The Founder of the Turkish Republic Is Often Described as a Dictator - Essay Example

? Kemal Ataturk was a Latter-Day King Kemal Ataturk was a Latter-Day King Nearly 132 years ago, on May 19th, 1881, Kemal Ataturk, the founding father of the Republic of Turkey was born (Mango 1999, p. 3). He is a man of a massive, nearly mythical, historical significance in Turkey at the moment, where it is still unlawful to express any opinion or belief that diminishes his character. Andrew Mango states in his book that Ataturk is normally described as a dictator but was, in reality, more like a latter-day king, which simply means a modern leader. I agree with this statement because Ataturk displayed all the qualities of a modern-day ruler. A modern-day leader strives for greatness. Ataturk was the type of leader who needed to say something, stand by it and achieve it. A modern day leader does not also accept the status quo that he/she found when they took the leadership seat of their country; however, they assume a forward momentum of driving their country forward. This was the kind of leader that Ataturk was. Modern-day kings also argue coherently and cohesively. In addition, it is the aim of this paper to praise Ataturk and not to defame him by referring to him as a dictator as other previous authors have done (Dogan 2003, p. 45; Huntington 2006, p. 34; Alayarian 2008, p. 56; Blythe 2000, p. 1). The paper will first offer a short account/version of his life and achievements, followed by my key purpose of studying the political legacy of Ataturk, as well as why I consider that he is a particularly interesting and rare case of a constructive or kind dictator. His Achievements (Life and Military) Kemal Ataturk was born, in 1881, to a middle-class or average family in Salonica (Thessolaniki, Greece), in the world famous Ottoman Empire. His first name was Mustafa, but it is not known who gave him a second name, Kemal. People argue that it is his teacher due to his excellence, or he/she wanted to differentiate him from Mustafa (Mango 1999, p. 185). Others argue that the name was given to him by Ataturk himself following the release of a famous poem. All through his life, Ataturk gained the more honourific names of Pasha, Bey, Ghazi, as well as three years prior to his death, Ataturk, which stands for “Father of the Turks.” Critics argue that people can attribute both the young Ataturk’s future military occupation and his modernising changes to the reality that his father had devoted him, at a young age, to the military and also sent him to a contemporarily secular school instead of an Islamic madrassa (Mango 1999, p. 186). Also, Ataturk was enrolled in numerous military schools from 1893-1905, and went to be one of the Kingdom’s best young military officers, at the status of Major (Kasaba 2008, p. 45). At times, secretly, Ataturk also took part in revolutionary groups, which wanted to reform the Kingdom. Ataturk effectively defended an Ottoman fortification in Libya all through the 1911-12 Italo-Turkish warfare, which was one of the very few triumphs for the Turks against the advanced Italian forces. In 1912-13, Ataturk acquitted himself commendably once more in a losing battle in the Balkan warfare, where he was appointed to the Gallipoli peninsula, which also would motivate him for his next and more prominent role (Zurcher 1998, p. 33). During the First World War, wherein Ataturk individually opposed neutrality, he was the principal Turkish commander in the Gallipoli war (Mango, 1999, 186). This incompetent and disastrous gamble by Winston Churchill led to a total of over 250,000 deaths on both sides – Ottoman and Australian, British and New Zealand, respectively. Ataturk fruitfully revolted waves of Allied armies and caused a big defeat on the Allied armies. He also won a crucial victory for the Turkish citizens (Ahma 2003, p. 53). He used the rest of the war to gather tactical triumphs in other regions of the Empire against British and Russian forces, in what were eventually a fated Central Powers and Ottoman war efforts that he had foreseen following a mid-war trip to observe the front lines in Germany. The ending of the First World War led to the occupation of the Empire by British, Italian, French, as well as Greek forces (Mango 1999, p. 189). The dividing of the Ottoman Empire among these nations was humbly agreed upon by the sultan and was regarded as a fait accompli (an accomplished deed). However, as expected, Ataturk did not encourage or support this result. From 1919 to 1922, he brought a revolutionary army together and managed his capital outside Ankara against the foreign-settled Constantinople (Ahmad 1993, p. 78). In a chain of brilliant military exercises, as well as constant diplomacy, he slowly forced out all the European settlers, won support for the creation of Turkish nationhood all through the country, conserved Turkish independence in all of the Anatolia Island and also demanded to be respected and appreciated on equal terms at the Lausanne convention, in 1922 (Mango 1999, p. 189). By this period, all the other allied powers were extremely weak or preoccupied to go on campaigning for portions of the old Kingdom, and Ataturk was in a position to proclaim the new Republic of Turkey, in 1923 (Mango 1999, p. 189). However, after leading the new Turkish government first as the President and then the Prime Minister, Ataturk succumbed, at the age of 57, to cirrhosis, because of his heavy eating of raki and his tiring lifestyle. His Reforms (Political and Cultural) At the dawn of the new republic, Turkey was still a medieval nation in a number of aspects. It had been run by an