Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexios]

My first ever serious study was a project on Kemal Ataturk during my History "A" Level studies, in the UK.When my tutor asked in amazement why a G/C would want to write a project on K.A i told her that even Greeks could learn from a great "enemy"
As i progressed into writing the project i was fascinated by the man.Needless to say I got an A for the project, which unfortunately did not prevent me from getting an overall miserable D in the final result:( ..Well girls and football were more important to me at the time..))

[BirKibrisli]

My first ever serious study was a project on Kemal Ataturk during my History "A" Level studies, in the UK.When my tutor asked in amazement why a G/C would want to write a project on K.A i told her that even Greeks could learn from a great "enemy"
As i progressed into writing the project i was fascinated by the man.Needless to say I got an A for the project, which unfortunately did not prevent me from getting an overall miserable D in the final result:( ..Well girls and football were more important to me at the time..))

Just goes to show,Alexios,my fellow Paphian,that if you study something you find interesting you will do well.Maybe you should'vedone the rest of your projects on girls and football!

I am glad people are interested in Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,because he is the key to understanding modern Turkish mentality.As other people said he was a great visionaryand patriot.The aboilishing of the Khalifate itself was an act of extreme courage.Imagine somebody abolishing the VAtican and the popedom.One stroke and no more Pope.The problem with Ataturk's legacy is that because he has taken on a semi-deity role,he cannot be criticised in Turkey.In fact there is a law against saying or doing anything which will show him in a negative light.I remember some time ago,some poor tourists were arrested for drawing a beard on Ataturk's picture on a stamp.Fundamentalist muslims hate him with a vengence and are trying to find ways to get around his influence.One criticism I will make of Ataturk is that all his reforms came from the top,without giving the people the time to assimilate them.Hence resulting in today's sczchitzophrenic nature of the Turkish society.In Istanbul you can find people totally Europeanised on one corner,and people who look as if they still live in middleages on the other corner.Sooner or later the pressure of the opposing poles will tell on Turkey.But not as long as the ARmyare as strong and as respected as it is today.But Erdogan is working on that as we speak.

[sadik]

garbitsch, what do you mean those things have nothing to do with Ataturk? Is Turkey today diverting from what Ataturk would like? Would Ataturk not approve the hostile attitude of Turkey towards some of its neighbors (including Cyprus)?

Ataturk rejected expansionist policies. He tried to have good relationships will all the neighbors of Turkey, including Greece. He maintained a foreign policy in line with the policies of the Soviet Union. After his death (1938), this policy continued for some more time. In the middle of 1940s, Turkey started to align itself with the US and changed its foreign policy dramatically in line with NATO policies.

But we need to mention that, despite the mild foreign policy, things were very tough internally. It's claimed that during these times 50000 people were hanged, mostly Islamists. The Turkish state was also very tough on the Kurds, who rebelled a few times in this time frame.

[cypezokyli]

Yes Ataturk was a dictator, but one who puts all the current dictators to shame

i dont mind dictators. i judge a leader by the outcomes to be honest.
and indeed it seems that attaturk was a dictator that overall benefited turkey. sth that is normally not the case for dictatorships

my role as dictator is that there will be no dictator after me".

would you say he failed on this one?

One criticism I will make of Ataturk is that all his reforms came from the top,without giving the people the time to assimilate them

it always takes a while, i guess. that could be also said for the first greek president...kapodistrias. this is also one thing to admire about the english... they went mostly through evolutions rather than revolutions. and in the long run it is always better

[Kifeas]

People do not seem to understand that the problem is not with Atatürk himself but with the institutionalized ideology that bears his name and which governs and defines Turkey, ever since. Atatürk, -as a person, a revolutionist and a statesman, might have been good for Turkey, at the time. Certainly though, no one person in Turkey, set aside on the entire planet, can be the possessor of the absolute truth, as Atatürk is being perceived and treated in Turkey. Every country and nation on this planet had their own reformists and revolutionists. Yet, in no other place on earth, except in some third world totalitarian regimens, such an idolization of a single one person does take place. It resembles the Leninist and Stalinist periods of Soviet Union, in which each of the two leaders was perceived the holder of the absolute truth and every single corner of the entire country was littered with statues and porters of his face. It resembles the Sadam Hussein’s period in Iraq in which again every corner is lettered with statues and photos of him. It resembles the Franco, Zifkov and Ceausescu eras of Spain, Bulgaria and Romania in which again every corner of each country was littered with kitsch statues. The common denominator of all these regimes was their totalitarian nature. If Turkey wishes to ever be regarded as a truly modern nation, it has to do away with this idolization of one single individual, regardless of his, at a time, importance for the Turkish people.

