National Sovereignty and the Republic

Every year, April 23rd is celebrated as National Sovereignty and Children's Day. So, what is national sovereignty? What is its relationship with the Republic, democracy, secularism, the rule of law, gender equality, freedom, citizenship, full independence, and anti-imperialism? Let us discuss it… 

A nation is not just a collection of people. It is not a crowd that has come together randomly or by chance. National sovereignty, too, is not just any kind of sovereignty. It is a sovereignty with deep meaning, broad scope, and is difficult to attain. To attain it, one needs the fire of national unity, the spirit of national resistance, and the goal of a national state. 

A nation consists of free individuals, of citizens. Citizens are equal before the law. The Republic, by taking equality before the law a step further and asserting an effective, de facto equality in social life, also stands out with its social state dimension. That is why Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said, “The Republic is, above all, the protector of the unprotected.” For that reason, he placed the arrows of populism and etatism on the economic plane among the 6 Arrows, which are the summary and symbol of the Republican Revolution. Because these two principles are the fundamental elements of realizing national sovereignty, secularism, and equality. 

THE NATURAL FLOW OF HISTORY

In Turkey, contrary to what some may think, the nation-state, national consciousness, national identity, and national sovereignty are not the result of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal aspirations. This has historical, political, social, cultural, and economic foundations. The decline and collapse process of the Ottoman Empire, the goals and accumulated experience of the Tanzimat reformers, the Young Ottomans, the Young Turks, and the Committee of Union and Progress, as well as the changing conditions of the world and political developments in Europe, were influential in this process. Without knowing these, Atatürk and the Republic cannot be understood. 

There is no concept of a "nation" in the Ottoman Empire. The term "millet" (nation) was not used in the Western sense or in its historical progression, nor with the political dimension that developed and solidified with the nationalism movement resulting from the 1789 French Revolution; rather, it was used in the sense of a religious community or the ummah. In the Ottoman Empire, there were no citizens either. There were subjects of the Sultan. Furthermore, since the Sultan was also the Caliph, Muslims who accepted the political and religious authority of the Caliph-Sultan, along with non-Muslims who accepted his political authority, constituted the Ottoman subjects. For this reason, the concept of "millet" in the Ottoman Empire was used in a religious sense, not a political one. Even though it was a theocratic monarchy, when the "Millet System" is mentioned in the Ottoman Empire—which did not implement a very rigid Sharia order—it refers to the different religions and sects within its structure. This includes the Muslim majority as well as non-Muslim minorities. In addition to the Muslim Millet that formed the majority, there was the Greek Millet, the Armenian Millet, and the Jewish Millet. Each millet lived under the authority of the Sultan according to the provisions of its own religious faith. Among the Turks, who were the founding element, the consciousness of nation and nationalism developed at the very last stage, after the other elements had broken away. 

As the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, French Revolution, and Industrial Revolution began in Europe and became influential in the world, the Ottoman Empire also received its share of these developments. The effects and interactions of external and internal dynamics, the weakening of the state, and the anger created among intellectuals and the public by lost wars and lost territories brought new quests to the agenda. As a result of the independence efforts, uprisings, and breakaways of different ethnic and religious groups in the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman Millet System disintegrated. While the Ottoman Empire was being liquidated after World War I, its lands were also occupied. While Greeks, Bulgarians, and Arabs rose up and turned toward establishing their own states, and the Armenians—who had been called the “Millet-i Sadıka” (Loyal Nation) for years—cooperated with great powers to establish an independent state, joining forces with the Russians and the French during the Great War, causing sabotage behind the lines and inciting rebellions, the Turks faced the danger of being left both without a homeland and without a state. 

TWO KEY WORDS: WAR AND REVOLUTION 

The Turks, who waged the War of Independence under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha and established the Republic of Turkey, thus escaping this hell, are therefore a people who became a nation while becoming a state, and became a state while becoming a nation. This is the result of war and revolution intertwined. The war is the anti-imperialist National War of Independence, which began with resistance against occupation and was waged against imperialism and its local collaborators, despite the Caliph-Sultan. The revolution, which was carried out simultaneously and intertwined with the war, is a revolution of sovereignty. It changed the root, source, definition, meaning, function, and owner of sovereignty. It took sovereignty from the heavens and brought it down to earth; it took it from being religious and made it political, secularized it, and took it from the Sultan and gave it to the nation. 

The Grand National Assembly of Turkey, which opened in Ankara on April 23, 1920—that is, the Veteran Assembly—collected taxes while fighting. While governing the country, it judged deserters and traitors. While establishing and representing national unity, national identity, national representation, national consciousness, national will, national sovereignty, national legitimacy, national independence, and the national state, it also ensured order. In this respect, it is both a savior and a founder. 

The period when the Turks waged their War of Independence was a period when religious monarchies collapsed, the thrones of kings, the crowns of sultans, and the palaces of emperors were toppled and destroyed. It was a period when the consciousness of national sovereignty, the ideal of full independence, and the goal of a nation-state rose. Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, like every revolutionary genius, appeared on the stage of history at the right place, with the right timing, the right goal, and the right intervention. He waged the War of Independence and founded the Republic to create a citizen of a secular, democratic, contemporary, fully independent republic based on national sovereignty, out of the subjects of a multinational empire that had fallen into a semi-colonial state and had been occupied.

