Debate over 'Atatürk Opera' in Germany intensifies: Tough questions from a Turkish legal expert

SWR defended the criticism regarding its Atatürk broadcast by stating, "This was an interview, not a news report; the opera is still being written." Turkish legal expert Özgür Dobruca, however, did not find the response sufficient. "If there is no finished work, what are the heavy historical implications made about Atatürk based on?"

The Stuttgart State Opera's opera project titled "Atatürk – The Mustafa Kemal Legend" has become the center of a growing political and cultural debate in Germany before it has even reached the stage. The edge of the problem is now much sharper. While there is no completed work yet, on what sources are the heavy historical implications brought to the public agenda about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk based?

Turkish lawyer Özgür Dobruca has now brought this question to the agenda once again. Dobruca, who made one of the first legal objections to the opera debate in Stuttgart, had previously stated in an official program complaint sent to the public radio and television broadcaster SWR that the interview published on SWR Kultur and the accompanying online content created an unbalanced, one-sided, and historically problematic framework regarding Atatürk.

The Turkish legal expert pointed out that a public broadcasting institution, especially if it operates with broadcasting contributions paid by Turks living in Germany, must engage in much more careful, balanced, and evidence-based broadcasting regarding Atatürk, who is a symbol of modernization, secularism, women's rights, scientific thought, and the contemporary constitutional state for millions of people.

A response to this complaint came from SWR. However, the institution's answer was not enough to close the debate. On the contrary, it opened a new door that made the objection even tougher.

SWR SAID "IT WAS AN INTERVIEW, NOT A NEWS REPORT"

In the written response it sent, SWR stated that the broadcast in question was not a news report in the classical sense, but an interview conducted with Stuttgart State Opera General Manager Victor Schoner on the "SWR Kultur am Morgen" program, along with an online summary accompanying this interview. The institution emphasized that the opera is still in the writing phase, that the work is planned to be staged in April 2027, and that the concrete content is not yet determined.

The essence of this defense is this... There is no completed opera yet, therefore a definitive judgment cannot be made based on the content of the work.

However, the Turkish legal expert's new move rests exactly on this point. If there is no completed work yet, what is the controversial historical framework brought to the public agenda about Atatürk based on? Which academic study, which historical source, which scientific consensus stands behind this narrative?

SWR explained the type of broadcast. However, it did not explain the historical basis of the connotations created about Atatürk.

WHAT WAS THE FIRST LEGAL OBJECTION?

Lawyer Özgür Dobruca's first complaint was not an attack on freedom of art. He was not opposing the discussion of Atatürk's historical personality from different angles either. In democratic societies, historical figures can of course be criticized, be the subject of performing arts, and be handled in ways open to different interpretations.

However, the center of the objection was in a very different place. When a public broadcasting institution brings evaluations that could create negative connotations about Atatürk to the public, is it not obliged to ask which historical and academic sources these evaluations are based on?

In the first complaint letter, attention was drawn to SWR's obligation as a public law institution to provide balanced, pluralistic, and responsible broadcasting. It was emphasized that Atatürk was not only the founder of the Republic of Turkey but also one of the most important modernization leaders of the 20th century with reforms such as the abolition of the caliphate, the establishment of a secular state order, the construction of a modern educational structure, the strengthening of the legal status of women, and the adoption of science and reason as the basis for state administration.

In the same letter, it was reminded that freedom of art cannot be interpreted as an unlimited field. In the "Mephisto" and "Esra" rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany, it was established that freedom of art must be evaluated together with other constitutional values. This emphasis showed that the debate could not be reduced to the simplicity of "there is freedom of art, so everything is beyond question."

Now, after SWR's response, the same question has become even more prominent. Can public broadcasting be content with merely conveying controversial historical narratives without questioning them?

NERO, CAESAR, NIXON... WHAT DOES THIS CONTEXT TELL US?

One of the most sensitive points of the debate is that Atatürk is mentioned in the same context as historical figures or stage works such as Nero, Caesar, and "Nixon in China." SWR may argue that this framework is not a direct accusation but is established through examples in opera history. However, in terms of the perception created in the public, this distinction alone is not enough.

Names create context. The connotations of figures like Nero, Caesar, or Nixon are not neutral either. Especially when these names are placed side-by-side in the same narrative field as a founding figure of the Republic of Turkey like Atatürk, they convey a powerful message to the listener and reader.

For this reason, the Turkish legal expert's question is simple but heavy. On what historical justification does this context rest?

There is no answer to this question in SWR's response. The institution highlights the interview format and the fact that the opera is not yet completed. However, it does not explain the academic source, historical ground, and scientific basis of this framework brought to the public about Atatürk.

PUBLIC BROADCASTING DOES NOT END WITH HOLDING A MICROPHONE

The most important point underlined in the new response emerges here. Public broadcasting is not just holding a microphone to different views. It also means weighing the importance of these views, passing historical claims through a critical filter, and ensuring that the public forms a healthy opinion.

A public broadcaster cannot evade responsibility by saying "we just talked," especially on a subject that is extremely loaded from a historical perspective. The interview format cannot be a safe space where heavy historical implications are circulated without question.

If controversial evaluations are being made about Atatürk, it must be explained which academic studies these evaluations are based on. Which international historians share these interpretations? Do these reflect the general consensus of historical science, or are they circulating the view of specific political and ideological circles?

Since SWR's response did not answer these questions, the debate did not end. On the contrary, it grew.

