Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Code: Select all

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE TURKISH CYPRIOT STATE
PREAMBLE
We, the Turkish Cypriot people,
bearing in mind that the territorial integrity, security and constitutional order of the Turkish Cypriot State is guaranteed under the Treaty of Guarantee,
sovereignly proclaim this Constitution by approval at referendum of 20 April 2004 as the Constitution of the Turkish Cypriot State.

PART III
Legislature
CHAPTER I
The Assembly of the Turkish Cypriot State

Taking the Oath
Article 88
The deputies shall take the following oath before assuming their duties:
“I do swear upon my honour and dignity that I shall preserve the existence, rights and sovereignly exercised powers of the State within the United Cyprus Republic; that I shall be bound by the principle of the supremacy of law and by the principles of a democratic secular State, social justice and the principles of Atatürk; that I shall work for the welfare and happiness of my people; that I shall not depart from the ideal that every citizen must benefit from human rights and that I shall remain loyal to the Constitution.”

The above are extracts from the Constitution of the TCCS which was prepared to accompany the A-plan 5 and was approved by Turkish Cypriots in the 24th April 2004 referendum.

1. Isn’t Attaturk the founder of the Republic of Turkey? Why should the constitution of one of the constituent states of an E.U. member -United Cyprus republic, require it’s elected parliamentarians to take an oath to the principles of the founder of another state (Republic of Turkey,)?
2. Which are these principles and why they couldn’t be spelled out as they are?
3. The name “Attaturk” as far as I know, means the father of the Turks and was given to Mustafa Kemal as an honorary title for the establishment and the reforms he brought to the republic of Turkey. Is the TCCS going to be a constituent state of the United Cyprus republic or a province of the Republic of Turkey?
4. Why a parallel reference, let’s say to the principles of Makriyiannis or Venizellos or Makarios or Grivas, was not made in the GCCS constitution?
5. Will the GCs residing within the TCCS and also obtain TCCS internal citizenship be required to take the same oath, if they wish to be elected in the parliament? Will they have such a right according to Annan plan?

I would like to hear everyone’s views on this issue, please.

[efe]

because following the path of Ataturk means more to us than you guys realize. we come from an islamic background (ottoman empire), and following ataturks path means "a fully secular, democratic state with no religion involved"

[Kifeas]

because following the path of Ataturk means more to us than you guys realize. we come from an islamic background (ottoman empire), and following ataturks path means "a fully secular, democratic state with no religion involved"

Ok!
Other E.U. countries are secular too, as well as RoCy and also the GCCS.
Should they also require their citizens to take oath to Ataturk?

What are these principles any way?

[metecyp]

Here is a site that summarizes his reforms/principles

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

I understand your concern about a Turkish Cypriot taking oath to Ataturk but if you look at what he did, or at least tried to do, in Turkey, you'll realize that he is a good man and his principles are universally acceptable principles. He just applied them to Turkey.

Ataturk was the first leader who believed that democracy, secularism, etc. are compatible with Islam and he carried out his vision with social and economic reforms.

[Kifeas]

Here is a site that summarizes his reforms/principles

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

Thanks for suggesting this website, metecyp.
This is what I gathered from it:

Code: Select all

The Principles of Ataturk ( Kemalism)
The doctrines of Ataturk or Kemalism is a system of thought based on the facts of Turkey. It is shaped with the will of the Turkish nation through a long historical background. Above all, Kemalism  is the introduction and the rendering of the rights to the nation. It is the expression of the national sovereignity.It is an attempt to reach the level of the modern civilizations, it is westernization, modernization. It requires to experience a modern social life, to establish a secular state, and to govern with a positive science mentality.
The principles of Kemalism can be viewed in two groups: "The Basic Principles" and "The Complementary Principles".

The definition of the principles as Ataturk has expressed them:

The Basic Principles

Republicanism
Nationalism
Popularism
Etatism
Secularism
Revolutionism

The Complementary Principles

National Sovereignity
National Independance
National Unitiy and Togetherness
Peace at home Peace abroad
Modernization
Scientificism and Rationalism
Humanitarianism


How do you comment on this line?
The doctrines of Ataturk or Kemalism is a system of thought based on the facts of Turkey.

[metecyp]

The doctrines of Ataturk or Kemalism is a system of thought based on the facts of Turkey.

