A short review of Turkey's struggle between secular nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
Anyone reading an article published in the last five years about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, would develop three fundamental ideas about him and his party, the AKP: religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism, and staunch nationalism. Although, the first two have unquestionably been deeply rooted in Erdoğan and the AKP’s character for the last 20 years (since they first formed their government in 2002), the latter is a much more misplaced characteristic. Turkey’s recent feud with Greece about claims over territorial waters in the Aegean, her involvement in the Libyan civil war, and military action against Kurdish terrorist organizations in the South-East are all seemingly patriotic acts undertaken by Erdoğan’s administration. Despite these ostensibly nationalistic endeavours, one must look much deeper in order to understand the true nature and reasoning behind Erdoğan’s political game.
Erdoğan at a recent press conference. (Photo credit: Al Jazeera)
First, a little context. The Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923 off the back of the dissolved Ottoman Empire following the first World War. The driving force behind its formation is the legendary military leader and statesman Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Atatürk directly translates to ‘Father of the Turks’). Atatürk was a revered revolutionary who is widely attributed to Turkey’s success in her Independence War, and much of the values and principles it inherited as a nation. He was a strong believer that in order for Turkey to move through its imperial past and develop into a stable country, she must follow Western ideals such as secularism (separation of religion and state) and modern industrialism. Throughout his Presidency, Atatürk implemented sweeping changes that modernized Turkey for years to come. These ranged from the adoption of the Latin alphabet as standard for the Turkish language, to dress code reforms that relieved women of wearing headscarves (and in fact prohibited head coverings in state-run institutions).
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
More important than any of his reforms, was Atatürk’s revival of the soul of the nation. He reinvigorated a sense of national identity that the public could assimilate towards. His frequent speeches in which he expressed his vision for the future of Turkey, and what it meant to be Turkish, helped the people gain a purpose in their identity. Most notably, he gave a series of speeches at the congress of the CHP (founding party of the republic) in October of 1927 which spanned 36 hours. This speech was known as Nutuk (The Speech) and was later written as a book. It laid the foundations for Kemalist ideology (Atatürk’s ideology) and outlined the clean break from the Ottoman Empire that came with the founding of Turkey. Arguably, the most overriding theme that Atatürk refers to in Nutuk is this notion of civic nationalism: the idea that anyone who follows the principles of being a Turk, can be a Turk. This introduced a revolutionary idea of nationalism to the world that had never been preached by any nation state before. The dissociation from barbaric forms of ethnic nationalism employed around the world, was manifested in Atatürk’s most renowned quote: ‘Ne mutlu Türküm diyene’ (How happy is he/she who calls themselves a Turk). This sentence had an inconceivably momentous effect in sustaining unity in this newly formed nation. In a country like Turkey where there was a melting pot of different ethnicities and religions, the fact that anyone could simply adopt the Turkish nationality was astounding. As a result, modern day Turkish nationals span over a wide range of ethnicities including Greek, Slavic, Persian, Kurdish, Armenian and Turkic. This confusion over the understanding of what Turkish nationalism really is, has triggered false claims about Erdoğan and others in more recent history.
Atatürk giving his Nutuk speech in October 1927. (Photo credit: commons.wikimedia.org)
Fast forward to Turkey in the 1990s. We see a country that is suffering from sluggish economic performance, government corruption and a distancing from its Kemalist values. This instability eventually led to the election of Erdoğan as Prime Minister. Although he was an outsider, his service as Istanbul mayor and strong orating ability thrusted him into office with an incredibly slim margin over his competition in a three-way race. In his initial years in office, the country enjoyed healthy economic growth which eventually led to his re-election. Despite many celebrating the AKP and Erdoğan for the economic performance, respected economists prefer attributing it to former Minister of Economic Affairs Kemal Derviş (also former World Bank Vice-President for Poverty Reduction and Economic Management).
Erdoğan in 2002, with a portrait of Atatürk behind him.
