3

Although
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
did not want to
"freeze" the philosophy of the new state within the confines
of a parti cular doctrine, he nevertheless named six princip-
les in the 1930's, showing a general direction with roots in
reaIism. They were : RepubIicanism, Nationalism, PopuIism,
Reformism, Secularism and Statism.
Republicanism
was understandably
the first of these
principles. Mustafa Kemal entertained the ideas of a repub-
lican regime when he was a young cadet in the War Colle-
ge. The repubIican element was present not only in the
legacy of the French Revolution, but also some Iimitation
on the autocratic power of the Sultan was put within the
Ottoman institutions.
This occurred most notably in the
first 1876 Constitution, which nevertheless left the Suıtan
with the right to initiate legislation and cast a veto. Not
until the Young Turk Revolution was the Sultan required
to swear fideIity to the people. But it was the Ankara Go-
vemment which in 1921 gave the sovereignty of the people
constitutional recognition.
Mustafa Kemal, as a young officer first in Macedonia
and then in Syria, could see that the Ottoman Empire was
disintegrating.
Only a national Turkish state could replace
it. it was him who drew the map of the new RepubIic. The
territories would compose of the are as predominantly Tur-
kish, and the whole of Anatolia would constitute the ma-
jority of the country. The Hittites, the Frigians, the Greeks,
the Romans and the Seljuk Turks had been, throughout
history, sovereign on various different portions of Asia
Minor and hen ce their eventual disintegration. Even while
selecting Ankara as the new capital, he knew that he was
acting in proper evaIuation of historical facts.
With the estabIishment of the Grand National Assemblyin Ankara on April" 23 1920, the Republicwas
aIready İns-
talled as a legal system and working organizations.
Since
the empire was no more, its religious and political figure-
head was deprived of its importance and function. Hence,
Pı.epublicanism was intervowen with Nationalism. For Ata-
türk, the Republic also meant a democratic state. He belie-
ved that popular sovereignty ought to be protected by new
laws, a new cadre of legalists and a two-party system (which
he tried twice). The principle of the supremacy of Parlia-
ment was so well established that the suggestion of allowİng
the President (no other than Atatürk himselO was rejected.
(Later, the principle that the representation
of the will of
the people.in the Parliament could not be denied was utili-
zed by the Democrat Party governments
[1950-1960] to jus-
tify their hold on power. And when the suggestion of giyİng
the Prime Minister the power to dissolve the Parliament was
considered during the discussions on the 1961 Constitution,
it had to be immediately put aside on account of the convic-
tion that the assembly was supremeJ
Nationalism
was another pnnciple-new for the Turkey
of the 1920's. The policy which he considered to be clear and
enforceaıble was nationalist policy. He said that the re could
be no greater mistake than to be a Utopian. By "nationalist
policy", he meant:
"...Within our national frontiers,
to
work for the real happiness and development of our nation
and our country, relying above all ou'our own strength for
the preservation of our existence, to refrain from inducing
our people to pursue deleterious aims and to expect from
the civilised world human treatment and frİendship based
on reciprocity." He descrİbed the Turkish motherland
as
"abandoned",
looking like a "graveyard-without
life and
development". But he saw treasures beneath it, on which
lived a gallant people. He said that the Turks had gone
through a long and arduous struggle for the sake of the
integrity of their country. His objective was the reinforce-
ment and preservati0n of this integrity. For him, it was an
unrealisable aim to unite eve n all the Turks İn the world
withİn the boundaries
of a single state. This was a truth
that bitter and bloody conflicts had clearly demonstratedHe saw nothing in history to show that Pan-Turanism
or
Pan-Islamism could have succeeded and how these concepts
could find abasis
for their realisation. First of all, lust of
conquest was out of the question. Our people had substitu-
ted the bond of Turkish nationalism for the religious and
sectarian bonds. He said: "Ours is nationalist government.
it is out-and-out materialistic, with a penchant for realism.
it is a government which refrains from committing such
crimes as following illusory ideals, not to attain them, but
fancying that they will be attained,
to lead the nation
against rocks or to sink it in swamps and at last to sacri-
fice its existence." Just as Turkish nationalism was not
racist and irredentist, it was based on "full and complete
independence", by which Atatürk meant "unfettered inde-
pandence in the political, economic, juridical, cultura1, in
fact, in every sphere. Lack of independence in any one of
these spheres," he said, was "a negation of independence
within the fullest meaning of the terrn." Our nationalism
opposed all particularisms,
respected the patriotism of ot-
hers and favoured movements of national liberation. De-
cades had to pass before the United Nations would declare
that nations had sovereignty over their own natural
re-
sources, but Atatürk's Turkey had proclaimed this a wor-
king principle, giving the state responsibility for production
as well as protection. The Turkish Historical Society, (which
interpreted
history anew), the Turkish Language Society
(which led the drive to purify the language) and the People's
Houses (created in every province and district to become
centers of culture and artistic/literary
activities) were the
natural results of the same principle of sober nationalism.
Populism
was, in part, the result of Mustafa Kema,l's
early reading in history, philosophy and government. He
added a populist dimension to the democratic concepts of
the French R9volution. He fully believed that the people
were the real fontain-head of every secret of success and
of every kind of power and authority. Arter the First Cong-
ress of History was over, a delegate said to Atatürk:
"An
ıtalian writer Count Sforza has described you as a dictator.
"1, a dictator!" ejaculated Atatürk. He continued: "...Beforecarrying out anyidea,
i
convene the people's congresses,
where i discuss them, and i give effect to them only af ter
obtaining their sanction. There is the Erzurum Congress,
the Sıvas Congress-and the living proof, the Grand National
Assembly ... Let them say; we will march on!" Early in 1920
he stated that all power, sovereignty and governance rest
directly with the people, whom he desenbed a year later, in
the following words: .....We are poor labourers,
a poor
people, striving to save our existence and independence.
Let us know our character. We are a toiling people, forced
to toil for our salvation and existence. Every one of us has,
therefore, a right or a title, which we can earn only by
virtue of work. ldlers and those who wish to live without
work have no place in our society." He was the first to utter
radical statements portraying the condition of the Turkish
peasant in 1922: "Who is the owner and master of Turkey?
The peasant, that is, the real producer! Therefore, he has
the right and title to greater
comfort, happiness
and
affluence than everyone else." He believed that the econo-
mic policy of the Government
of the Grand National
Assembly was directed towards the achievement
of this
objective. He went on: .....Let us gather together, with
shame and reverence, before this exalted master, whose
blood we have spilt for seven centuries in different regions
of the globe, whose bones we have left behind in those
lands, the fruits of whose toi! we have expropriated
and
squandered, whom we have requited with scom and con-
tempt and whose kindness and sacrifices we have repaid
with ingratitude, insulence, oppression aand the desire to
degrade him into a bondsman." Mustafa Kemal did not use
the word "people" for or on behaIf of any social class. The
War of National Liberation was fought with the cooperation
of all classesthen a new country, a new society, a new State, brought to
pass by incessant reforms, which have won esteem both at
home and abroad. This is a short epitome of the Turkish
Revolution, as a whole." This summary is conspicuous by
the absence of any reference to the man who brought about
this great change. He said: "Our country will become out-
and-out modem, civilized and new ... The masses want to
be prosperous, free and affluent ... The nation has decided
to adopt, thoroughly and in the same form and essence, the
life and the means which contemporaneous
civilization
has assured to all nations. The nation is determined not to
permit centuries-old varieties of he and fraud to retard, for
a moment, its efforts in the sphere of innovation and re-
form ... We cannot liye within an orbit, shut off from the
rest of the world. For nations, which persist in conserving
certain traditions and beliefs which cannot stand the test
of reason, it is not only difficult, but also impossible, to prog-
ress." The modern Turkish society, with its new script, natio-
nal history, purified language, progressing art, advanced
music and technical institutions as well as equality of men
and women were the products of this understanding.
These
reforms were, at times, criticized for dealing with the above-
structure
trivia. But in the context of Atatürk's time and
place, they signified a cultural transformation,
with pro-
found symbolic meaning.
Secularism
meant the emancipation from the dungeon
of thoughts which Atatürk believed his people were impri-
soned. The proper way for such release was free researc-
hing and debating of creative minds. Having felt the limits
of non-secular life since childhood, Mustafa Kemal broke
with the hegemony of the mystic and scholastic thought.