absolute monarch for over centuries and also the literacy rate was less than 10% (Mango 1999, p. 368). The new President, Ataturk, fundamentally took this chance, virtually to modernise every feature of the declining society. His unquestioned power and prestige as a winning and patriotic military leader permitted him to carry on with modest resistance (Armstrong 1972, p. 78). On being endorsed as the leader of the Republic of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk started his prominent "Nutuk" speech with the phrase, “I arrived at Samsun on May 19th, 1919.” The date is falsely celebrated as the start of the revolution or uprising for independence (Armstrong 1972, p. 78). Ataturk started out from Istanbul to Samsun on a steamboat on the coaching of the Sultan Vahdettin with an England visa. Ataturk, on his resume, wrote that, on his return to Istanbul, he saw everybody was in need of hope (Atillasoy 2002, p. 104). He was voted Turkey’s president as the only candidate by his general assembly, with over half abstaining. Ataturk was to dismiss and select assembly members himself and also seat in the hearings of presidential elections as the only candidate. Any endeavour to form an opposition group was consequently trampled, amongst them the Progressive Republican Party of Ali Fuat Cebesoy and Kazim Karabekir (Cleveland 2004, p. 78). These two commanded the Southern Front all through the Second World War. Avoiding hanging by a whisker, Kazim Karabekir was sentenced to two decades under house arrest following the closure of his party (Cleveland 2004, p. 78). He led extensive reforms in cultural, economical, as well as aspects social, creating the new nation’s backbone of judicial, legislative along with financial structures (Dogan 2003, p. 56). Even though, he was later idealised by people as an inventor of sweeping reforms, a number of his reformist concepts were previously widespread in Ottoman logical circles by 20th century and were articulated more explicitly following the Young Turk Revolution. Ataturk created a banner to symbolise the changes between the old and the new Ottoman republican rule (Mango 1999, p. 378). Every change was marked as a spear in the banner. This defining philosophy of the Turkish Republic is called the Kemalist ideology or the "Six Arrows". Kemalist ideology is rooted in Kemal's idea of pragmatism and realism. The significance of populism, nationalism and etatism, were all stated under the ideology (Hanioglu 2011, p. 88). These significances were not fresh in the world of politics or, certainly, among the influential people of Turkey. However, what made them exceptional was that these interconnected fundamentals were planned particularly for Turkey's needs (Hanioglu 2011, p. 88). A good case is the definition, as well as use of secularism; the Ataturk secular state considerably distinguished from mainly Christian states. Next is a brief/short explanation of some of the changes that Ataturk brought to the Republic of Turkey that made his seem like a modern day leader, unlike a dictator. Ataturk kept away from the Communist and Fascist movements, which were growing in nations to the north supporting his pragmatic and modernising ideology, which can to be referred to as Kemalism. He saw the effects of Communist and Fascist doctrines in the 20s and 30s and dejected them both (Mango 1999, p. 398). He stopped the intrusion into Turkey the authoritarian movement rule that held influence in Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union. Some considered his silencing and opposition of these beliefs as a way of eradicating competition; others considered it was vital to defend the young Turkish nation from succumbing to the unsteadiness of new ideologies, as well as competing factions (Huntington 2006, p. 67). Ataturk was well aware that the country required a huge amount of reconstruction and reshaping and that direct governance by the nation’s General Assembly could not endure in such a region. The revolutionaries went through difficulties from the followers of the older Ottoman system, and also from the endorsers of much newer ideologies such as fascism and communism (Mango 1999, p. 401). Ataturk negotiated pacts such as the Balkan, which involved Turkey, Greece, Romania, as well as Yugoslavia. Such mutual-defence treaties ensured the signatories' territorial integrity, as well as political sovereignty, against attack by any Balkan state. This ensured that fascism and communism were far from affecting the nation (Huntington 2006, p. 67). Ataturk also introduced the concept of secularism in Turkey leading to complete separation of political and religious powers (Huntington 2006, p. 68). Leaders of PRP – the Progressive Republican Party – strongly endorsed the Kemalist uprising in principle but had slightly diverse views on the Cultural Revolution, as well as the idea of secularism (Mango 1999, p. 402). PRP was not against Kemal's key positions as declared in the party’s program; however, they endorsed creating secularism in the nation, as well as the civic law, or as articulated, the requirements of age and the consistent system of education. These ideologies were set by the leaders of the party at its onset (Kinross 2003, p. 144). The only legal resistance became a house for all kinds of conflicting thoughts. Ataturk also went to abolish the Sharia court structure with a secular civil code created after the Swiss Civil Code, as well as a penal code created after the Italian Penal Code. Under these two codes, women gained fairness with men in matters such as divorce and inheritance. Kemal did not regard gender as an element in social organisation (Mango 1999, p. 403). To his perception, society should mark its views towards its goal with both men and women united. He knew that it was logically impracticable for Turkey to attain progress and to become a civilised state if the gender division endured as in Ottoman times. Ataturk closed down the Ottoman Caliphate and substituted it with the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Mango 1999, p. 403). The Turkish Grand National Assembly was democratic in nature, and such a body had never been seen before in a Muslim middle-eastern nation. Such a system has a president, prime minister, a general assembly and held elections (Saikal & Schnabel 2003, p. 34). Ataturk also began to industrialise the nation in spite of a lack of skill, infrastructure or educated classes. He established fully state-owned factories all through the country in agriculture, textiles, railroads and machinery along with automobiles, a majority of which became flourishing and privatised later in the 20th century (Saikal & Schnabel 2003, p. 35). He centered a lot on educational transformation and, only nine months following his works in the new state, invited John Dewey, a well-known American philosopher and educational reformer, to tour Turkey and offer advice (Emrence 2003, p. 75). A system of obligatory education with a widespread curriculum was started, even though only the first four years were obligatory at first. Ataturk also transformed the hard-to-learn Arabic writing with a Latin alphabet (Omur 2002, p. 312). He travelled the nation during his life to offer lessons in the new alphabet, in person, and regularly attended university and high school classes in public. Ataturk further encouraged the use and wear of modern European attires and hats, banning the turban and the fez. He also encouraged complete equal rights, as well as opportunities for women (Mango 1999, p. 403). He achieved this in 1934 before many other European nations. He encouraged a development of the arts and humanities into regions earlier outlawed or neglected by the Islamic government (Stone, 2000, 16). Instances comprise of new museums, works of art, literature, music, historical studies, architecture, libraries, cultural centers referred to as “People’s Houses”, new magazine and book publications, as well as a generally humanistic stance (Mango 1999, p. 410). Finally, Ataturk adopted the international policy motto of peace in our country translates to peace in the world. Following the revolutionary war of freedom, Ataturk never applied military force again when it came to international policy (Stone 2000, p. 16). Remarkably, he recognised mutually peaceful associations with the Soviet Union, his Greek neighbours, the King of Afghanistan, the Shah of Iran, King Edward VIII and the Balkans along with other 15 European states. He started and commercialised the Dardanelles strait, as well as maintained a policy of universal neutrality that outlived him through the Second World War to the contemporary times (Stone 2000, p. 16). His Legacy as Political Model In the previous sections of this paper, nearly 2000 words, we have locked at the traits that made Ataturk be regarded a modern-day (latter-day) king. However, this argument was against those who regard him as a dictator. Therefore, it is vital also to look into and assess the aspects that made him be considered a dictator and see which aspects (latter-day king or dictator) outweigh the other. If we describe a “dictator” as “a leader with utter power over a nation, normally one who has gained power by force,” then Kemal definitely fits into the description. The army forces he brought up in the independence war were basically revolutionary forces not only against foreign settlers, but also against the genuine government of the Sultan, whom he removed from power (Alayarian 2008, p. 157). He had total power of the new state by force from 1922 till his death in 1938 (Mango 1999, p. 470). He established the methods of democracy such as elections, but there was just one political party to select, which was his own. At times, he permitted opposition groups to be formed, but if they went against his beliefs in any considerable way, then they were immediately abolished (Blythe 2000, p. 1). Kemal also modernised the nation and led them to the 20th century, but against the will of a majority of the people. In 1915, he condemned the Armenian genocide, but later permitted the participation of a majority of its instigators in the independence war so as to have a more united Turkey (Bay 2011, p. 99). Both in public and private he was brutal, sarcastic and abrupt. Kemal burst up at the least amount of criticism (Mango 1999, p. 470). He interrupted all efforts to reason with him. He also flew into an obsession at the least amount of opposition. Kemal would neither confide in nor work with anyone. When any politician offered him some innocent advice, he generally told him to get out from his sight. When a respected member of the Cabinet proposed that it was inappropriate for Turkish women to dance in public, and he threw a Quran at him and told his to leave his office (Kinzer 2008, p. 56). Others have referred to him and an absolute dictator who worked behind the disguise of a nation. So as to save Turkey, a fresh nation had to be formed from the remains of the old Ottoman Empire (Pamuk 2006, p. 67). Total reforms, as well as bold measures, were vital, and the western powers offered the right model. However, Ataturk forced the nation to acknowledge this model so as to modernise their republic (Mango 1999, p. 471). Nevertheless, his achievements were shocking, and in