THE LETTER FROM TURKISH NGOS ALSO REMAINED UNANSWERED

This debate is not limited to the program complaint directed to SWR by Özgür Dobruca, who is one of the names who made the first legal warning to the Stuttgart Opera. Previously, 34 Turkish non-governmental organizations operating in different regions of Germany, especially in Stuttgart, had sent a joint open letter to the Stuttgart State Opera management. In this letter, question marks regarding the opera project were expressed, transparency was requested regarding the historical approach of the work, and a call for constructive dialogue was made.

The purpose of the letter was not to demand the banning of a work of art. The demand was based on a much more fundamental point. If a personality who has a central place in the identity, history, and understanding of the Republic of millions of people like Atatürk is being brought to the stage, the historical framework with which this narrative is constructed should be clearly explained to the public.

However, despite the time that has passed, no response that would satisfy the public was given to this letter either. Although the number of supporting organizations and individual signatories increased later, the questions of the Turkish community remained unanswered again.

This silence was also at the center of the criticism brought to the agenda by Elif İsmailoğlu. On one hand, there is talk of the sensitivities of different social segments, dialogue, and inclusivity. On the other hand, the questions posed by nearly forty Turkish non-governmental organizations are left unanswered.

This contradiction can no longer be read only as an artistic debate. It has turned into a political question about the extent to which the Turkish community in Germany is taken seriously by public institutions.

QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO THE OPERA MANAGEMENT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING

The questions in the open letter sent to the Stuttgart State Opera were very clear. Is the work really an Atatürk opera, or is it a broader historical narrative that discusses Turkey's last century through Atatürk? What is the historical and dramaturgical approach of the opera? By what criteria were the characters chosen? Who are the history consultants? Were the opinions of Turkish historians, academics, and organizations representing the Turkish community in Germany consulted?

These questions are of course not just technical details. Because some characters mentioned to be in the opera carry the debate to an even more sensitive ground. What is the function of Soghomon Tehlirian, who killed Talat Pasha, in a work stated to be about the life story of Atatürk? Why was Seyit Rıza chosen as one of the main characters? Will these names be handled within their historical contexts, or will they be turned into symbolic elements of current political debates?

The introduction of Fikriye Hanım directly as "Atatürk's lover" also opens up a source question. While there are different evaluations among historians regarding the nature of the relationship, on what historical basis is a controversial interpretation presented as an absolute fact?

Another critical topic is the 1915 events. The Republic of Turkey had not yet been established during the Armenian deportation. Mustafa Kemal was not a member of the Ottoman government that took the deportation decisions. Despite this, the relationship established between Atatürk and the 1915 events during the promotion process of the opera and in the debates surrounding it has not been explained to the public in a clear manner.

All these questions are still unanswered.

TICKETS WILL GO ON SALE, ANSWERS ARE STILL MISSING

Another element that grows the debate is the calendar. It was announced that the Stuttgart State Opera will hold a promotional matinee on March 21, 2027, about three weeks before the premiere. However, the issue that has been debated in the public for months is not the technical details of a completed staging; it is the historical approach adopted during the preparation process, the consultancy mechanism, and the framework on which the character selections are based.

While ticket sales are expected to start on July 13, 2026, leaving the explanations regarding the fundamental questions until March 2027 creates a picture that is difficult to understand. The public expects an open and real dialogue starting today, before a one-sided promotional meeting to be held a few weeks before the premiere.

THE SENTENCE "THE SENSITIVITIES OF THE TURKISH COMMUNITY ARE IMPORTANT TO US" IS STILL MISSING

In the statements made by the Stuttgart Opera and SWR, it is frequently emphasized that space is opened for the concerns of different social groups, minority perspectives, and historical debates. In contrast, the sensitivities of Turks living in Germany, of millions of people who see Atatürk as the founder of the modern Republic and a symbol of the secular life ideal, are not embraced with the same clarity.

The sentence that has not been heard strongly in public until today is exactly this: The sensitivities of the Turkish community are important to us.

This deficiency is no longer a simple communication accident. It is a political representation problem. Because Turks living in Germany are an inseparable part of the economic, social, and cultural life of this country. They pay taxes, they pay broadcasting contributions, they contribute to the financing of public institutions. Despite this, it is unacceptable that they are often seen not as a "community that should be listened to" but as a "reaction that should be overcome" when their historical sensitivities are in question.

HOW SERIOUSLY IS THE VOICE OF THE TURKISH COMMUNITY TAKEN?

SWR tried to narrow the responsibility by saying, "This was an interview, not a news report." However, the Turkish legal expert's response moved the debate to a broader ground. The issue is no longer just a radio interview. The issue is the historical responsibility of public broadcasting, the transparency of cultural institutions, and the extent to which the voice of the Turkish community in Germany is taken seriously.

An opera can be made about Atatürk. Historical figures can be the subject of art. Criticism is possible, and so is debate. However, if there are heavy historical implications, there must also be scientific sources. If there are controversial character selections, the dramaturgical justification must also be explained. If a founding value of a society is being brought to the stage, the questions of that society must be answered with the same seriousness.

At the point reached today, the question is unfortunately much clearer. If the work does not exist yet, why are there such heavy connotations about Atatürk then?

The second question is of course at least as important as the first. When will public institutions in Germany really start to hear the sensitivities of the Turkish community? Or to ask a more accurate question, do they really have the intention to hear?

IŞIN ERTÜRK – STUTTGART

News Source: 12punto