Ataturk Analysis

2119 Words 9 Pages
Disciplining Modern Turkey: Historiographical analysis of the Ideology of Mustafa Kemal “Atatürk”
The longevity of the Ottoman Empire is undeniable. From its beginnings in 1299 to its end in 1922 the Ottomans were one of the world’s longest functioning empires, with its geography reaching to large parts of Africa, Asia, and Arabia. Though the Ottoman’s lasted seven centuries, the empire was in an increasing state of tortuous decline beginning in the sixteenth century. This decline was inflicted by outside influence from the other existing empires that hailed from the other side of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The Europeans and Russians used the Ottoman invented capitulations as their instrument through which they gained control of the
…show more content…
In his work he claims that Kemalism is the first example of modernizing nationalism, which is applied to developing nations . He continues in his article to describe Atatürk’s ideology as “rational and scientific” “democratic” and a “continual effort towards modernism and progress” . He claims that the democratic tendencies of Kemalism is rational and therefore will continue to be a great sound model for political, economical, and cultural modernization of developing nations. Giritli also peers into the differences of Kemalism as compared to Marxism, fascism, and socialism, generously using the words “pragmatic” and “dogmatic” to describe the differences. Pragmatic was applied to Kemalism due to the manner of the principles concerning national sovereignty and human rights, inspired by the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizens (1789); while dogmatic was applied to the ideologies of communism and fascism because of the focus put on rigid totalitarian doctrines . Giritli claims that Kemalism is a stark contrast to the dogmatic ideologies and that it exposed the dogmatic regimes by strengthening the idea of …show more content…
Their perspective on the early Turkish Republic examines the nature of the dualistic cultures. Aksoy and Robins state that they believe that the reforms put into place by Kemal, forced a culture upon the people that was repressive and foreign . The authors write of the duality of the culture, the “official” culture observed by the government verses the “real” culture of the people and how the government of the Republic of Turkey took on a character of repressing the real Turkish identity in order to establish a new identity by means of Kemalism. An argument brought to the surface by the authors is the theory that the adoption of Kemalism as the official identity and culture of Turkey has in effect caused the country to be “trapped in its own history” . This can be explained through the beliefs of Kemalism and the “inward-looking” society, though the end of the Cold War has challenged it where the country of Turkey is demanding change. Turkey has been unfrozen by historical events and that the once oppressive governmental culture is no longer able to repress the real identity of Turkey. The Pan-Turkish movement was revived in the decades of the 1980’s and 1990’s, and encouraged the questioning of the “imported” culture implemented by Atatürk during the Republic of Turkey’s

Related Documents