Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

19 May 1881–10 November 1938

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, born Mustafa Pasha (1881-1938) was the founder of the Republic of Turkey and its first president, memorialized in Turkish culture as the father of the republic (Kissane, 2014). Born into a liberal middle-class Muslim family, Atatürk spent his early years receiving a secular schooling, later graduating top of his class from a military education founded in Western ideals and taught by Western-educated professors. This education, which stressed the importance of science and mathematics above religion, would prove to have an indelible effect upon the state Atatürk would later found (Hanioglu, 2017). After achieving minor fame for his exemplary leadership in the Gallipoli Campaign of World War One, Atatürk turned his post-war attentions to unifying resistance groups fighting against Greek imperialism and abuses of power by Entente forces (Alaranta, 2014). Though initially struggling to hold power over the Istanbul-based Sultanate, general opposition to the Sultan’s British alliance led to the legitimization of Atatürk’s Ankara-based parliament and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey on October 29, 1923 (Alaranta). During his tenure as president, Atatürk both westernized and secularized the Turkish Republic through the abolishment of the Caliphate, the closing of Sharia courts and opening of Western ones, the closing of religious schools, and the replacement of Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, among other things (Brown, 1996). He also effectually removed all political opposition and attempted to remove any association with minority identities by rallying the Turkish people behind a banner of monocultural Turkish nationalism (Kedourie, 1999).

Atatürk grew up in an Ottoman Empire which was beginning, however slowly, to embrace Western culture and ideals (Hanioglu). This empire, however, was experiencing social breakdown between the numerous ethnic factions coexisting – in order to quell dissent, statesmen attempted to introduce a kind of messianic nationalism rooted in the Ottoman Empire, though this later morphed into pan-Islamism, which exacerbated already existing religious tensions between Muslim and Christian factions (Hanigolu). The secularly educated Atatürk found this politicization of religion to be inappropriate but took note of the unifying properties of messianic nationalism, a concept which would later form the precepts of his eponymous doctrine of Kemalism (Hanioglu). French influence and thoroughly Western ideologies left over from the Ottoman reform era also made an impact upon Atatürk, who harmonized Enlightenment principles with an authoritarian regime to become a sort of enlightened despot (Alaranta).

Atatürk’s legacy lives on today through legislation and his status as something to emulate in Turkish politics (Brown). Though Islamist leaders have taken hold of power in Turkey since Atatürk’s death, his ideologies have become a quasi-system of checks and balances; especially in the military, which has thrice intervened to protect Atatürk’s state secularism (Brown). State secularism is also protected by complicated legislature which prevents the passing of laws favouring specific religious institutions, a foil of many would-be Islamist leaders (Brown). Atatürk’s persistent cult of personality has also deified him as the “ideal” leader, to whom subsequent Turkish political leaders and parties have all claimed to descend from and emulate in their policies (Brown). Atatürk’s controversial policies and removal of political opposition have permeated the current political scene, in which current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has silenced critical journalists and often used brutal force to quell dissent and maintain political control (Timur, 2016).

Atatürk’s methods have also permeated world politics, most notably the precepts of the Nazi Party (Ihrig, 2014). After the end of WWI, a dilapidated Germany turned to Turkey as an example of which they would emulate to once again become a dominant European power (Ihrig).

 

Atatürk’s strong leadership, coupled with military might and rampant nationalism, became the ideal model of government to many far-right newspapers, and in turn, to many people who espoused these views (Ihrig). Nazi circles lauded Atatürk’s revolution as a sign that no matter how derelict a nation has become, a Volk uprising could always succeed (Ihrig). Hitler himself frequently spoke of Atatürk being a personal role model and idolized Atatürk’s movement, considering it a sign that the “analogous” Nazi movement in Germany would be successful as well (Ihrig). According to Ihrig (2014), Atatürk’s example “underlined where [the Nazis] were coming from. Yet, the ideological building blocks of this cult [of Atatürk] offered a variety of propagandistic and political tools that emphasized where they wanted to go” (146).