addition, provided the time frame in which they took place (Pamuk, 2006, 66). Moreover, it was public knowledge that Ataturk was unspiritual, acted against all the rules of decorum and mocked sacred things. Ataturk removed Sheik-ul-Islam, who was the Islamic High Priest, from office and threw the Quran at him (Mango 1999, p. 472). He forced women in Angora to unveil their bodies in public. He encouraged them to sing and dance body close to body close to men (Freely 1998, p. 45). However, in spite of this, his list of changes and reforms, as well as their positive effects, are irrefutable (Mango 1999, p. 472). His replica of Kemalism was a significant step towards the plan of growing the new Republic of Turkey and keeping it sovereign both from inside and outside. It is essential to judge the man by the standards and values of his time, as well as his obstacles and challenges (Mango 1999, p. 472). He personally embarked on the liberal reforms and improvement on various fronts in what had been a backward, declining Ottoman Kingdom. Ataturk was a dictator in a period of many other dictators, but one who, in reality, developed his country and the citizens’ lives without starting fresh wars. From this view point, it was vital for Kemal to take the actions he did in order to inflict his will unilaterally (Mango 1999, p. 473). However this might be, Kemal should only remain the exception instead of the rule, as much as dictators are concerned. For each and every Ataturk, there are dozens of Francos or Mussolinis who apply their absolute authority for quite more illiberal ends (Findley 2011, p. 198). Every modern developed nation has got to this level through suffering by either a civil war or in the hands of a dictator (Goffman 2002, p. 56). However, in Turkey’s case, there has been neither folowing the death of Ataturk. The republic has developed into a thriving nation with a financial growth rate as that of China. It is the most liberal and well-educated Muslim country in the Middle East of Europe and this is owing to the attempts and efforts of Ataturk (Mango 1999, p. 480). However, the principle of Kemalism has most likely outlived its purpose. For years, the military supported the secular nature and independence of the government through force, frequently by successful coups. The era for this practice ended long ago, and Turkey should take the next step to become a modern democracy (Mango 1999, p. 480). Finally, the legacy of Ataturk must be respected for his numerous achievements but not one with firmness and stubbornness of a state deity who cannot be condemned (Hale 2000, p. 102). Freedom of speech should be supreme, and Turkey must continue to seek assimilation into the European Union through following the steps needed towards becoming a modern-day democracy. Word Count: 3,189 Print Total: 3,570 References Ahmad, F 1993, The making of modern Turkey, Routledge, London. Ahmad, F. 2003, Turkey: the quest for identity, Oneworld Publications, London. Alayarian, A 2008, Consequences of denial: the Armenian genocide, Karnac Books, London. Armstrong, H 1972, Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: an intimate study of a dictator, Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, NY. Atillasoy, Y 2002, Ataturk: first president and founder of the Turkish Republic, Woodside House, Woodside, NY. Bay, A 2011, Ataturk: lessons in leadership from the greatest general of the Ottoman Empire, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke. Blythe, B 2000, Ataturk, viewed 31st December, 2013, at http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/ww1/blythe.html Cleveland, W L 2004, A history of the modern Middle East, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Dogan, C 2003, Formation of factory settlements within Turkish Industrialization and modernization in 1930s: Nazilli printing factory (in Turkish), Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Emrence, C 2003, 'Turkey in economic crisis (1927–1930): a panaromic vision,' Middle Eastern Studies vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 67–80. Findley, C 2011, Turkey, Islam, nationalism, and modernity: a history, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Freely, J 1998, Istanbul: the imperial city, Penguin Books, London. Goffman, D 2002, The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe, viewed 31st December, 2013, http://www.questia.com/read/107381987/the-ottoman-empire-and-early-modern-europe Hale, W 2000, Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hanioglu, M 2011, Ataturk: an intellectual biography, Princeton University Press, New Jersey and Woodstock. Huntington, S P 2006, Political order in changing societies, Yale University Press, London. Kasaba, R 2008, The Cambridge history of Turkey volume 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kinross, P 2003, Ataturk: the rebirth of a nation, Phoenix Press, London. Kinzer, S 2008, Crescent and star: Turkey between two worlds, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Mango, A 1999, Ataturk: the biography of the founder of modern Turkey, The Overlook Press, New York. Omur, A 2002, 'Modernity and Islam: experiences of Turkish Women,' Turkish Times vol. 13, pp. 312. Pamuk, O 2006, Istanbul: memories and the city, Vintage Press, New York. Saikal, A & Schnabel, A 2003, Democratization in the Middle East: experiences, struggles, challenges, United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Stone, N 2000, 'Talking Turkey,' The National Interest vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 66. Zurcher, E 1998, Turkey: a modern history, revised edn, I.B. Tauris, London. Read More