Registered user login:

Meeting Ataturk

Simon Hooper

Published 09 November 2007

On 10 November 1938 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk died and as Turks mark the anniversary Simon Hooper looks at the legacy of the founder of modern Turkey

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was smaller than I had imagined him. Dressed in an immaculate dinner jacket, set off stylishly by a wing collared dress shirt and a perfectly knotted bow tie, his glassy blue eyes seemed to narrow as he stared through my inquisitive gaze, as if I had just interrupted an agreeable dinner party with urgent matters of state.

Security had been tight, even to secure an audience with Ataturk's waxwork, with airport-style x-ray machines and a guard of soldiers blocking the road up to Anitkabir - the vast mausoleum and museum built in honour of the founder of modern Turkey on an Ankara hillside where thousands will gather on Saturday to commemorate the anniversary of his death in 1938.

And not without good reason; as a soldier rifled through my rucksack, a moustachioed man behind me lazily pulled a large handgun from somewhere between his belly and the top of his jeans and placed it on the desk for inspection. Without comment, a soldier quickly placed the weapon in a locker and casually handed the man a cloakroom ticket.

As a monument to the father of Turkish secularism, a visit to Anitkabir is strangely akin to a religious experience. The museum contains a bizarre range of Ataturk memorabilia – his rowing machine, a pair of nail clippers and even some leftovers on a plate from which he once dined – all presented with the reverence usually afforded to the relics of a holy saint.

Dramatic dioramas recall his greatest battles while a cinema tells the story of Ataturk's life in the sweeping, grandiose style of a Cecil B.
DeMille epic:

"He was born as a genius, grew up as an idealist, and lived as a heroic leader... He devoted his life to his people... from the ruins of an empire he managed to build a victorious nation .. He did not get tired or weak... his success was enough to make him happy..."

The mausoleum itself, meanwhile, is a vast neo-paganistic temple approached down a wide boulevard flanked by statues of lions and Hittite goddesses. The travel writer Robert Kaplan memorably described it as the kind of tomb Adolf Hitler would have had if he'd died a natural death.

With a statue in every town square, not to mention portraits and busts in every public building and school, to the visitor it can sometimes feel as if Turkey is trapped under the influence of a particularly virulent personality cult.

In a fiercely nationalistic country, Ataturk's greatness is a statement of fact, enshrined in law, rather than opinion. Many of those now demanding military action against the PKK in northern Iraq see the struggle against Kurdish separatism as a continuation of the same battle waged by Ataturk in the 1920s against those who would threaten Turkey's territorial integrity.

As his country's outstanding soldier-statesman, who had saved Turkey from extinction by resisting Allied attempts to partition the country at the end of the First World War and then rebuilt a new nation from the shattered remnants of the Ottoman state, Ataturk was Turkey's Monty, Churchill and Attlee all rolled into one.

Through willpower and force of personality, he created a new written Turkish alphabet, introduced surnames and outlawed traditional Arabic-style dress such as the fez in favour of European-style fashions – all measures he considered necessary in transforming Turkey into a "modern" western country. Most importantly, he laid the secular foundations that remain at the heart of Turkey's "Kemalist" state ideology to this day.

And yet, perhaps more than at any time since his death, there are signs that growing numbers of Turks feel Ataturk should be consigned to the past.

This year's parliamentary elections were seen as a litmus test by many of the enduring strength of Kemalism after secularists massed in their hundreds of thousands in Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir to protest against the supposed Islamist leanings of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Erdogan's nomination of his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, to the Turkish presidency – an office traditionally dominated by the Kemalist establishment - had prompted particular angst owing to the fact that his wife wore a headscarf.

Yet on voting day, it was the AKP who triumphed across the country, confirming their status as the dominant force in modern Turkish politics and providing Gul with the political leverage to install himself – and his wife – in Ataturk's former palace.

While visiting an AKP official during the campaign, I had been surprised to see a portrait of Ataturk behind his desk. "It is compulsory," he told me. "But governments are for the people and rules can change if people want them to change. The Kemalists will try to stop it but the people won't let them."

Suat Kiniklioglu, a newly-elected MP and now a government spokesman on foreign affairs, told me that the AKP was not opposed to secularism but favoured a "user-friendly secularism" that would not force a woman to choose between a university education and her right to wear a headscarf, and which embraced Turkey's unique position as a bridge between eastern and western culture over a narrow nationalism.

"I'm one of those people who does not believe that the divide in Turkey is between secularist and Islamist but between those who want the old order to continue and those who want the old order to change,"
he said.

Oddly, the forward-thinking Ataturk would perhaps not have disapproved of such sentiments. A profoundly pragmatic politician and diplomat, as comfortable cutting deals with Circassian warlords as playing the European gentleman, his secularism and pro-western sentiments were practical tools, forged from his recognition that Turkey had to act and think like a modern nation if it was to avoid the fate of the former Ottoman lands and other territories to the east and south that had suffered the indignities of partition and colonisation.

In a more democratic age, he would surely also have recognised the need for the Turkish people to decide their own future for themselves – without the interference of history. Perhaps the final word can be left to Ataturk himself. As you climb the steps towards his mausoleum, the words of one of his most famous quotations inscribed into the stonework read: "Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the nation."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

tonedallastx
10 November 2007 at 14:56

What a crap article (pardon my language)! The author, while trying to be seem to be in favour of good approach, mocking the whole idea/event itself and approving what majority of people living in Turkey don't. (Please study the election system in Turkey, AKP is not in power because the majority want it but only because they managed to change the whole election system in their favour). Unless you born and raised in Turkey as a Turk, one will never ever understand the devotion we have towards Ataturk. After reading a couple of articles, books, watching documenteries etc., one should not think that one has the idea/right to talk about it or even suggest opinions somehow against it. Shame on you, Mr. Hooper.

amanfromMars
10 November 2007 at 15:36

Crikey, tonedallastx, calm down, calm down. I thought the article paid all due homage... and more to Ataturk.