All in all, Atatürk’s reformations set a precedent for Westernization and created a secular state in a part of the world thoroughly entangled in Islamic traditions (Hanioglu). His impact on history is indelible, pervading not only the course of Turkish history, but also world history through his idolization by the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler (Timur, 2016 and Ihrig, 2014). His governance further exemplifies the applications of messianic nationalism and its potent implications with regards to state nationalism, as well as the successes and difficulties of maintaining a secular state (Kedourie).

Nia Langdon

Works Cited

Asian Wall Street Journal, Sep 30, 1996. Hanioglu, S. (2017). Atatürk: An intellectual biography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ihrig, S. (2014). Atatürk in the nazi imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kedourie, S. (1999). Turkey before and after atatürk: Internal and external affairs. Portland: Frank Cass Publishers.

The Review of Politics, 76
Timur, S. (2016, July 17). Turkey cracks down as coup unravels after a deadly night. The New York Times, p. 10N.
Webster, D. (1973). The turkey of atatürk. New York: AMS Press.

Other Relevant Reading

Insight Turkey, 15
Mango, A. (2000). Atatürk: the of the founder of modern turkey. Woodstock: Overlook Press. Qureshi, M.N. (2014). Ottoman turkey, ataturk, and muslim south asia. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Alaranta, T. (2014). Contemporary kemalism: from universal secular-humanism to extreme

Turkish nationalism. New York: Routledge Press.

Brown, Brian A. “Ataturk’s Legacy and Turkey’s Army.”

Kissane, B. (2014). Atatürk and after: Three perspectives on political change in turkey.

(2), 293-307.

Heper, M. (2013). Islam, conservatism, and democracy in turkey: Comparing turgut özal and

recep tayyip erdogan.

(2), 141-156.

Secularism

Identification

Secularism is the belief that religion should not influence decisions made by the government or anything else that may effect the public life. It is an advocation of separating the church and the state. It is regarded as a method for modernization. Many key historical figures such as Voltaire, Diderot, Locke and Paine supported the idea. The term first surfaced in 1851 and was first used by George Jacob Holyoake. Secularism was supported by the intellectuals who realized that it aligned with their philosophy of self-improvement.

Historical Significance

Today, most countries in the world are secular, a lot of them don’t even have a state religion. Secularism has led to modernization by allowing radical thoughts and reforms to be discussed more freely. Secularism was a significant source of newly emerging creed of scientific naturalism in the mid- nineteenth century. It also led to liberalism and progressiveness. This led to modernization of several countries, which led to industrial revolution and increased the scientific, social and economic progress exponentially. Secularism was promoted by nationalist states, organized religion was undermined in many nationalistic states, such as France, Germany and Turkey. Secularism was also promoted in socialist and communist states, where people were mostly Atheists.

Key Historical Proponents

French Revolution had several effects on the relationship between the state and the church. A new religion was being developed by the revolutionaries, where the people worship a creator, but there was no head of an organized religion. Later on French secularism was called Laicite.

Another example of secularism is Turkey. The republic was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, where it adopted a secular policy similar to France. The republic cracked down on all religious affairs harshly, and brought them all under state control. Just like France, all government employees must not wear religious symbols or articles. But, today those laws are changing.

Another example of secularism is the United States of America, but their secular policies are different from the European model. There are amendments which prohibits the congressional government from interfering with the free exercise of religion and establishment of religion. It is regarded in higher regard compared to the European model, because it creates a co-operative environment between the government and other religions.

Jaan Parekh

 

Bibliography

Bonham, John M. Secularism, Its Progress and Its Morals. New York; London, 1894.

RECTENWALD, MICHAEL. “Secularism and the cultures of nineteenth-century scientific naturalism. ” British Journal for the History of Science , Vol. 46 Issue 2, Jun2013 , Jun2013 . Historical Abstracts, 10.1017/S0007087412000738.

Tombuş, H. Ertuğ . “(Post-)Kemalist Secularism in Turkey. ” Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies , Aygenç, Berfu , Vol. 19 Issue 1 , Feb2017 , p70-85 . Historical Abstracts, 10.1080/19448953.2016.1201995

Zionism

Identification:   

The Online Etymology Dictionary explains Zionism as a movement whose goal is to form a Jewish national state in Palestine, founded in late nineteenth-century Eastern Europe. Originally, the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wanted to create an independent state for the Jewish people by trying to force the government to grant Jews theirown Charter and land, and in turn, establish their own country. This goal had been a product of the spread of nationalism throughout Europe and had been the Jewish peoples’ way of forming their own nationalist, secular state. This being said, as it may often be confused, Zionism was not originally a movement to create a state based off of the Jewish religion, but rather a state for the Jewish as a people, to provide national security. Zionism is now an ideological movement supporting the development of this Jewish national state reflecting Jewish culture.

Historical Significance:

From a historical standpoint, this “-ism” is significant due to the fact that it illuminates the adoption of nationalist views due to feelings of oppression and segregation within society caused by the Enlightenment’s creation of a modern, secular, and capitalist state. Because the Jews felt pressured in their community due to social circumstances, they felt the need to separate themselves from the rest of society and strengthen themselves as a national unit. It is noted that, during the beginning of the Enlightenment Era, when much, if not all, of Europe, had begun to completely change their way of life, many upper-class intellectuals had begun to progress in society. However, wanting to integrate their culture into this new, modern, society, Jewish intellectuals tried to create a secular Hebrew literature and revive the Hebrew language. This did not work out due to the fact that upper-class intellectuals in their community did not see Jews as equals and refused to allow this integration. As Shapiro claims, “When this was recognized by the Jewish intellectuals, many of them, in their disappointment and frustration, turned to nationalism for solace.” (Shapiro, 1966) . Clearly, the Jews’ turn to nationalism in order to dismiss inequalities within society illuminates the tendency to seek comfort in the practice of nationalist ideologies due to social alienation, an idea formerly brought forward by Rousseau.

Furthermore, Zionism has influenced the contemporary moment due to the fact that it plays a role in some of the Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist violence seen today. Anti-Zionists and Anti-Semitics continue to perform racial violence due to hatred and anger toward Jews, as a result of their desire to separate themselves from the state. Ironically enough, the desire to separate from the state is due to these racial acts. Finally, the meaning of Zionism and its practices have changed over the years and have caused a lot of debate. The principles of the Jewish religion have begun to seep their way into Zionist practices, causing both national and international conflict. This illuminates an ongoing battle between secular and non-secular thinkers.  Some problems never go away and, although we may think they are two separate issues, the development of Zionism in the nineteenth century and the conflict that had led up to and followed it, between Zionists and all opposed to a Jewish national state, is still present today.

Key Historical Proponents:

The key proponents, that being the most famously known people to be associated with the term, had been the Jewish Intellectuals during the nineteenth century. However, the individual most heavily associated with Zionism would be its acclaimed founder, Theodor Herzl. Herzl’s goals in establishing the movement are outlined in some of the previous paragraphs; however, he laid the basic foundation for the practice of Zionism as it is today. However, another proponent of Zionism was Albert Einstein, who believed that the Jews should be given their own state in order to progress culturally and religiously. This being said, Einstein supported cultural Zionism, meaning that he believed the state should reflect the Jewish religion and culture, unlike what Herzl had intended. The most likely reason for his opinion on Zionism may have been that he believed that internationalism was asserted through the connecting and acceptance of various nations and their own individual cultural identities, rather than one, singular and combined identity.

Breann McKinney

 

Bibliography

Jikeli, G. (2017, June 9). Explaining the Discrepancy of Antisemitic Acts and Attitudes in 21st Century France. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from https://link-springer-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12397-017-9221-x.pdf

Pyenson, L. (2008, June). Review [Review of the book Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb]. Isis, 99(2), 432-434. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/stable/pdf/10.1086/591372.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:68a8490e82f5947b8db2d97d6fa1409f

Shapiro, Y. (1966). The Zionist Faith . Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/1966_18_02_00_shapiro.pdf

Wharton, L. (2015). Zionism, Judaism and the State of the Jews. Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, 20/21(4/1), 75-82. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://www.pij.org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/

Harper, D. (2001-2017). Zionism (n.). Retrieved October 06, 2017, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zionism&allowed_in_frame=0