Kifeas wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:There is a generally accepted principal that is summed up in the Latin expression "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
Tim, I honestly have you down for a much more sincere interlocutor, than what you seem to come across in this case. What is it that you want me to prove, the self-evident? The obvious? You want me to prove what every single educated and sincere Turk won't even deny?
What is it that you deny? That in Turkey there is no "powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism? That there is no "disdain for the importance of human rights?" That there is no such practice as that of "identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause?" That in Turkey there is no such thing as "the supremacy of the military/avid militarism," etc, etc..? Do you by any chance also want me to prove to you that I am not an elephant?
I am dealing with an interlocutor who says, "I am off to the beach, you carry on if you like." How serious is that?
Joking apart, this is such a broad topic that I can scarcely muster the energy to begin to tackle it. I am sure you have already made your mind up anyway.
In the first place, the list of criteria you have provided are for determining whether a particular REGIME is fascist or not. Kemalism is an IDEOLOGY not a REGIME.
Kemalism was a revolutionary ideology that was born when, unlike previous reform movements that sought continuity with the Ottoman past, a total break was made with this anachronistic order and a radically new Turkish Republic was created. Kemalism is a project which aimed to modernise and Westernise Turkey. It essentially wished to secure the benefits of the European reformation and enlightenment by removing people from the clutches religious dogmatism. It has secured a broadening and strengthening of rights for ordinary Turkish people. It beggars belief that such an ideology can be described as fascist. You seem to be implying that all educated and sincere Turks support your thesis. Well, I am sorry but I contend that you will not find a single Turkish person who equates Kemalism with fascism, and I will maintain that stance until proved otherwise.
Turning to the question of REGIMES, which the set of criteria you have provided are designed to measure, I can identify at least seven different stages within the political history of the Turkish Republic, and very different scores would be awarded in each of these periods. The initial period of one-party rule, perversely, would produce very high scores on most counts. This was a period of dictatorship and one man rule, but unlike many other dictatorships in history, I would argue that it was a benevolent dictatorship. A great many progressive changes occurred in this time. To me, the basic litmus test for fascism has to be whether it is reactionary or progressive. The early years of the Turkish Republic in my view fail this test and so this regime cannot be classified as fascist.
If, on the other hand, we examine the junta led by Kenan Evren that came to power in the coup of 12 September 1980, there is a very different story. This junta abolished the constitution, suspended the rule of law, closed all political parties. Vast numbers of people were detained and tortured. Academic freedom and civil society were crushed. Many academics and intellectuals found themselves unemployed. A new far more restrictive constitution was introduced that limited academic freedom and made it difficult for civil society to organise. The generals also unsuccessfully attempted to bar all those who had been active in politics before the coup from standing for election, so that they could stage sham elections contested by ther own carefully vetted candidates. They failed in the last attempt. Yes, this was fascism in all its ugliness.
However, what does this have to do with the ideology of Kemalism? One of the justifications advanced by the generals for staging this coup was the need to abolish the 1961 constitution. This constitution, the most liberal that Turkey has seen and which permitted civil society and academic freedom to flourish, was actually the work of the Kemalist officers who staged the 1960 coup. This demonstrates that the 1980 coup was anti-Kemalist in nature.
It is true that the legacy of 12 September still lives on in various ways in Turkey. You first have to establish that these phenomena are Kemalist in nature if you wish to use them as a stick with which to beat Kemalism.
Moreover, one has to look for the real architect of the 1980 coup. An abundance of circumstantial evidence has amassed suggesting that the CIA engineered this coup. I am sure the time will come, as more documents are revealed, when this ceases to be a matter of debate. Were the same hidden hands not behind the coup that brought the fascist junta to power in Athens in 1967? Does the fact that Greece was once ruled by a fascist junta mean that all Greeks by nature are fascist? This is infantile thinking.
I certainly agree that in the modern world no country should have an official, guiding ideology. There should be more pluralism in Turkey. However, when placed in a historical context, Kemalism was a revolutionary and progressive ideology which took the Turkish people out of a very dark period indeed and made them citizens of a modern, democratic state in which the rule of law applies.