But the Past is a Memory and not a Rock to build the Future upon. ..... for that is an Invention of ImaginaNation, which is Real Ataturk 2, is it not?

QuITe a Convenient Coincidence, too

MontrealTurk
10 November 2007 at 19:44

Overall, this article gives the impression that Simon Hooper desperately tried to badmouth the Republic of Turkey. Why else would he unnecessarily try to establish a resemblance between Ataturk and Hitler? Americans I believe would be the last to mock nationalism, so Simon Hooper’s effort to blame Turks for being patriotic falls on deaf ears.

helps@chariot.net.au
11 November 2007 at 07:19

Referring to the legacy of Kemal Ataturk, who was totally instrumental for the conversion of Turkey, from a medieval Middle Eastern country into a modern secular state, with aspiration to be accepted as such in the European Community. It is perhaps worth mentioning that Ataturk’s conversion to modernity was mainly as a result of his appointment in 1913 as a Turkish Military Attache in Sofia, Bulgaria. This posting enabled him to have first hand experience with full-time residence in a European, Christian country. It had the effect to open his eyes to modernity. He witnessed personally that women can, in every sense, be equal partners with their husbands in society. Ataturk’s initiated conversion of Turkey to modernity, took place throughout his entire life.

Rarely in the history of a nation, has a single individual been able to initiate and carry out to completion, so many cardinal reforms in all spheres of the life in his country, as Kemal Ataturk succeeded to achieve in Turkey, during his lifetime.

gnuneo
11 November 2007 at 22:45

turkey will soon destroy itself anyway, so its all irrelevant.

it will attack the newly founded independent state of Kurdistan, with its modern 1st world arms, and face a kurdish population that is not only fully committed to finally freeing itself after these long centuries of domination and occupation by iraq, persia and turkey, but will also have some of the finest anti-occupation knowledge and expertise available, after kicking the yank's butts for the last few years.

so the modern turkish states vastly expensive arms will go down the pan rapidly, and all the while the kurds in turkey will be preparing to rise up again for independence, sickened by the genocide the turkish state has been committing, and triggered into action by the actual invasion of Turkey into their newly freed territory, formerly northern iraq.

and i for one, after being there and talking to 'turkish' kurds, will not shed a single tear as this terrible historic injustice is finally ended, and Kurdistan reborn, even if it destroys the Turkish State.

and good riddance, frankly.

perhaps then a truly democratic turkish state can arise, one without military barracks in every village, one where the army does not regard itself as being above the wishes of the People.

islamic it may be, however the easier the army lets go of its stranglehold on Kurdistan and Turkey itself, the less extreme the Islamic movement will be.

an action breeds reaction, and the turkish military would be *very* well advised to remember that.

it is time that ataturk's promise to the Kurds is finally kept, and the kurdish lands liberated from foreign oppression and occupation.

including the turkish one.

egemege
12 November 2007 at 18:51

People can have a wide range of varying opinions on the controversial issue of current Turkish politics. It can range from the uncompromising, almost fascist-sounding nationalism of some Turks, to democracy-embracing, liberal-minded people trying to paint a rosy picture of rising 'populist-conservative-Islamist' politics, to mindlessly aggressive defenders of Kurdish territorial separatism. These all quickly become absurd caricatures, when they fail to understand the complexities of our country, the difficult and chaotic historical-cultural geography we are placed within, and the dangers that reside in any ideology- fundamentalism, ethnic separatism, etc- at the hands of uneducated or manipulated groups.

Although it is hard to grasp the nuances involved for many, you can rest assured of 2 points:

1. Ataturk was an unbelievably successful statesman before whom the whole world bowed in respect, and the Turks are lucky to have had him as their leader.

2. The PKK is a Terrorist Organization officially recognized by over 40 countries including the US and UK. Although Turkish Kurds deserve improved cultural rights, they do not deserve to be identified with a vicious terrorist groups which has claimed 30,000 lives in Turkey, including civilians.

Lawrence of Arabia
13 November 2007 at 11:54

I mostly had a lovely time in Turkey. An immensely hospitable people. If anything, a bit too giving if you know what I mean.

www.beyazrenkler.org
08 August 2008 at 17:15

Modern Turkey began in 1923, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a Turkish army commander-turned-statesman, whose radical secular revolution changed Turkish society forever. In a series of reforms beginning in the 1920's, Ataturk, whose portraits are still commonly displayed, burned all bridges with Turkey's religious and imperial Ottoman past, shutting down religious orders, doing away with Islamic courts, religious instruction in schools, removing the caliphate, changing the Ottoman script, a mix of Arabic and Persian, to Latin letters, and rewriting criminal and civil law based on European legal codes.

Democracy came to Turkey in the 1940's, when the Turkish state allowed a multiple party system. Since then, the Turkish military, an elite, westernized institution that sees itself as the protector of Ataturk's legacy, deposed three elected governments, and executed a prime minister, Adnan Menderes, who headed Turkey's first opposition party.

http://www.beyazrenkler.org/forum

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is capitalism finished?