Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

The “dark side” of Kemalism
The role of Turkish Security Forces.
by Stavros Lygeros
http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_art ... 007_226962

Turkey carries in its “DNA” the stigma of a modern state created by military officers, after a victorious war. Kemal fought against ottoman traditions, however, never and nowhere institutionalized ideas and attitudes are abrogated with directives! Furthermore, he himself substituted the Sultan-Caliph with another figure. The Kemalist establishment might have proclaimed its secular character, essentially though, not only it was a totalitarian one, but also singularly “theocratic.” The founder and leader became the “Great father,” and then was “deified.”

In reality, the neighboring country has never experienced a republican revolution. Its multiparty parliamentarianism was introduced by the regime itself, in an effort to outwardly appear in conformity with western etiquettes. And certainly, this parliamentarianism was controlled by the militaro-bureaucracy, the “guardian” and “guarantor” of the state.

Kemalism is something more than just a “state ideology.” It has taken “theological” dimensions, since it constitutes the “connecting bond” that brings together and “unifies” the state-ruling elites. With the same ideology, the state apparatus is trying to unify the culturally multicolor Turkish society, on the basis of the dogma “one state, one language, one nation!”

The Turkish middle classes, due to the fact that they developed within an environment of intensive state control, did not manage to emancipate themselves politically. The Armed forces remain the only solid and effective mechanism, within an unstable social and political environmental setting. To this end, their role, which is exercised via the institution of the almighty “National Security Council,” was always visible, permanent and to a large extent acceptable (taken for granted) by the society, the parties and the business people.

Coups in Turkey (there were 3 post war ones, in 1960, 1971 and 1980) do not resemble to any of those in other countries. The Generals do not need to resort to collusions, conspiracies and juntas. The army expresses itself as a unit, through its hierarchy. When it “rules” that the political forces have crossed the line, it brings them back to “order,” or it “routes” the creation of new parties.


PS: This is the “state ideology” (Kemalism) which the indescribably ahistoricals Kofi Annan, De Soto, Haney, Klerides, Anastasiades, Pourgourides, Papapetrou, Bananiot & CIA have asked part of the Greek Cypriot community to go and live under, should they wished to return back to their ancestral territories of northern Cyprus!

[bigOz]

The “dark side” of Kemalism
The role of Turkish Security Forces.
by Stavros Lygeros
http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_art ... 007_226962

Turkey carries in its “DNA” the stigma of a modern state created by military officers, after a victorious war. Kemal fought against ottoman traditions, however, never and nowhere institutionalized ideas and attitudes are abrogated with directives! Furthermore, he himself substituted the Sultan-Caliph with another figure. The Kemalist establishment might have proclaimed its secular character, essentially though, not only it was a totalitarian one, but also singularly “theocratic.” The founder and leader became the “Great father,” and then was “deified.”

In reality, the neighboring country has never experienced a republican revolution. Its multiparty parliamentarianism was introduced by the regime itself, in an effort to outwardly appear in conformity with western etiquettes. And certainly, this parliamentarianism was controlled by the militaro-bureaucracy, the “guardian” and “guarantor” of the state.

Kemalism is something more than just a “state ideology.” It has taken “theological” dimensions, since it constitutes the “connecting bond” that brings together and “unifies” the state-ruling elites. With the same ideology, the state apparatus is trying to unify the culturally multicolor Turkish society, on the basis of the dogma “one state, one language, one nation!”

The Turkish middle classes, due to the fact that they developed within an environment of intensive state control, did not manage to emancipate themselves politically. The Armed forces remain the only solid and effective mechanism, within an unstable social and political environmental setting. To this end, their role, which is exercised via the institution of the almighty “National Security Council,” was always visible, permanent and to a large extent acceptable (taken for granted) by the society, the parties and the business people.

