Posts
Nationalism “à la Turca”
Many important events took place on Turkey ’s
historical calendar between 29 October and 10 November. November 3-5, 1914 are
the dates Russia, England and France declared war on the Ottoman Empire drawing
it into WWI; October
30, 19 18 is the day of Moundros ceasefire between the warring
parties and the start of occupation of strategic points in the Empire by the
victorious Allied Powers; November 7, 19 19 is the day the Turkish national
liberation movement held first elections for a National Assembly (NA)
independent from the Sultanate; November 1, 19 22 is the day the NA abolished
the Khalifate and Sultanate; October 29, 19 23 is the day the NA declared the republican
regime; November 1,
19 28 is the day of adoption of latin script by the NA to replace
the Arabic script (one of the most important reforms to challenge the nation
for joining the contemporary civilization); on November 10, 19 38 Ataturk died.
Therefore, there are many things for Turks to recall and
reflect on at this time of the year. I chose to reflect this year on the most
important of the reforms and in fact the driving force behind all of them, the
“Turkish nationalism”. Nationalism was a reform in Turkey ,
because it did not exist in the second half of the long existence of the Ottoman Empire . “Turkish nationalism” was a reform that
made the other reforms possible on the path to modernization (joining the
contemporary civilization)*. Furthermore, I find this subject topical, because
the current Islamist administration is claiming to be nationalist. The
administration may be assuming this role in order not only to attract the votes
of nationalists in the country, but also to find a solution to the Kurdish
insurgence, to the Pheneriote Orthodox Church’s efforts to gain ecumenical
status, and to the increasing demands by Alevis for recognition.
However, we need to consider and learn what this Islamist
government means by nationalism. Based on the Government’s past and continuing
record, I assume that their nationalism must be for the recreation of the
Ottoman style nations, millets. They
must believe in the ummet/millet
system of society (panislamist view), to conform to their Ottomanist domestic
and foreign policies, regardless of their public rhetoric. Their actions prove
without a doubt that their aspiration is to establish a political and economic
leadership over the Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa .
They have already succeeded in reinstating Ottomanism in Turkey by
re-interpreting the secular and democratic principles of the state, by
re-engineering the social and judicial systems. There is no reason why they
cannot succeed in reintroducing the millet
system by way of reinterpretation of nationalism.[1]
The current international events are such that Turks and the international
community are all ready to accept such an interpretation.
A cursory look at the history of “Turkish nationalism” would
be sufficient to verify this view. Seljuks, later Ottomans, kept their Turkish
character from the 12th to the 16th century as they were
expanding.[2]
When the state assumed the religious mantle of khalif after conquering Mecca in 1517, it started
to pursue a policy based mainly on religion. Having spread over a large mass of
land and sea, the Empire consisted of numerous different nations, cultures, and
religions. Co-religionists were ummet. Non-muslims were “nations”, millet. The
identity of citizens was recognized by their religious affiliation, not by
their language, nationality, or land. Turkishness was forgotten, even
suppressed, for fear of inciting nationalism among many nations living within
the Empire.[3] Leaders were well aware that a society based on religious foundation
made people subservient to the state; unquestioning adherence to religion
impeded people from believing in themselves, thus from owning the state.
Turkish
intelligentsia in the Ottoman Empire
rediscovered their Turkishness in the 19th century. The first
Ottoman Constitution of 1876 stipulated in its Article 18 that the State’s
official language was Turkish, and in Article 57 that the parliamentary debates
were to be made in Turkish; an Executive Order in 1894 mandated the teaching of
Turkish in all schools, including foreign schools.[4]
That was the century in which nationalism and nation-state concepts spread
around the world as a result of the American and French popular uprisings for
freedom, individual rights and equality. Nationalism became the social bond. Millets in the Empire also could not be
kept isolated and away from this current. It was natural for them to rally
around their national identity, and to seek independence with the help of
countries dedicated to ending the Ottoman hurdle in the way of the modernizing
world. This trend included several co-religionist Arab nations, despite the
fact that Ottomans served as their protective guardians for about 400 years. Such was the reliance on ummet system: Nationalism had trumped religion.
