From: guncer@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Otomatik Portakal )
Subject: Re: A questions (s) on Ataturk 
Summary: early turkish republic, ataturk
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:36:55 GMT

In article <6820@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.134158.16192@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> deniz@mandolin.ctr.columbia.edu (Deniz Akkus) writes:
> [deleted]
> >The reverence for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is no longer comparable to the
> >reverence once shown to Lenin in ex Soviet Union for example.  On the
> >other hand, he is rightly regarded as a visionary and benevolent ruler
> >who steered his country through uncharted waters and did so
> >successfully.  He remains the only one of the 1930's style strong men
> >whose pictures still adorn the offices of its civil servants.  
> 
> For a long time I wanted to ask something which I've heard several times
> but alas, books, propaganda, etc, rarely tend (and try) to find a 'binding'
> examples for 2 neighbouring people :-( (this is a generalization - I don't
> have in mind any particular 'propaganda' !!!). So - my question is:
> 
> From where (to the best knowledge of all of you) did Kemal Ataturk got his
> pro-European (i.e. reformist) ideas? Those ideas were, of course, mainly
> his own ideas as he being a great patriot was considering what is best for
> Turkey but you know - people are greatly affected by what they see ...

Good question. Firstly, there was not a single "Ataturk". Western ideals
were growing in popularity among the Ottoman inteligentsia even before
Ataturk was born.  The greatest motive for looking at the West was,
most trivially, that the "East" had collapsed.  An overwhelming majority
of the Islamic population on earth was living under colonialist rule
by the time of Ataturk. Further, western models, as followed by Meiji
Japan and her victory in the Russo-Japanese war, were highly successful.
So the only logical choice was to examine the western social and economic
system and implement what is possible, instead of futile attempts to
revive the dead.

Ideologically, Ataturk was largely influenced by the "positivist"
philosophy of Comte and Durkheim. In fact these philosophers were
widely popular among the Ittihat ve Terakki (Union and Progress)
party rulers and had affected Turkish philosophers like Ziya Gokalp
(who, although was a Kurd, had written the "Principles of Turkism",
one of the most influential works in modelling the "nationalism"
of the time). 

The implementation of "western" ideals had already been started before
the proclamation of the republic (even during the independence war with 
the "Turkish People's Assembly"). The biggest factor in Islamic underdevelop-
ment - economics - was among the first reforms to be treated several months
before the republic in the Izmir Economy Congress.  A liberal economic
model was to be adopted in order to rebuild the war-torn country which,
prior to the republic, actually had a neglible industrial base. Investment,
capital growth etc.. were nonexisting as was the case in most of the
Islamic world- a number of economists, both secular and religious, point
out that Islamic principles of uninterest in earthly matters, and the
interpretation of Quranic laws to assume interest is forbidden, resulted
in the downfall of Islamic countries over the centuries. Most of the latter
reforms in the republic, in my opinion, were to facilitate the acceptance
of the new economic system through the implementing of its "corresponding 
social system".  I must remind you that the leaders of the Turkish 
independence movement were largely the old Ittihat ve Terakki party staff and 
small city bourgeoisie, so one must not be surprised to see that the early
republican military-bureaucratic-capitalist system is a direct reflection
of the needs of these classes.  As for the acceptance of these ideals
in the masses, I think even before 1930 people had acknowledged them
and showed that the lifestyle they wanted was democracy, through a
rather active interest in the newly formed rival "Free Republic Party"
(as opposed to the ruling Republican People's Party). The (FRP) was
unfortunately closed down by authorities who projected the RPP would
be voted down (which is contrary to the unsubstantiated claims by the RPP
that fundamentalist Muslims had infiltrated the party - the popular support
for such had already diminished).

I wish I could give you English language references for the early
republican era history - I highly recommend the works of Cetin Yetkin,
maybe there are English translations of his books.  

> (I was told that it was from the country where he got
> his military educaiton and spent year(s?) as militaty atache there :-).
> However, I've never had the chance to read his biography in detail so that
> may not be exactly like this. )

Well, there are still people, as evident here in s.c.t., who think
the Republican reforms were just making people wear hats and changing
the script.  I recall an anecdote taking place in a country where M.Kemal
was a military attache, but seriously, the global picture, based on
economic history, seems to be always ignored. I mean, if history books 
were to write about Turkey a hundred years from now, shouldn't they mention 
the hyper-inflation, budget debt etc..?  Why are similar economic factors 
being constantly overlooked by some "idealists" when the Ottoman rule or
early republican era is mentioned?

> Regards
> 
> Luben

Selim Guncer

Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish