Atatürk And Building of a Modern Nation State

Turkish Revolution is realized by the peerless genius of Atatürk the greatest Türk of modern times and with the understanding and sacrifice of the Turkish nation.

Turkey was according the Western historians “the greatest World power in the Seventeen century”. Out of the original Osmanli empire which had been born between the lands of Eskişehir and Bursa, there had emerged a great power in the European style.”1 But later Ottoman Empire which could not follow the political, economic, cultural and technical developments in Europe started to decline. According to an European author “the state had reached its zenith and the dynamic expansive epoch of its development was over.”2

Many ideas to catch up with Europe were advanced. Some wise sultans such as Osman the Second, Selim the Third and Mahmud the Second tried to introduce some reforms. The two former sultans paid with their lives for their ingenuity. Mahmut the Second was able to destroy the Janissaries who in the last two centuries of the empire allying themselves to religious recationaries were mainly responsible for the delaying ali reforms in Turkish life.

Sultan Abdulmejid brought the political reforms (Tanzimat) with the support of Mustafa Reşit Pasha. But Tanzimat movement was not strong enough to undertake essential reforms to catch-up with the World’s developments. Tanzimat brought some modernization as the establishment of some new schools, the adoption of some legislation from Europe such as penal, commercial and procedural codes, founding some new courts on European model but in the same time the old schools, old legislation based on Islamic law and old courts were left intact. There was a duality of old and new until Atatürk pushed his reforms in 1920’s and 1930’s.

Atatürk was able to save the Sick Man of Europe hopelessly bedstricken and whose estates were divided before even his death, with an incredible effort and after some salvage operations which were given up the Empire and build a modern nation state the new Turkish Republic on a limited but well defined territory. This territory was defined in the National Pact which had adopted six prin-ciples which represent according to the National Pact “the maximum of sacrifice which can be undertaken in order to achieve a just and lasting peace and that the continued existence of a stable Ottoman Sultanate and society is impossible outside of the said principles.”3 The National Pact was in the words of Historian Toynbee”in reality, a Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Nation.” 4

The principles upon which the nation state was going to be based were:

Article 1. in as much as it is necessary that the destinies of the portions of the Turkish Empire which are populated exclusively by an Arab majority and which on the conclusion of the Armistice of the 3oth October, 1918, were in the occupation of enemy forces, should be determined in accordance with the votes which shall be freely given by the inhabitants the whole of those parts, whether within or outside the said Armistice line, which are inhabited by an Ottoman Müslim majority, united in religion in race and in aim, imbued with sentiments of matual respect for each other’s racial and social rights and surrounding conditions, form a whole which does not admit of division for any reason in truth or in ordinance.

Article 11. We accept that, in case of three sanjaks which are united themselves by a general vote to the mother country when they first were free, recourse should again be had, if necessary, to a free popular vote.

Article 111. The determination of juridical status of Western Thrace also, which has been made dependent on the Turkish peace, must be effected in accordance with the votes which shall be given by the inhabitants in complete freedom.

Article IV. The security of the city of istanbul which is the seat of the Caliphate of islam, the capital of the sultanate and the headquarters of the Ottoman Government and of the Sea of Marmara must be protected from every danger. Provided this Pinciple is maintained, whatever decision may be arrived at jointly by us and ali other governments concerned, regarding the opening of the Bosphorus to the commerce and traffic of the world, is valid.

Article V. The rights of minorities, as defined in the treaties concluded between the Entente Powers and their enemies and certains of their associates shall be confirmed and assured by us in reliance on the belief that the Müslim minorities in neighboring countries also will have the benefit of the same rights.

Article VI. it is a fundamental condition of our life and continued existence that we, like every country should enjoy complete independence and liberty in the matter of assuring the means of our development, in order that our national and economic development should be rendered possible and that its should possible to conduct affairs in the form of a more up-to date regular administration.

For this reason we are opposed to restrictions inimical to our development in political, judical, financial and other matters.

