How Ataturk Made Turkey Secular | History Documentary

The title “Father of the Nation”  is an especially prestigious one; it has been extended to a very  select few throughout history. One of the most prominent figures to receive  this honour in the modern period is a man whose name literally means “Father of the Turks”. After  leading a successful War of Independence against various foreign powers, Ataturk was confronted  by the prospect of having to forge a new state out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. This  new nation would be forced to emba

rk upon a radically different course than its predecessor.  Ataturk, never one to shy away from a challenge, would transform Turkish society in a way that  could hardly have been imagined by its citizens. No longer consumed by the thought of a  war, the Turkish Nationalist Movement quickly moved to mould the country  according to its political vision. Perhaps the best way to understand Ataturk’s  presidency and his political vision is to go through the Six Arrows, the official ideology of  the n

ew Republic, and see how each one interplays with the various reforms he introduced. Republicanism This emphasised the liberty of  citizens and the idea of popular sovereignty, which stated that the Turkish people were the  source of political power and the authority of the government & state were rooted in  the consent of its people. But in reality, Ataturk’s government was hardly representative.  The Kemalist Republican People’s Party held power in what essentially became a one-party state.  I

n many ways, the Kemalist vision was enforced on the Turkish people without asking for their say  so. This took place despite there being contrarian opinions within the Grand National Assembly.  Even in 1924, a breakaway party, the Progressive Republican Party, was formed by some of Ataturk’s  closest associates, including General Karabekir. The disaffected members agreed in principle with  Kemalism but wanted a slightly more conservative approach to socio-cultural change. In 1930,  Ataturk aske

d his long-time friend Ali Fethi Okyar to form a new party so that a multiparty system  could be inaugurated once again. Both occasions resulted in the same thing - Ataturk forced both  parties to dissolve because he feared that the opening up of political power would be used by the  forces of conservatism, especially the Islamists, to undo or even delay the modernist-inclined  reforms intended by the government. The totalitarian nature of Ataturk’s government  meant that the very privacy of ord

inary people was under threat. In the modern day context, this  issue is even more worrisome due to the internet, where our personal information is on the  frontline. This is where today’s sponsor can help, Surfshark VPN. VPNs are designed to  keep our online identity safe by encrypting the information sent between our devices and the  internet. Recently I’ve found myself travelling a lot and so I’ve had to rely upon free public  Wi-Fi a fair amount; unfortunately I’ve come to learn that this is

a prime opportunity for  hackers to steal my personal information. But now with Surfshark’s CleanWeb feature, I  won’t have to worry too much about that - since it blocks trackers, malware and phishing attempts.  With Surfshark VPN, you’ll be able to not only prevent your personal data from falling into the  hands of cyber criminals, you’ll also be able to change your virtual location as well - thus  giving you uncensored access to the internet! If you want to watch content but are  blocked bec

ause of your location, Surfshark allows you to easily change your  IP address and access your favourite content! And to top it off, Surfshark allows you to use  one account on an unlimited number of devices. It really is a comprehensive protection plan for  your online privacy. So if like me, you spend a lot of your time using the internet, Surfshark  VPN’s services are a must have. They’ve been good enough to allow Hikma History subscribers an  extra 3 months for free with the promo code Hikma.

Just go to surfshark.deals/hikma, the link is  also in the description below. And remember they have a 30-day money-back guarantee, meaning  there’s no risk in trying it out! So don’t delay in not only protecting your personal information  but gaining unrestricted access to the internet! Populism “Ne mutlu Turkum diyene!” - “How  happy is the one who says I’m a Turk!” - Ataturk was particularly fond of this phrase and it  helps to explain his views on Populism too. This concept aimed to shift p

olitical power  to the Turkish citizenry and asserted that national identity came before everything else.  In this sense it was pitted against the Sufi Tariqas and Islamic Madrassa’s; with both being  institutions that believed in a higher power, therefore placing Islam above the nation. The  desire to subsume potential rival strands of thought under the umbrella of the state also  saw Madrassas come under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. This particular  issue had been most obvious

ly addressed with the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in March  1924. The political functions of the Sultanate had already been abolished in 1922, but the  fact that Caliph Abdulmejid II still held the prestige associated with his office was seen  by the Kemalists as potentially undermining the authority of the government because it placed  another institution above the nation and state. As surprising as it may sound today, when Ataturk  first came to power there were some Turks who believed