Well, yes his principles were mainly for Turkey and Turkish people at the time simply because he's Turkish and he wanted to create a secular, modern, European country out of Ottoman empire.

But this doesn't mean that his principles do not apply to anywhere else. I think his principles apply to all Muslim countries that struggle to achieve democracy and secularism. Many social and political reforms of Ataturk were readily accepted by TCs way before Turkey stepped foot on the island in 1974. For example, women not covering their heads, men not wearing fez, women getting educated and being able to vote, all these were voluntarily accepted by TCs.

His ideals also apply to non-Muslim countries. For example, are you against Secularism, Humanitarianism, Modernization, or the idea of "Peace at home Peace abroad"? Tell me which one of these ideals won't be good for any other country, including Cyprus?

See, I feel that you're uneasy about a TC declaring loyalty to Ataturk's ideals but I don't see any reason for that. There's nothing bad about Ataturk's principles. They're universally accepted principles.

[Kifeas]

His ideals also apply to non-Muslim countries. For example, are you against Secularism, Humanitarianism, Modernization, or the idea of "Peace at home Peace abroad"? Tell me which one of these ideals won't be good for any other country, including Cyprus?

See, I feel that you're uneasy about a TC declaring loyalty to Ataturk's ideals but I don't see any reason for that. There's nothing bad about Ataturk's principles. They're universally accepted principles.

Code: Select all

The Basic Principles

Republicanism
Nationalism
Popularism
Etatism
Secularism
Revolutionism

The Complementary Principles

National Sovereignity
National Independance
National Unitiy and Togetherness
Peace at home Peace abroad
Modernization
Scientificism and Rationalism
Humanitarianism


Well I must say some of them, like the ones you mention above, are quite straight forward and I personally do not have a problem.
However when these principles refer to Nationalism, National independence e.t.c, here comes the confusion. Which Nationalism they refer to? Obviously the Turkish Nationalism. And National Independence? Obviously the Turkish one. Isn’t the term Nationalism by itself a negative one? Isn’t it more often interpreted as chauvinism rather than patriotism?
How are these principles accommodated in the case of the TC constituent state within the context of a Cypriot United republic?

Etatism? What does it mean?

[Alexandros Lordos]

While I fully respect that Mustafa Kemal was a figure of great historical importance, like his Greek contemporary Eleftherios Venizelos, I too wonder if it is appropriate for the TCCS deputies to take an oath in his name.

If many of his principles remain valid today, then those principles should be spelt out in the oath, rather than just importing "Kemalism" as an overall ideology. For instance, as Kifeas has pointed out, nationalism no longer has the meaning and the value it did in the early 20th century. Why import that in the oath as well?

Also "revolutionism" could be dangerous in the context of the new Cyprus we are building, if it means that some people will feel that they should take the law into their own hands in order to "bring about a new and revolutionary state of affairs" - isn't this the essence of revolutionism? TMT was also inspired by the principle of "revolutionism" ...

The problem is, the TCCS will not be inhabited solely by Turkish Cypriots - how will the minority GC voters and perhaps even deputies feel about this oath?

(By the way, Kifeas, "etatism" means, approximately, "belief in a strong and protective state")

[MicAtCyp]

See, I feel that you're uneasy about a TC declaring loyalty to Ataturk's ideals but I don't see any reason for that. There's nothing bad about Ataturk's principles. They're universally accepted principles.

There is something bad about the people he massacred like for example the Pontian Greeks and the Armenians. In Cyprus there is an Armenian minority with equal rights like you and there is another set of people who are ethnically Greeks in case you don't know. Ataturk is a foreigner and a hostile figure to us and whatever bunch of reforms he has done to Turkey I don't give a shit.
It is an insult for any of the people of Cyprus to take an oath to his name...

***********************************************************

How are these principles accommodated in the case of the TC constituent state within the context of a Cypriot United republic?

The principles a Protectorate of Turkey should have

Kifeas in case of a solution be ready to go through a million of surprises like that. Before we even got started Talat presented his list of 1500 people for the Fed State all of which currently hold top administrative positions at the pseudo! What do you think Talat was trying to do with that?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Before we even got started Talat presented his list of 1500 people for the Fed State all of which currently hold top administrative positions at the pseudo! What do you think Talat was trying to do with that?

MicAtCyp, I am not sure where you are going with this ... which names do you think he should have included on the list, if not the names you mentioned above?