Coups in Turkey (there were 3 post war ones, in 1960, 1971 and 1980) do not resemble to any of those in other countries. The Generals do not need to resort to collusions, conspiracies and juntas. The army expresses itself as a unit, through its hierarchy. When it “rules” that the political forces have crossed the line, it brings them back to “order,” or it “routes” the creation of new parties.


PS: This is the “state ideology” (Kemalism) which the indescribably ahistoricals Kofi Annan, De Soto, Haney, Klerides, Anastasiades, Pourgourides, Papapetrou, Bananiot & CIA have asked part of the Greek Cypriot community to go and live under, should they wished to return back to their ancestral territories of northern Cyprus!

What a comedian you are Kifeas! Now you've gone down to writing personal opinions of Turkey bashing columnists in Greek Newspapers - great!

[cypezokyli]

read some foreign newspapers (british , american , german etc) of the last month, and you will not receive much different views....

[bigOz]

read some foreign newspapers (british , american , german etc) of the last month, and you will not receive much different views....

I listen to BBC NEWS 24 all tay and read The Times, Guardian, Washington Post (online) almost every day. So far all I have seen on this subject is praise for the Turkish army in the same lines as I have mentioned above!

Lets start with the British BBC News: http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4053/gotumay5.gif
dated 7 November 2006: Below are extracts - you can read the rest from above link...
"A retired four-star general, Edib Baser, who now runs the Institute for the Study of Ataturk's Principles and the History of the Republic, sees the state as a building.

"If this building falls down everything... including democracy, freedom of speech, human rights... gets crushed underneath. So the roof has to be strong. The army keeps an eye on it."

It is instructive to look at the1997 coup, which has been called the first "post-modern coup". That is a trendy way of saying the army made clear its displeasure, and events followed without the need for much brute force. Neither the generals nor their puppets took over but the government resigned and there was a clampdown on political Islam.

Power without responsibility, perhaps, but it is probably more accurate to say the Turkish army feels it has a responsibility but does not actually seek direct power.

All armies, perhaps, have a reverential sense of their own history, but this is especially true in Turkey."

Egyptian El Ahram weekly 3-7 May 2007 http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/843/fr3.htm
I quote:
"No one with any knowledge of recent Turkish history could have had any doubt about the nature of the threat contained in the statement. When the military staged a full-blooded coup in September 1980 it cited Article 35 of the armed forces internal services law, which mandates it to "preserve and protect the Turkish homeland and the Turkish republic as defined in the constitution". It was the threat of a repeat of the 1980 coup which led to the toppling of the Islamist-led government in 1997."

From Der Spiegel May 7 2007
The founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk, all but forced secularism and democratic reforms on the nation in the 1920s. Atatürk was a general, but in many respects he was ahead of some leaders in the democratic West. Women won the right to vote in Turkey in 1934, for example, well before female suffrage came to France (1944) or Italy (1946).

Atatürk's posture toward Islam was a function of his personal dislike of the religion, but it was also pragmatic. He wasn't shy about flying the green banner of the Prophet Muhammad when it could lift the spirits of devout Muslims in Turkey's war of liberation against the Italians and Greeks. But almost as soon as he took power he started to clean up the symbols of Turkey's old order. He eliminated the caliphate, and made Sunday the country's official day of rest (instead of Friday, the Muslim day of prayer). He introduced Latin writing instead of Arabic and replaced Sharia with a code composed of Swiss and Italian law."

Washington Post ,2 May 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01475.html

"A soldier, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founded the modern, secular state from the ashes of the ruined Ottoman Empire. Turkey's generals regard themselves as the custodians of his legacy. The military seized power three times between 1960 and 1980, and in 1997 pressured an Islamic government out of power. It had been getting out of the political arena in recent years, but stepped back in on April 27 when it threatened to intervene to curb the rise of political Islam. It remains one of the most respected institutions in the country, and many view it as a legitimate voice in politics."
The sooner the GCs in this forum realise bigOz knows what he is talking about the less embarassed they'll get with their silly posts. If you want more I'll give you more international views on this.