The conditions of settlement of our proved debts shall likewise not be contrary to these principles.” 5

Upon this laconic declaration of the rights and demands of an oppressed people it has been built the superstracture of a virile and strong Turkish State on a Western pattern.6

The first and a very important reform of Atatürk was the introduction of National will and sovereignty instead of the Sultan’s and Caliph’s will. This was done by the adoption of 1921 Constitution by the Grand National Assembly on January 20, 1921. Before “the Ottoman Sultans were for centuries the representatives of a rigid tradition whereby the ruler was considered the sole master of the country.”7 The 1921 Constitution gave sovereignty to nation without reservation and condition but really this was on paper because most of the fatherland was burned and under enemy occupation. So I fully agree with author Thomas in his following statement: “The best term for this Turkish -Greek war is not the Turkish Revolution, although this is often used, it is the Turkish War for Independence or better stili, the Turkish War for Sovereignty”. Full sovereignty in a nation state was exactly what the Turks gained.” 8

After Turkish victory över Greeks a second important political reform was achived. The Sultanate was abolished on November 1, 1922. This step was taken when after the Mudanya Armistice the Allied Powers had by an ili considered action invited both the G.N.A.9 and İstanbul Governments for the talks of the Peace Conference at Lausanne. The last Sultan’s treacherous actions and attitudes did not leave almost no deputies in the G.N.A. to defend him. His deposition was imperative but the hodjas insisted that the Sultanate could not be separated from the caliphate. Atatürk was present when discussions and debates on the subject lasted hours; Then he spoke: “Sovereignty and sultanate are not given to anyone by anyone because scholarship says so; because of debate or discussion. They are taken by strenght, by power, by force. By force the Ottoman dynasty seized the sovereignty and the Sultanate of the Turkish nation they maintained The question is not whether or not we are going to leave the sovereignty to nation, the question is merely how to give expression to accomplished reality.”10

This speech convinced the opposing members and on November 1, 1922. The Sultanate was abolished. On November 17 Sultan Mehmed VI, Vahdettin took refuge with the British fleet. On November 18 the G.N.A. deposited Vahdettin as Caliph and chose Abdulmecid, his cousin as the new Caliph. Atatürk had to wait two more years for the abolition of the Caliphate, one more year for the procla-mation of the republic.

Turkey after winning the war of independence did not stop. “Her leaders now had the energy and the vision not to relax, not to regard their success as and end in itself but only as an essential step towards the real end.”11
Turkey’s great good fortune was to possess Atatürk when she needed him most. Before the winning the war of independence Atatürk said in one speech: “After liberation we have very important national duties. We have to prove that we can improve our internal affairs and be an active and useful member among civilized nations. To succeed in this work it is necessary to accomplish social work rather than political work”.

80 years after Tanzimat we were at the 2Oth Century at Bâb-ı âli where the Prime Ministry was situated and we were at Seventh century at Suleymaniye where Seyhulislam’s Office and religious courts were situated.12

Atatürk had seen well ali obstructions to the advancement of the nation but had realized also that these obstructions had become traditions and habits centuries old and their dismanteling would bring some resistance: Mustafa Kemal was good planner, one reform at the time the methodical genius was never taken chances. He would divide “applications” in several stages and in his words “using events and facts to form national public opinion and feelings and advancing step by step to reach the objective”.

Atatürk had set his general objective: to create a nation state on European style. For this his tools were nationalism and secularization: his nationalism was not imperialistic but rather Turkey for Turks: Also in his nationalism was the attainment of şelf sufficiency with regard to economy. He was for complete independence and he knew that without economic independence there is no complete independence.

Atatürk was methodical. “Mustafa Kemal seldom ventured to rouse serious opposition until the need for action was fully at hand and he regularly took çare to see one majör move through to success before opening another one :”13

Atatürk was for the Westernization. But his westernization is unconditional and radical, not reconeiliatory and conpensatory as were the Westernization of the Tanzimat and of the Constitutional periods14. Atatürk wanted to leave the civilization concept of the East which was rather preoccupied with the next life and turn towards West and adopt Western civilization which was motivated with reason, logic and intelligence. The ideal of Atatürk was that Turkey “was to be a country that lived according to the Western yardstick and was an insperable part of the West”15.

The Lausanne Treaty shows the diplomatic farsightness of Atatürk: He chose well the head negotiator ismet Pasha who “argued every point until everyone’s patience but his own was at end.”16 The Lausanne Treaty was the final victory of Turkey in the war of independence.