In his natiye Macedonia, he witnessed how the Turkish
community was exploited; he saw the instrumentality
of
traditional and repressive framework in this exploitation.
Atatürk's later scientific approach and democratic unders-
tanding of society are linked with his secular emphasis.
Atatürk placed secularism as a fundamental
pillar of his
principles and equated it with the freedom of thinking, as
a method in creating a society and bridging the gap withthe advanced states. He saw in secularism a democratic
content, an emancipating thought and a new attitude enab-
ling one to grasp universal values. Religion could no longer
be decisive in creating social, political, economic, educatio-
nal and artistic rules and establishments. Changes would
be affected and solutions found on compromise as a result
of the democratic process. No religion could possibly re-
gulate such changes, and no progress could be made it left
within the confines of beliefs labeled as "sacred". To fight
injustice, repression or poverty or to understand the value
of education, problems of production, constitutional choices
or artistic options, the basis had to be, first and foremost, se-
cular. Governing was like a science, just as building a brid-
ge or erecting a factory. Secularism was, in short, not only
possible, but also desirable and inevitabIe in our contempo-
rary world. The practical results of this beIief were the
abolishing of the Ministy of Shariat, the Mejalla, the Shariat
Courts, the madrassahs and some other pious foundations
and the introduction of secular education. In a passionate
outburst, Atatürk had said: "We have got to go on. And
we are to progress whatever happens. We have no choice
now. Civilization is a blazing fire that burns and destroys
all who will not pay allegiance to her!"
Although
statism
became an officially adopted policy
in 1931, the infIuence of the state in economic life was a
reality since the proclamation of the RepubIic. In the early
years of the regime, there was scarcity of capital, know-
how and an experience d entrepreneur
class. In a long in-
terview with the daily
Vakit,
published on February 18,1923,
Mustafa Kemal put the economic question as the root cause
of Turkey's rise and fall. Recalling Attornan history in some
detail, he expounded how a gigantic empire was built, using
the Turkish element in it for extending both the Western
and the Eastem frontiers. Obliged to adopt a domestic po-
licy to suit such a conduct abroad, the rulers, he reiterated,
took it upon themselves to protect the different Ianguages,
religions and traditions of the multi-national elements they
had conquered, and to that end, granted them privileges
and exemptions. As against this, the Turks participated inprotracted
campaigns while they should be working in a
manner to meet their vital needs in their own homes and in
their own state. The crowned potentates carried the Turks
from one land to the other, and to please the conquered
people, they gaye away many of the rights and resourC'3S
of the Turks as favours, benefactions and bounties. Dİaster
followed when these royal favours were treated as acquired
rights, The foreigners were not content with what they gai-
ned. The Grand Porte borrawed from them so much and on
such exorbitant terms that it was impossible even to pay
interest. At last, the finances of the Ottoman State was put
under foreign control.
Atatürk drew several conelusions from the Ottoman
experience. Addressing the residents of the emancipated
town of Bursa, as printed in the daily
Vakit
of October 21,
1922,
he said: "The victory in which you rejoice today was
won by the determination
and power of our nation and the
bayonets of the Army of the Grand National Assembly. We
will continue our struggle in the field of economy. We will
become manufacturers ... "
In
1923,
he told another
Vakit
correspondent
that the
new Turkish State would be "an economic state". A year
earlier, he had diselosed the principle of nationalization and
sovereignty over the country's weatlh: "One of the most
important aims of our economic policy is, as far as our fi-
nancial and technical means permit, to nationalize econo-
mic institutions
and enterprises
directly concerned
with
public interests ..." This idea of exploitation of the country's
wealth for the good of the people was accompanied by eco-
nomic planning, which Turkey was the second state after
the Soviet Union to apply. Atatürk even introduced the idea
of such planning at the international
leveL. In a statement
to the daily
CumJıuriyet
of August
26, 1935,
he said that it
was essential for every country to bring its efforts for Hs
own economic development in line with reasonable, well-
conceived, over-all international
plans. He believed that
international potentialities be so combined as to allow every
nation to develop in accordance with its own characteristics
and that every nation be conceded the right to apply, withinits own confines and with due regard for its own peculiar
conditions, the generally accepted ideas as to world econo-
mic prosperity

__________________
The color of blood in my veins is green,I am a proud Pakistani.