To the potential surprise of many, Erdoğan was highly praised by Western media during the first ten years of his leadership. The US and EU hailed his opening of the border to refugees following the Syrian civil war, despite this resulting in ISIS insurgencies throughout the country that resulted in countless tragic terrorist attacks. They also supported his policy towards Kurdish terrorist organizations in which Erdoğan led two separate cease fire initiatives that both failed (1999-2004 and 2013-2015). The lack of military pressure from the Turkish army on Kurdish insurgencies strengthened terrorist organizations like the PKK and YPG, resulting in further terrorist attacks on civilians and soldiers. The AKP’s policy on Greece was also vastly more lenient than previous administrations. Erdoğan allowed Greek seizures of islands only a few kilometres off the Turkish coast to go unnoticed. Now from the eyes of a nationalist or any Turk who is remotely interested in upholding a certain level of national security, Erdoğan would not be seen as a patriot. His agenda was clearly not associated with protecting the Turkish people.
The political climate in Turkey took a drastic turn in July 2016 when a military coup was instigated by an influential religious cleric based in Pennsylvania named Fethullah Gülen. Up until the coup, Gülen had worked hand in hand with Erdoğan in instituting their faction of Islamic fundamentalism throughout different departments of the state and the military in a manner that greatly endangered Atatürk’s secularism. Together they had undertaken draconian measures such as the Ergenekon trials (2008-2016) in which honest military generals were stripped of their titles and many imprisoned in an effort to rid the army of Kemalism and instate those aligned with Erdoğan and Gülen’s ideologies. This witch-hunt came back to haunt Erdoğan as Gülen eventually turned on him and tried to use his faction of the army to usurp him. This attempt failed as interference from the police and the public overpowered the military force. In the meantime, Gülen continued to reside in his Pennsylvania home under the protection of the US government which has repeatedly refused to hand him over to Turkey. The event forever changed Erdoğan’s politics.
Cleric Fethullah Gülen speaking to reporters from his compound in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania on July 17th, 2016, two days after the attempted military coup he instigated. (Photo credit: NBC)
In order to gain the favour of the public, Erdoğan was quick to sweep his relationship with Gülen under the carpet and employ a new agenda of pretend nationalism. He formed an axis with a right-wing nationalist political party (MHP) and gained enough seats in parliament to declare a state of emergency and grant himself executive powers. From this point onwards, Erdoğan played a far more aggressive game of politics both domestically and in foreign affairs. He has continuously oppressed the main opposition party (CHP) and has taken a more reluctant approach to some of the EU’s unreasonable demands over Turkey holding Syrian refugees from entering Europe. These actions among many others have sparked irreversible criticism in Western media, including labels of him being not only autocratic, but also ultra-nationalist. Although Erdoğan has increased his usage of nationalistic language in his speeches, it is easy to see through this as being ingenuine.
Erdoğan alongside MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli. (Photo credit: Sputnik News)
First of all, Erdoğan’s nationalism is clearly rooted in Ottomanism and ethnic patriotism rather than the true civic Turkish nationalism brought about by Atatürk. He repeatedly refers to a return to the great times of the imperial Ottoman era and talks about unity with the other ethnic Turkic states such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan (a fundamental ideology of pan-Turkism). His denial of civic nationalism is also seen in the way he refers to Atatürk, a man he has little respect for. He avoids mentioning his name in speeches and when he does, he only reluctantly uses the word Atatürk due to its meaning (father of the Turks). This forces one to question what kind of nationalist would not only refrain from speaking the name of the founder of his/her nation, but also curse at his mother and brand her as a prostitute (which Erdoğan has done alongside other members of his party in an effort to propel their despicable populist agenda).
I truly believe mainstream media needs to take a step back and review the context of the man they are so confidently labelling as a patriot. I think a fundamental misunderstanding of what Turkish nationalism stands for has caused a great deal of fallacies about the nature of politics in Turkey in the 21st century. As a result, this has driven many governments to greatly miscalculate their decisions when approaching their diplomatic relationships with Turkey.
Comments