Last but not least, Kemalism, as the overruling ideology of the Turkish state and as it is perceived and practiced by the ruling elites of the country, is nothing short of a fascist and totalitarian ideology. One needs to read the definition of fascism and compare it with the way this ideology is perceived and practiced in Turkey and will certainly reach to this conclusion. The dominating role of the Army, the exaggerated worshiping of the flag, the endorsement of nationalism, the attempt of leveling all minority cultural differences and identities and merging them the into one -in the name of national security and conformity, the elevated role of the state (read bureaucracy) as the ultimate patron and caretaker, and the prioritization of its (state’s) rights over those of the individuals, are all elements and practices of fascist and totalitarian ideologies and regimes. The only marked difference between the classical western fascist ideologies and Kemalism is their resort to religion as a mean of blinding and controlling the masses. However, although Turkey is a strictly secular state, (as opposed to other fascist regimes that existed in Europe and elsewhere,) in reality it isn’t. It simply replaced the promotion of religious fanaticism with the promotion of Atatürk's fanatic worshiping, something that I am sure Atatürk himself would not have liked.

Such an ideology, namely Kemalism, is totally incompatible with the modern European spirit and the principles and values of the European Union. The modern European spirit places the rights of the individual above the rights of the state. In Turkey, such is not the case yet. To this end, I find it very paradoxical, oxymoron and grossly worrisome that the TCs have introduced Kemalism into the constitution of the TC constituent state, as it was envisioned by the Annan plan.

I know that many Turkish and Turkish Cypriot friends in this forum will react negatively to what I said above. I personally care very little, as I am not in the business of sounding polite and sweet in people’s ears so that I win friends. I care only to let the grim truth come out. As I understand it to be.

[Khan]

You cant compare those dictators with Ataturk. They forced their countries to idolise them, they squandered their states money on themselves and in the case of Caucescu and Saddam ended up being executed and toppled. The fact that 70 years after Ataturks death people still choose to regard him in such high esteem is a testatment to his contribution, how many of those dicators you listed can say the same?

[Kifeas]

You cant compare those dictators with Ataturk. They forced their countries to idolise them, they squandered their states money on themselves and in the case of Caucescu and Saddam ended up being executed and toppled. The fact that 70 years after Ataturks death people still choose to regard him in such high esteem is a testatment to his contribution, how many of those dicators you listed can say the same?

My friend, you seemed to have failed grasping the essence of what I said.
I did not compare Atatürk with anyone of those dictators. I did not even call him a dictator, although I could have done so since he himself identified himself to be such.

I only spoke about the treatment that his name, his principles and his mere face (picture) received by the Turkish establishment, primarily after his death. I spoke about Kemalism as an ideology and not Kemal as a person. Kemalist ideology was developed and imposed mainly after his death, and continues to determine almost every single aspect of life in Turkey, up to this day.

[bg_turk]

It resembles the Franco, Zifkov and Ceausescu eras of Spain, Bulgaria and Romania in which again every corner of each country was littered with kitsch statues. The common denominator of all these regimes was their totalitarian nature. If Turkey wishes to ever be regarded as a truly modern nation, it has to do away with this idolization of one single individual, regardless of his, at a time, importance for the Turkish people.

You cannot compare Zhivkov with Ataturk. Zhivkov was a dictator hated by his own people, Ataturk was a statesman who was loved by his own people. Zhivkov's influence faded as he fell out of power, Ataturk's ideology lasted ever since. Ataturk is the symbol of the turkish nation and as such he deserves to be idolized.

Last but not least, Kemalism, as the overruling ideology of the Turkish state and as it is perceived and practiced by the ruling elites of the country, is nothing short of a fascist and totalitarian ideology.
One needs to read the definition of fascism and compare it with the way this ideology is perceived and practiced in Turkey and will certainly reach to this conclusion. The dominating role of the Army, the exaggerated worshiping of the flag, the endorsement of nationalism, the attempt of leveling all minority cultural differences and identities and merging them the into one -in the name of national security and conformity, the elevated role of the state (read bureaucracy) as the ultimate patron and caretaker, and the prioritization of its (state’s) rights over those of the individuals, are all elements and practices of fascist and totalitarian ideologies and regimes. The only marked difference between the classical western fascist ideologies and Kemalism is their resort to religion as a mean of blinding and controlling the masses. However, although Turkey is a strictly secular state, (as opposed to other fascist regimes that existed in Europe and elsewhere,) in reality it isn’t. It simply replaced the promotion of religious fanaticism with the promotion of Atatürk's fanatic worshiping, something that I am sure Atatürk himself would not have liked.

To a certain extent I agree with your statement above although at many points it is a gross exageration. Though it is very importan to distinguish between kemalism and those that exploit kemalism to gain political influence. In every country there are extremists which exploit the most sacred symbols in order to gain political dividends.

[Kifeas]

It resembles the Franco, Zifkov and Ceausescu eras of Spain, Bulgaria and Romania in which again every corner of each country was littered with kitsch statues. The common denominator of all these regimes was their totalitarian nature. If Turkey wishes to ever be regarded as a truly modern nation, it has to do away with this idolization of one single individual, regardless of his, at a time, importance for the Turkish people.