NOT SUBJECTS BUT CITIZENS, NOT UMMAH BUT NATION

The Republic of Turkey was founded at a breaking point in history through the national and sacred War of Independence waged by its heroic children—not only those living in Anatolia, but also those who were Turks living outside Anatolia, those who migrated, fled, ran, were lost, finished, broken, exhausted, and exiled while the Ottoman Empire was being liquidated, and who took refuge in and defended their motherland. Beyond the legal and constitutional dimensions of the will of the citizens of the Republic to live together, there are also historical, social, cultural, and political dimensions. The bond of a common past and a common future; the bond of the path, not of lineage or tribe; the bond of common destiny and grief; these are among them. Atatürk, for the development and consolidation of national consciousness, highlighted and institutionalized not the differences in the nation, but the commonalities, similarities, and sameness. Knowing that the path to becoming a nation passes primarily and especially through free, conscious, and responsible citizens, Atatürk always explained the transition from subject to citizen, from ummah to nation, from a community-based society to a society-based society, and from empire to republic through national sovereignty. Within national sovereignty, there is the rule of law, legal unity, the supremacy of law, secularism, gender equality, and full independence.

This great revolution of Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is in accordance with the spirit of the times and the dialectic of history. The Republic of Turkey is a state based not on religion, race, ethnic origin, sect, lineage, place of birth, blood ties, or tribal relations, but on the consciousness of homeland and nation, common culture, and unity of purpose. Turkey is not a republic of feudal faith, but a republic of political consciousness. In Article 88 of the 1924 Constitution, it was stated that “The inhabitants of Turkey, regardless of religion or race, are called (Turk) in terms of citizenship.” The definition of nation that Atatürk made in the book "Civic Knowledge for Citizens" (1930) also reinforces and crowns this: “The people of Turkey who founded the Republic of Turkey are called the Turkish Nation.”

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 

In Turkey, those who think that by shrinking, reducing, weakening, and numbering the republic, they will multiply, strengthen, and consolidate democracy—that is, the "numbered" republicans, ethnicists, sectarians, and the "not enough but yes" crowd—are quite influential in both the government and the opposition. However, democracy does not develop at the expense of weakening the unity, singularity, and integrity of the State, the nation, and the homeland. On the contrary, democracy develops in countries where there is a strong state and a strong national consciousness.

Moreover, although the republic and democracy are used together, simultaneously, and synonymously in many places, it is clear that there is a difference between their sensitivities and jealousies regarding certain issues. For example, in a republic, nationality comes to the fore, while in liberal democracy, locality comes to the fore. In a republic, class identity comes to the fore, while in liberal democracy, sub-identity politics comes to the fore. In a republic, those who resemble each other and common denominators come to the fore, while in liberal democracy, differences, separations, and even contradictions come to the fore.

In a republic, public bureaucracy, even if it works a bit slowly or is a bit cumbersome, takes the citizen as the basis, takes the citizen as its interlocutor, and is obliged to serve the citizen. Because the social, populist, and public-oriented aspect of the state, that is, its social state quality, is essential, especially in education and health. In liberal democracy, bureaucracy and the social state are very weak. It is assumed that citizens are inherently rational, utilitarian individuals whose homo economicus aspect comes to the fore. Monetary power is the determinant. Personal gain, free enterprise, and private property are essential.

The Republic believes that in a society where equality does not exist and equality of opportunity is not provided, freedom will remain dysfunctional, or worse, will entrench, deepen, and institutionalize existing inequalities. The libertarianism of liberal democracy is for those who have money.

The Republic was established by liquidating feudalism, remnants of the Middle Ages, imperialism, and its local collaborators and extensions, and by liquidating them through war. In this context, the following words of Rousseau, a thinker who also greatly influenced Atatürk, are important: “It is only after we become citizens that we become fully human.” Liberal democracy, on the other hand, may not have major problems with irrational and unscientific ideas or feudal ties.

The Republic ideologically adopts the founding will; politically, the public sphere, the public-oriented, public power, and public authority; in terms of class, the protection and support of the oppressed; and economically, public enterprises, public leadership, and the public interest. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, is privatizing; it adopts private interest and the private sector.

A republican is jealous regarding the central state, the singular state, and the unitary state. A liberal democrat is not that jealous. They can easily discuss federalism through the lens of feudalism. As Ahmet Taner Kışlalı often said, “A republican, regardless of the percentage of votes coming out of the ballot box, does not allow their country to be divided. A liberal democrat, on the other hand, is in favor of doing what is necessary when a party that advocates for division comes out first from the ballot box.”

A republican cares about democratic mass organizations, unions, and professional chambers where the voluntary participation of citizens is essential. In a liberal democrat, an endless civil society approach comes to the fore. So much so that they even define religious sects as civil society organizations.

In short, the bond between the republic and the national will, national sovereignty, and national consciousness is very strong due to the War of Independence waged against both imperialism and its extensions within the country. For that reason, a Republican is very jealous regarding the gains of the Republican Revolution. A liberal democrat does not show the same sensitivity.