On October 29, 1923 the Republic was proclaimed. Atatürk used a cabinet crisis created by himself for the proclamation of the Republic. Anyhow the political regime of Ankara since the establishment of the G.N.A. was republic, on October 29, 1923 this was formally recognized.

Inspite the proclamation of the Republic the State was paying the salaries to Sultan family and to sons-in-laws: Yakup Kadri (Karaosmanoğlu) objected to this in his newspaper “Akşam”. The hodjas and conservatives of the G.N.A. were gathered in the front raw desks when Y. Kadri was called to account for his article from the tribüne of the G.N.A. One of the hodjas streching out his pencil was screaming “We will carve your two eyes.” Yakup was not able to finish any of his sentences: The deputy journalist who had dared to write only may be one percent of the great reform that Mustafa Kemal was going to accomplish just 15 days later was only saved from a severe beating by some young muscular reformers.

Inspite of the republic theocratic state was standing with ali its working mechanisms: Medreses (religious schools) which were not allowing even the shadow of positive sciences inside of their doors were training elements three four times more than civil schools, these elements would be enemy of western civilization: The Ministry of Seriye and Evkaf17 was working for the Caliphate. Atatürk had sent a coded telegram to the Caliph asking him to praise Turkish G.N.A. and Turkish Constitution, to condemn the conduct of Vahdettin, to prepare a non political manisfesto to the Moslem world and to use only the title of Caliph of ali Moslems. in his reply Abdul-mecit said he would write nothing about Vahdettin and asked the permission to wear Sultan Fatih Mehmet’s cloak and turban at public procession to a mosque at noon on Fridays. This was a strange demand because Sultan Fatih Mehmed was never Caliph, there were some nice formal dresses such as istanbulin (a kind of frock-coat) and redingote.

Even in the G.N.A. some members were seing the caliphate as a Sultanate, some part of the press shared this view. Some irresspon-sible high officials visited the caliph as if he were the head of state. And the caliph himself ali of a sudden begun to see himself above the government either by implication or clearly as in charge of the future of Turkey. The Caliph belonging to the Ottoman lineage was acting as actual sultan: But Atatürk was very firm, he said: “The nation took sovereignty and took it rebelling. Taken sovereignty can not be left or rendered for any reason or in any form. it is necessary to use the same means employed to gain it if it is wanted to take it back”.

A deputy of Afyonkarahisar Hodja Şükrü as the leader of a reactionary group published a booklet called “Caliphate of islam and the G.N.A.” on January 15, 1923; this was a day later then Atatürk had left Ankara for a long Western Anatolia tour. The booklet was distributed to ali members of the G.N.A. Şükrü Hodja was enuncing a strange principle as “The Assembly belongs to Caliph and the Caliph belongs to Assembly”. in the booklet the G.N.A. was shown as the special consultative body of the caliph who was considered as head of the G.N.A. and of the State.

Şükrü Hodja and his reactionaries were putting instead of the Sultan another ruler called Caliph who was not going to rule a nation; a state but ali moslem lands. in fact according to the reactionaries the caliph had to distribute justice among the 300.000.000 moslems of that day to secure and maintain security, order and harmony, to defend moslems from the attack of non moslems; to look after the civil liberties; to make certain the happiness and welfare of the society. For ali these activities fifteen million Turks would be employed. Atatürk answered to this booklet as following: “Unfortunately to day as for centuries, the presence in the interior and in the exterior of those who take steps to use the religion as a mean and as a tool to assure thousand sorts of political and personal purpose and interests prof iting from the ignorance and bigotry of the peoples obliges us to speak an this subject matter.

As it is seen those inspite of the clear truth wanted to make the caliph a ruler. They wanted to interfere the Caliph with the affairs of Moslems living in China, India, Afganistan, Iran, Irak, Syria, Palestine, Hedjaz, Yemen, Asir, Egypt, Tripoli in Africa, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan in short Moslems everywhere in the world and to put ali Moslem countries under the caliph-ruler’s administration. Thus was never realized in history. Moslem communities were at the same time separated from each other for many different reasons. Omayyads had in Spain in Andalusia, Shiite in Morocco (Magrip), Fatimids in Egypt and Abbassides in Bagdad a caliph, in other words had de dominion. Even it is well known that in Andalusia every thousand men had a caliph and a pulpit in a mosque. This was historical truth.