Turks in the Empire were left empty handed. “The Emperor was naked”. The
intellectuals in the Empire and some sultans began in 1830s to embrace Turkish
nationalism in order to rescue the crumbling Empire. But, the religious
community upset every modernization attempt with violent oppositions.[5]
It was not until 1920 that Turks finally realized they had to
dislodge religion from its pedestal to be able to reclaim their own identity, to reinstate the sovereignty of the people, and to catch-up with ever-advancing
contemporary civilization. They made a historically unprecedented élan to
embrace nationalism in order to fight a war for their independence, and
thereafter to start on a path to contemporary modernization, all within a
period of twenty years. Drastic and dramatic changes were like instating
peoples’ sovereignty (secularism, republican regime), solidarity for
independence (nationalism), individuals’ rights and freedom, women’s equality, starting up a new industry with state assistance, the adoption of a
latin script that opened the society to the world-culture and -science
(progress). The type of nationalism (called Ataturk nationalism) that was the
formidable force behind all this incomparable achievement, was based on
history, not on ethnicity, chauvinism, nor religion. Public solidarity based
only on nationalistic feelings was what carried Ataturk to the national liberation, and energized the people to support the reforms.[6]
Unfortunately, this relentless modernization process based on
national solidarity lasted only for a very short period of approximately twenty
years. Having realized this feat about one hundred years later than the Western
world did, Turks encountered another setback due to changing circumstances in
the intervening period. German nationalism and dictatorship dragged the world
to the disastrous WWII. The international community condemned nationalism. The
Nazi style racist nationalism attached a stigma to the very important and
useful social fact of nationalism. Yet, there is no point in continuing to
vilify and bash nationalism because of a short-lived aberration in history
(1930-45). Nationalism is a natural and historical fact arising from the social
need for solidarity. Nationalism gave life to many countries in the world, and
it continues to do so in many countries under more politically correct names,
like patriotism, national interests, etc. Nationalism is the natural binding
element in a society, if removed it has to be replaced by another kind of social
binding element. Religion lurking behind the curtain of history is always ready
to jump in. And, it has; religiosity has been on the rise in many countries,
west and east, since WWII.
It appears that the Turkish character is not conducive to sustaining nationalist solidarity. This may be due to Turks’ individualistic
mentality and life style. Turks have never developed a tradition of community,
a notion of social service, interdependence, and altruistic volunteerism.
Therefore, casting doubt on nationalism, instead of promoting it, easily erodes
and eventually will weaken solidarity within the Turkish society. Solidarity,
which is the lifeline of national security and the motor force behind national
development along the contemporary universal civilization, is undermined.[7]
This is a worse case scenario for a nation. Neither the international
community’s current attitude towards “nationalism”, nor the current Turkish
administration’s interpretation of it are encouraging to avoid that scenario.
One cannot help but ask the Turkish administration whether the justification
for their foreign policy re-oriented from the West towards the South is based
on the perfidious act of Arabs during WWI? Whether the current Turkish
aspiration for leadership of the Muslim world is based on the facts of
Ottomans’ rise or fall? What type of solidarity would they rely on, the
nationalistic one that gave independence and contemporary civilization to them,
or the religious one that did not help keep Ottoman Empire
together?
In the face of
nationalist and religionist uncertainties in Turkey , Turks will be well served
if they would remember that although they have been Muslims by choice for about one thousand years, they were born Turks by nature for at least four thousand years. Societies are composed of
smaller social units, groups or communities (professional, local, racial,
religious, etc.), also classes in societies are unavoidable; but, all these
components need a binding element to be complementary of each other, in order
to avoid clashes and be able to develop and live in peace. That binding element
is solidarity; solidarity is what holds a society together. The type of
solidarity determines the type and durability of a society. Solidarity based on
national bonds is the most natural and durable. It becomes vitally important to
reflect on this history for a nation who will soon be presented with a new social contract, the Constitution,
re-written by the admirers and aspirers of the Ottoman ways.