they’d have a political system that was  closer to one created by the first Caliphs in the 7th century. The following Kemalist principle  would show them just how wrong they were. Laicism Contrary to some softer forms  of secularism which deal largely with separating religion and governance, laicism  called for religion to be relegated to the private instead of the public sphere. In this  sense, religion was discouraged from not only getting involved in government affairs, its role  was to be un

dermined in society as well - this created the foundation block for much of  the social reforms Ataturk would introduce. Of course, this was very different from the  centuries old Ottoman model which relied heavily on Shariah law to guide its legal matters. Already  in the Tanzimat and Second Constitutional Era, Ottoman statesmen had tried to wean  themselves off a religiously inspired political model. But Ataturk kicked that process  into another gear; closing down Sufi lodges, abolishing the C

aliphate, shutting down Sharia  courts, replacing the Ottoman-era position of Sheikh ul-Islam, the person responsible for  religious matters, with the newly established Directorate of Religious Affairs which came  under the direct supervision of the government. The Ottoman legal code, the Mejelle, which was  based off the Shariah, was abandoned in favour of a blend of different European legal codes that  were imported. The day of rest was changed from the traditional Friday to Sunday, yet again 

mirroring Europe. Wearing the fez was banned in 1925 as part of Ataturk’s so-called “Hat  Revolution”; because of its attachment to the Ottomans, the fez was viewed as symbol of  backwardness - something which is fascinating since the rationale for the fez’s introduction  in the 1820s was that it replaced the turban and symbolised the Ottomans desire to modernise.  Sartorial changes were continued in 1934 when a law was passed which banned wearing religious  clothing outside places of worship.

In 1928, there was an amendment to the Constitution which  removed Islam as the State religion altogether. It is important to try to understand why Ataturk’s  outlook on political Islam was so antagonistic. For him and many other reformers, the Ottoman  decline could be explained through their lack of desire to keep up with the rapid  modernisation pursued by European powers. As a result, reliance upon Islam in the political  and cultural sphere was interpreted by Ataturk as an obstacle to progr

ess, and as a weapon of dogma  and ignorance. During the 19th and 20 centuries, reformers in the Islamic world across the  ideological spectrum had grappled with this issue; with two main school of thoughts emerging  - there were the Islamists and Modernists. Ataturk was clearly from the latter, but it should  be noted that the Islamists also expressed dismay at the way in which Islam was being utilised  as a socio-political force, with many great thinkers such as Sheikh Muhammad Abduh berating 

the ignorance which had spread across the Dar al-Islam and allowed European imperialism to  triumph. But their solution was to get back to a better and more accurate understanding  of Islam; instead of moving away from it and towards the European-styled cultural reforms  that the modernists such as Ataturk favoured. Nationalism The Kemalist view of nationalism  rested heavily on civic nationhood. This puts forth the idea that a nation is defined  by its political institutions and liberal values

which are to be upheld by its citizens. Civic  nationalism is often contrasted with ethnic nationalism, which defines the nations in terms  of ethnicity, in a similar vein to Pan-Turkism. Herein lays a contradiction between Kemalist  theory and practise, because Ataturk’s views clearly drew inspiration from ethnic  nationalism too - Turkish culture and history were pedestalised above the identities of  the other minorities in the country. The Turkish Historical Society was established in 1931 t

o  explore the great heritage left behind by Turkic cultures in the past. The institution was regarded  by some as a mouthpiece for Kemalism; which makes sense considering their endorsement of the Turkish  History Thesis, which posits the idea that Turks had moved from their ancestral homeland in Central  Asia and brought civilisation wherever they went. This assumption went hand in hand with an even  more farfetched idea known as the Sun Language Theory, which argued that all human languages  w

ere descendants of an original Turkic language. Ataturk’s notion of nationality encouraged his  citizens to view being Turk as a legal term expressing their citizenship of Turkey  as opposed to an ethnic designation. All the ethnic groups living inside of Turkey were  to think of themselves as Turks and Turks only. Whilst this may seem harmless and even  inclusive on the surface, in practise this represented an attack on the identities  of the Circassians, Greeks and numerous other minorities. A

