Can Baydarol
I previously wrote an article about the remarks made by US Ambassador to Ankara and Special Representative for Syria Barrack regarding President Erdoğan, which were along the lines of, ‘He wants legitimacy, so let’s not deny him that, let’s give it to him!’ Mr Barrack has probably become convinced, both during the 29 October Republic Day celebrations and on the occasion of 10 November, the day commemorating Atatürk, that the Turkish people’s legitimacy does not lie with the US, but with the legacy entrusted to them by their great leader.
The show of force by millions of people, young and old, visiting Anıtkabir and Dolmabahçe Palace on 10 November must have been noted by the Trump administration, which wants to bring order to the region. The Turkish people demand that their legitimacy be determined by their own will, not by the heavens or the United States.
Now, let us turn to the steadily rising tide of admiration for Atatürk.
If I say that the greatest betrayal of Atatürk was the coup d’état of 12 September 1980, would you agree with me? The path leading up to 12 September is well known. The military leadership of those days, who remained silent while blood flowed in the streets until 11 September 1980, apparently received authorisation from somewhere to carry out the coup on 12 September and restore calm. Subsequently, all practices whose legitimacy was open to debate would be justified on the basis of ‘Atatürk’s principles and reforms.’ In our youth, Atatürk was mentioned alongside Kenan Evren; neither were his revolutions fully understood, nor was he accorded the respect he deserved. In other words, those who claimed to be the greatest Atatürkists played their roles on the stage of history as those who caused the most harm to Atatürk, and then passed away.
So what about today? Why has the love, respect and ownership felt for Atatürk reached its peak in the 87th year since his death?
If we take a rough look at the Turkish political arena, we see that the two most exploited concepts are ‘Atatürkism’ and ‘Islam’. Did Nadir Nadi, who wrote the seminal work I Am Not an Atatürkist in 1965, not voice his protest against the exploitation of Atatürk? And did not the opposing camp, which failed to understand Atatürk properly, pursue another form of political exploitation for years by basing their opposition to Atatürk on Islamic values?
If we were to simplify understanding Atatürk, we would have to express it with his words at the Samsun Trade School on 22 September 1924. ‘The truest guide in life is science, not religion!’ While Atatürk’s words were criticised by the secular community for not saying ‘why science,’ the reference to ‘science’ was also debated by the Islamic front, which believed in the essence of metaphysics. In fact, Atatürk, who chose every word he spoke with great care, was, as far as I can understand, emphasising the necessity of looking forward without falling into any kind of dogmatic thinking or a prison of concepts. In a constantly evolving world, the path to reaching the level of contemporary civilisations naturally passes through the natural sciences. At the point we have reached today, we may possess some of the world’s richest rare elements. But have we been able to produce the intellect or ‘science’ necessary for the technology to extract and process them? Isn’t the main reason for our backwardness preferring dogmatic thinking over intellect and science?
Let’s come to the issue of ‘science’. At this point, I believe that the great leader preferred a religious reference, emphasising that religion should be approached free from dogma and the nonsense attributed to it. How can we explain the establishment of the Presidency of Religious Affairs on 3 March 1924, which has attracted criticism in recent years for being overly showy and spending too much?
By emphasising Islamic sentiments to an excessive degree and straying from the path of reason and science, today’s politics and politicians, to the extent that they have distanced themselves from practising politics as an art and based it on simple personal interests, are doing the greatest service to Atatürkist thought. The reaction to them finds expression in the millions who take refuge in Atatürk.
The irony here is that the most Atatürkist individuals are the ones causing the most harm to Atatürk, while the most anti-Atatürk individuals are the ones contributing the most to understanding Atatürk’s value.
The mindset that declared the week of 10 November a semester break to prevent Atatürk from being commemorated on 10 November will be forgotten in the daily commotion a few years later. Will the effort to make people forget Atatürk achieve its goal?
I don’t think so, what about you?