us begin the topic of “Understanding Atatürk” with the declaration published by UNESCO when it declared 1981 as the “Atatürk Year”: “Kemal Atatürk is the leader of one of the first national liberation struggles against colonialism and imperialism... Kemal Atatürk is an extraordinary pioneer of the ideal of lasting peace and the spirit of mutual understanding among the nations of the world; throughout his life, he worked for the opening of an era of harmony and cooperation among people that recognizes no distinction of color, religion, or race.”

Second, regarding Amin Maalouf, who is known in Turkey primarily for his identity as a novelist, but whose intellectual identity has increasingly come to the fore. In his book “Disordered World” (Le Dérèglement du monde), Amin Maalouf said of Atatürk: “In the aftermath of the First World War... while the Western powers gathered at Sèvres were heartlessly taking possession of people and lands... Mustafa Kemal had the courage to say no to the victors. While many were... complaining, Mustafa Kemal Pasha took up arms, resisted the foreign troops occupying his country, and forced the other powers to reconsider their plans. (pages 80-82)”

The third is from Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, who wrote the most authoritative biography on Atatürk. In his book “The Single Man” (Tek Adam), Aydemir made the following assessment: “As for his intervention in the developments of our age, the movement he achieved in Turkey—which led and directed national liberation movements for all colonial and semi-colonial countries, and which we call the war for national independence, economic and political sovereignty—is the original facet of his contemporary identity.”

HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND ATATÜRK?

Atatürk showed the Turkish society the goal of modernization. However, he was not a Westernist. His principles have not aged or frozen. This is because global capitalism continues its existence ruthlessly in the world. Global capitalism harbors two fundamental contradictions in its structure.

First; the contradiction between imperialist oppressors (Western: liberal/capitalist) and the oppressed (Eastern: colonial, semi-colonial, or hidden colonial). At this point, it should be noted that Atatürk possessed a nationalist and independence-oriented approach that stood against Soviet Russia's attempts to intervene in Anatolia and use the War of Independence for its own interests, just as much as he stood against Western imperialism.

The second is the labor-capital contradiction.

The resolution of these two mentioned contradictions in favor of oppressed nations and laborers seems possible through the implementation of Kemalist ideology. For this reason, Kemalism maintains its relevance for the world and Turkey.

The Atatürk Principles and Revolutions, which were shaped by the debates of the early years of the Republic and which form the fundamental basis of our Republic today, have become an ideology under the name “Kemalism.” Kemalism aimed for a society based on popular sovereignty and democracy, possessing a contemporary type of human and a secular understanding of governance. In this context, intellectuals writing around journals such as “Kadro” and “Ülkü” defined it as an ideology.

Kemalism is a historically progressive orientation. Steps were taken toward the transformation of society. In other words, it was the beginning of the transition from servitude to equal citizenship.

RESPONSES TO ATATÜRK OPPONENTS

Opposition to “Atatürkism” or “Kemalism” has been on the agenda of “Liberals,” “Political Islamists,” and the “Separatist Kurdish Movement” from the founding of the Republic to the present day. The mentioned opposition is also observed, especially in “a minority fringe of the Turkish Left after the 1960s.”

Some of the liberals, apart from the collaborators, have put forward approaches regarding why he did not immediately implement a Western-style administration. However, at that time, fascist-leaning regimes were dominant in many European countries, while Kemalist revolutions included practices that brought goodness to the entire public. In this context, it can be said that they carry water to the pool of Political Islamists today with their “Not enough, but yes” approach. Some liberals also define themselves as “Left Liberals” and mistake leftism for ethnic separatism.

The opposition of Political Islamists to Atatürk was based on two reasons from the very beginning. First; the abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate and Caliphate, and second, the closure of dervish lodges and shrines. Since 1923, these groups have produced certain slogans such as “Lausanne is a defeat!”, “The Caliphate was abolished to please the British!”, “He turned Hagia Sophia into a museum!”, “He had the Adhan recited in Turkish,” and “He banned the learning of the Quran.” Some were members of associations that were in “treason to the homeland” during the National Struggle, such as the “Society of the Friends of England or America,” the “Society for the Elevation of Islam,” and the “Society for the Elevation of Kurds.”

As for the separatist Kurds; they say that Atatürk did not keep the promise of “autonomy” he had made. However, in the Izmit press conference dated January 16-17, 1923, Atatürk summarized to journalist Ahmet Emin Bey: “The Kurds are settled in a scattered manner in Turkey; if a border is to be drawn in the name of Kurdishness, one will be faced with the destruction of Turkishness and Turkey; instead, the best way is for them to govern themselves with a kind of local autonomy; ‘a kind of local autonomy’ is not a sum of the separate powers of two peoples, but a single power.” It is clear that in this statement, by saying “a kind of autonomy” instead of directly “autonomy,” Atatürk meant acting within the limits of the powers of local administrations.

In this context, Article 21 of the 1921 Constitution stated that “provinces have legal personality and autonomy” in regulating foundation, education, health, economy, agriculture, public works, and social assistance affairs.

A minority fringe of the Turkish left has also characterized “Kemalism” as a petty-bourgeois movement, viewed the practices carried out in this context as insufficient, and gone further to criticize it for not carrying out a socialist revolution.

These approaches can be answered very briefly as follows: The liberation and establishment of the Republic of Turkey were realized through an anti-imperialist revolution carried out by the military and civilian intellectuals remaining from the Ottoman Empire, who were faced with the threat of partition after the First World War, alongside the Anatolian notables and partially merchants, taking the poor peasantry with them. Feudal lords were also largely the alliance power of this revolution.

Expecting more than this from them was not in line with historical facts or sociological realities. Because the organized working class, which would be the base of a socialist revolution, was very weak. Moreover, during the War of Independence, the majority of workers in Istanbul consisted of minorities. They did not support the War of Independence. On the contrary, especially Armenian and Greek workers supported the invading Greek army. The organization of the poor peasantry was at a negligible level.

Within the limited time, the highest level of revolutionary practices that could be carried out with the mentioned socio-economic base by Atatürk had been achieved.

In summary, the following can be said regarding “Understanding Atatürk”:

“The primary duty of ‘Atatürkists,’ in other words ‘Kemalists,’ is to own the gains of the republic as a political force and not to fall back from those gains. In parallel with this, apart from the national capital, which is debatable as to whether it is at a limited level, by combining the class struggle and the struggle for secularism with political Islam, which tries to implicitly hide labor exploitation and religious exploitation, as well as the collaborator capitalist order and feudal remnants that still maintain their weight, to socialize, and thus to become a power, a subject.”