ll these groups were forced  to go through a process of Turkification, whereby they’d be forcefully assimilated as Turks.  One ethnic group has particularly suffered from Ataturk’s vision of a nation - and that’s the  Kurds, the largest ethnic minority in the country. Constituting up to 20% of the population, they  make up a majority in many of Turkey’s eastern provinces. Throughout the 1920s and 30s, thousands  of Kurds in the East were forcefully deported to other areas of Anatolia whilst Turk

s were also  settled in Kurdish regions, in an effort to undermine the infrastructure of Kurdish society.  Ataturk was convinced that in order for the nation to be stable and unified, ethnic and cultural  distinctions had to be done away with in the search for a unitary political and cultural  identity for Turkey. So the Kurds saw their customs and identity come under direct attack; the  Kurdish language was banned in the public sphere, deportations were used & the secular policies of  the Kemal

ist government was internalised by many Kurds as an attack on their traditional Islamic  values. Not willing to simply accept the denial of their identity, the 1920s and 30s witnessed three  large-scale uprisings in the eastern provinces. There was the Sheikh Said Rebellion of 1925;  the Ararat Rebellion of 1927 to 1930 and the Dersim Rebellion in 1937. All of them caused  major concern for the government in Ankara and were only put down with significant  effort and resources from the Turkish ar

my. Reformism This placed emphasis on the need  to replace the traditional institutions and values with modern ones. As a result of  Ataturk’s obsessive focus on modernity, Turkey was going to be actively modified by reform  in order to be the most effective it could be. Naturally, this necessitated a very acrimonious  break from the past. In truth however, this break was not as radical as it seems - from  the 1830s onwards, there was lively discourse on a wide-range of socio-political reforms i

n the  late Ottoman political scene. Regardless however, Ataturk viewed it as necessary to portray the  Ottomans as backwards for his political vision. Some of the well-known changes he introduced were  justified by the Kemalist principle of Reformism. Perhaps the most famous of these  include his reform of the alphabet. Viewing the traditional Arabic script  of Ottoman Turkish as too complex and faced with a population that was largely  illiterate, in 1928 Ataturk sponsored the introduction of

a new alphabet for the Turkish  language that was to use the Latin script. He would follow this up with further  language reforms via the Turkish Language Association which sought to replace Arabic and  Persian loanwords with Turkish equivalents. Within society, he disagreed with the traditional  segregation of genders that many Islamic societies upheld; instead viewing women’s involvement in  public affairs as essential. He passed numerous legislations that sought to equalise men and  women’s r

ole in society in line with European customs; such as granting full political rights  to women in 1934. That same year the Surname Law was introduced which required all citizens  of Turkey to adopt a fixed hereditary surname. This is when he was given the name Ataturk.  Done with the intention to modernise the country bureaucratically, this could also foster a  sense of Turkishness within society, as all names related to other ethnicities were prohibited  and forced to adopt Turkish renditions o

f them. Statism The state was to have an important  role in regulating the economy of the country. Turkey’s economy at the start of the  Republic was very underdeveloped. Almost a decade of constant war had severely  damaged its financial infrastructure. The Ottoman Empire’s debt to European creditors was still  unpaid, so the new government inherited that. Seeing their hopes of gaining the city  of Mosul and its oil rich fields dashed, the Kemalists saw the need for the state’s  involvement in

jumpstarting the economy. This problem became especially pronounced  in the aftermath of the Great Depression that shook the world. Despite these issues,  Turkey’s economy, both in the agricultural and industrial sectors, grew massively as a  result of Ataturk’s five year economic plans. Ataturk can be a confusing person to understand  - he favoured a representative parliamentary democracy but enacted a one-party state;  he championed empiricism but supported wild delusional ideas such as the Su

n Language  Theory; he rejected ethnic nationalism but indirectly sponsored it. I’ve found what helps  me to understand Ataturk’s views and actions is the term Sovereignty. Throughout the course  of his life, his homeland had been at the prey of other powers - the decaying of the  Ottoman state then the War of Independence. As President, he shifted his attention to ensuring  that the internal infrastructure of Turkey was sufficiently strong enough to withstand shocks  and bring about a degree of

stability that could then be used as a platform for progress,  which in turn would further strengthen the nation-state and continue to insulate its  sovereignty from internal and external threats. Upon his death in November 1938, he left in his  wake a young but assertive nation that has in some ways became a beacon of progress and strength in  the Middle East. Having said that though, Turkey today finds itself having to answer unresolved  issues regarding its identity; specifically its relatio

nship with Islam and how that clashes  with its notion of progress and modernity.