[cypezokyli]

A retired four-star general....,

you are posting the opinion of a general about himself (the army) and you are expected to be taken seriously....but then ....i am not sure if you are reading what you are posting.

No one with any knowledge of recent Turkish history could have had any doubt about the nature of the threat contained in the statement. When the military staged a full-blooded coup in September 1980 it cited Article 35 of the armed forces internal services law, which mandates it to "preserve and protect the Turkish homeland and the Turkish republic as defined in the constitution". It was the threat of a repeat of the 1980 coup which led to the toppling of the Islamist-led government in 1997.

honestly, what do you understand from the above ?

full-blooded military coups and threads of full-blooded coups , and toppling of goverments are an argument for what ?

what are you trying to say by this ?
how great full-blooded coups are ?




i ll post later on, parts of the international press

[bigOz]

A retired four-star general....,

you are posting the opinion of a general about himself (the army) and you are expected to be taken seriously....but then ....i am not sure if you are reading what you are posting.

No one with any knowledge of recent Turkish history could have had any doubt about the nature of the threat contained in the statement. When the military staged a full-blooded coup in September 1980 it cited Article 35 of the armed forces internal services law, which mandates it to "preserve and protect the Turkish homeland and the Turkish republic as defined in the constitution". It was the threat of a repeat of the 1980 coup which led to the toppling of the Islamist-led government in 1997.

honestly, what do you understand from the above ?

full-blooded military coups and threads of full-blooded coups , and toppling of goverments are an argument for what ?

what are you trying to say by this ?
how great full-blooded coups are ?

i ll post later on, parts of the international press

It gives me pleasure when I am questioned by people like yourself with whom I can toy with forever. Itis not fair re gumbare because we are not a match. You still keep asking silly questions and when you get the answer you start deviating again LET ME EDUCATE YOU ONCE AGAIN MY POOR FELLOW COUNTRY MAN!

What I "understand from the above" is Turkey does not have any Islamist government or Sheria Law as in Iran, tyhanks to its modern secular army. So what's your problem. Just like a typical Greek you criticise this because you wished it was not so and they were ruled by Sheria law - it would have presented you with endless opportunities to attack Turkey's democracy and political system. So next time Mullas are about to take power, you suggest Turkish army does nothing in the name of democracy - I pity the education system that brought you up!

My second point is, you have embarrassed yourself again! You lot are really good at making clowns of yourselves aren't you? The areas in red colour in th efirst post are not the general's quotes but the newspaper's own comments. The generalks section was between " " quotation marks - can you see? No! Well don't worry about it because no one else is.

The rest of the paragraphs are all newspapers quotes. Go back to your original question and see if the post has proved you wrong or not.

Anyway I amswitching off now because you are getting too boring - I'll come back tomorrow to toy with you more.

[zan]

What exactly are you arguing here? Is it the idea of Kemalism or the act. Can you not use the same arguments for communism or capitalism or any other ism that Cyp hates so much.

[Piratis]

The “dark side” of Kemalism

Is there a "bright side"? We know about the dark one very well from first hand.

[zan]

The “dark side” of Kemalism

Is there a "bright side"? We know about the dark one very well from first hand.

With Hellenism careering around in the dark also we were bound to bump into each other......

[EPSILON]

What a comedian you are Kifeas! Now you've gone down to writing personal opinions of Turkey bashing columnists in Greek Newspapers - great!


_________________


Where was the wrong stmnt? There was not the 3 Coups? the 4th last 15 days ago?

What you are trying to prove////You are just supporting a pockeman Democracy. You however have your excusses- you have never lived in a real democratic state- how you can understand? You Always had what you have today- maybe different names- Sultan- Vezire- police station chief- Army's area chief, Attaturk, what the differences- ALL OF THEM WERE AND THEY STILL LIVE IN LUXURY AREAS/HOUSES and you are still between Afghanistan and Banlgadesh (the majority of population)_