*I feel obliged to emphasize or explain some of the terms because politicians and some commentators have the habit of twisting the meaning of certain words for their own purposes.
[1] “The current
administration has been showing a nationalist face since the last election. It
dons a nationalist mantle in order to survive between the two nationalist
groups appeared in the country because of a Kurdish movement surging in the
last twenty years. ….. It will achieve what the earlier ruling parties could
not; it will assume Ataturk nationalism, however, with a redefined Ataturk nationalism
….” (free translation from “Kimligimiz ve
Niteligimizin Bekcisi”, by the Author, sosyopolitikkonu.blogspot.com, Sept.
2008)
[3] Regarding the avoidance by late Ottomans the usage of
the word Turks, although it was used by foreign observers, see T. Feyzioglu, Ataturk ve Milliyetcilik, TC 75 Yil
Armagani, TTK 1998, p.8; See also O. Turkdogan, , pp. 37, 38, 80, 254-257.
[4] O. Turkdogan, p. 47. About the rise of conscience and
appreciation of the Turkish language during the late Ottoman era, see O.
Turkdogan, pp. 53, 76, 77.
[5] “There were reformers
and reforms at crucial times during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
But even the most intelligent and perceptive of Ottoman reforms at this time
adhered to the basic premise that the Ottoman system was far superior to
anything that the infidel might develop …” (S. Shaw, p. 175)
“He (Osman II) believed the sole remedy for
these conditions was to ‘Turkify’ both the palace and the Janissary corps. …..
He also seems to have thought of moving the Ottoman government from the devsirme center of Istanbul
to some place in Anatolia where Turkish traditions and values would prevail,
perhaps to Bursa or Ankara
“Opposition to the sultan (Selim III) had been building
for a long time. The Janissaries and others threatened by his reforms had been
agitating since early in his reign. Opposition also came from the ulema, most
of whom considered every innovation to be a violation of Islamic law…. The
revolt broke out in late May 1807 when the Janissary auxiliaries (yamaks) guarding the Bosphorus forts at
Buyukdere, led by Kabakci Mustafa, assassinated a Nizam-I Cedit officer …..joined as they went by thousands of
Janissaries, ulema, religious students, and others ….. to secure a fetva
declaring Selim’s reforms illegal violations of religion and tradition
and authorizing his deposition.” (Shaw, p. 273, 274)
The Istanbul Observatory built
in 1575, only 32 years after the death of Copernicus, and four years before the
birth of Kepler, was demolished by a fetva
of the Seyhulislam (the high priest) as being against Sharia. (See, T.
Feyzioglu, Ataturk Yolu, 3rd
edition, Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1995, p.18)
“When geography classes were
introduced in newly founded middle schools after the declaration of Tanzimat reforms sultan’s son-in-law,
Sait pasha, told the sultan that showing maps in geography classes is an
infidel practice, not allowed by Sharia law. We need to recall that the world’s
famous map was drawn many centuries earlier by the great Turkish seafarer Piri
Reis in 1513.” (free translation by the Author from T. Feyzioglu, p. 26)
While Jewish, Armenian and
Greek millets founded their printing
houses between 1494 and 1627, a fetva
for founding the first Turkish printing house was issued in 1727. (see T.
Feyzioglu, p. 14)
[6] “The principle of nation state defended by the
Kemalist system has for its objective organizing and modernizing the society. “
(free translation by the Author from O. Turkdogan, p.113)
“If there were no Turks there would not have
been Ataturk.” (free translation by the Author from a poem by Behcet Kemal
Caglar. T. Feyzioglu, Ataturk ve
Milliyetcilik, p.31)
[7] “Turkey