You cannot compare Zhivkov with Ataturk. Zhivkov was a dictator hated by his own people, Ataturk was a statesman who was loved by his own people. Zhivkov's influence faded as he fell out of power, Ataturk's ideology lasted ever since. Ataturk is the symbol of the turkish nation and as such he deserves to be idolized.

I am not comparing the mere persons themselves, and this is obvious should you read more carefully what I wrote. I only spoke about and compared the idolization of those people, either during or after their deaths. No modern state that feels sure and certain about itself, its people, its institutions and the solid foundations on which its governing principles are based, resorts to such kitsch practices like planting statues and portraits of one single figurehead, no matter how important s/he was, on every single corner and square of its vicinity.

Last but not least, Kemalism, as the overruling ideology of the Turkish state and as it is perceived and practiced by the ruling elites of the country, is nothing short of a fascist and totalitarian ideology.
One needs to read the definition of fascism and compare it with the way this ideology is perceived and practiced in Turkey and will certainly reach to this conclusion. The dominating role of the Army, the exaggerated worshiping of the flag, the endorsement of nationalism, the attempt of leveling all minority cultural differences and identities and merging them the into one -in the name of national security and conformity, the elevated role of the state (read bureaucracy) as the ultimate patron and caretaker, and the prioritization of its (state’s) rights over those of the individuals, are all elements and practices of fascist and totalitarian ideologies and regimes. The only marked difference between the classical western fascist ideologies and Kemalism is their resort to religion as a mean of blinding and controlling the masses. However, although Turkey is a strictly secular state, (as opposed to other fascist regimes that existed in Europe and elsewhere,) in reality it isn’t. It simply replaced the promotion of religious fanaticism with the promotion of Atatürk's fanatic worshiping, something that I am sure Atatürk himself would not have liked.

To a certain extent I agree with your statement above although at many points it is a gross exageration. Though it is very importan to distinguish between kemalism and those that exploit kemalism to gain political influence. In every country there are extremists which exploit the most sacred symbols in order to gain political dividends.

My friend, do you know any other country that claims to be democratic and at the same time the Army has the constitutional right to intervene and overthrow or order the resignation of an elected government, claiming the right to do so in the name of national security or mere non-conformity with Atatürk’s principles? This is not just the mere interpretation and /or actions of some individuals, who happen to interpret and preach Kemalism in a wrongful way. This is an institutionalized practice that it is part of the Kemalist ideology, namely that the army serves the role of the “big brother,” the ultimate caretaker, over the lives and destiny of the Turkish people. This is why I compare and regard Kemalism as a totalitarian ideology.

Any other modern European country bases its constitution on spelled out universal principles, such as respect for democracy, justice, freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, association, religious freedom, non-discrimination, respect of people’s human rights, etc, etc. I do not know any such country that besides or instead of all those principles, it refers to the principles of one single individual; no matter how wise he was, thus allowing any ruling elite and /or bureaucracy and /or the Generals to interpret them, arbitrarily in many cases and away from any sense of people’s democratic choice. It just isn’t logical and right, as a matter of principle.

[bg_turk]

To a certain extent I agree with your statement above although at many points it is a gross exageration. Though it is very importan to distinguish between kemalism and those that exploit kemalism to gain political influence. In every country there are extremists which exploit the most sacred symbols in order to gain political dividends.

My friend, do you know any other country that claims to be democratic and at the same time the Army has the constitutional right to intervene and overthrow or order the resignation of an elected government, claiming the right to do so in the name of national security or mere non-conformity with Atatürk’s principles? This is not just the mere interpretation and /or actions of some individuals, who happen to interpret and preach Kemalism in a wrongful way. This is an institutionalized practice that it is part of the Kemalist ideology, namely that the army serves the role of the “big brother,” the ultimate caretaker, over the lives and destiny of the Turkish people. This is why I compare and regard Kemalism as a totalitarian ideology.

The army only intervened in cases where the constitutionally enshrined secularity of the state was in danger. As far as I know there are only two cases where the army overthrew the government and one of them was the government of Erbakan. My cousin, who now lives in Turkey, tells me that the man propsed virginity tests on girls as a part of the overall grade! When you have such a fundamentalist islamist trying to violate the rights of ordinary citizen even if it is implicityly supported by the majority, then I think intervention by the army is fully justified. Secularism must be enforced at any cost, even against the wish of the majority. If this were not the case, Turkey could have long become an Iran style theocracy.

There are still quite strong islamist tendencies in turkey and the army has to be there to stop them by force if necessary in order to safeguard a brighter future for Turkey. I completely agree with its zero tolerance policy towards islamists. I wish turkey didn't need all of this, but i guess it is hard to be muslim and democratic at this age, especially if you border middle eastern countries.