Atatürk conferred with army commanders at the beginning of January 1924 at izmir where army manoeuvres were taking place. On Febriuary 23 he returned to Ankara. The G.N.A. was discussing the budget. On March 2, 1924 at the party meeting Atatürk declared that “it has now become plainly evident truth that it is necessary to liberate and elevate the Islamic religion from its position of being a tool of politics, in the way that has been traditional for centuries. in order to secure the revival of Islamic Faith, religion must cease to be a political instrument”.18

Beside this internal development an ili judged foreign intervention made easier for Atatürk the abolition of the caliphate. On November 24, 1923 the Agha Khan and Mr. Ameer Ali A Privy Council wrote to ismet Pasha pointing out that the separation of the caliphate from the sultanate had increased its significance for Moslems in general respectfully urging “the imminent necessity for maintaining the religious and moral solidarity of islam by placing the Caliph -Imamate one basis which would command the confidence and esteem of the Müslim nations, and thus impart to the Turkish state unique strenght and dignity”.19

Turks believed that Agha Khan’s prestige in India had been largeley manufactured by the British so this foreign intervention made a negative effect.

For Atatürk islam was a’ natural religion’ in harmony with reason, science, knowledge and logic. Atatürk opposed to fanaticism, Atatürk said also: “Caliphate means administration or government, with the existence of another administration and government (Republican). Caliphate became redundant. The caliphate never enjoyed universal jurisdiction över the Moslem world. “During the World war Catholic unity failed as had the Holy War proclaimed by the Sultan and of which neither the Arabs nor the Moslem Indians took any notice”.20

Kazım Karabekir said “in spite of the Fetva of Great War (cihad-i ekber) I fought at Çanakkale and Irak with Moslem soldiers”. 21

On March 3, 1924 the G.N.A. abolished the caliphate and voted also the banishment from Turkey of ali members of Ottoman dynasty who were forbidden forever to enter an and to reşide within the frontiers of Turkish Republic. The Ministry of Seriye and Evkaf was abolished, the General Staff was taken out of Cabinet. Another very important reform was unification of ali instructions under the Ministry of National Education. in the course of debate a deputy who had visited India and Egypt on behalf of the Turkish Red Cres-cent organization claimed that a number of representative Moslem bodies in both these countries had asked him to represent them and authorized him to offer: the caliphate to Mustafa Kemal who refused pointing out realistically that the various Moslem sovereigns would be unlikely to execute his orders a Caliph, hence the role would be illusory.”22 Thanking those concerned for their good will towards him he said:

“You know that the Caliph is a political leader. How can I accept? Those who made this offer are subjects of a King, an Emperor. If I accept, will their rulers consent? ....

Have those who wish to make me Galiph the power to execute my orders? Would it not there fore be ridiculous to assume an empty title with no reality behind it.”23

Reforms were nothing but breaking the chains which were preventing the nation to advance in the path of survival and prosperity. The sultanate and the caliphate were abolished the republic was proclaimed but stili old time and old order were living within the society with its customs, traditions and superstitious believes. it was necessary with a large mobilization of education to make adopt as their own to the masses the reforms which were the truths of new times and new order: For speedy westernization it was necessary to combat ignorance. For this Atatürk in 1928 adopted Latin alphabet: Turks had three alphabets before Latin script: Uygur, the Gök Türk and Arabic. it is noteworthy that in 1924 a confer-ence of representatives of the Turkish peoples of the Soviet Union had decided to introduce Latin letters instead of Arabic. 24 in Turkey a special commission was appointed at the winter of 1928 to study the problem Arabic script was ili suited to the writing of Turkish particularly because Turkish has eight short vowels while Arabic distinguishes only three.25

İbrahim Müteferrika had introduced the first printing machine to Turkey in 1729 the G.N.A. adopted by a law on November 3, 1928 Latin alphabet instead of Arabic script, in 199 years when priting in arabic letter was possible in Turkey only 30.000 books were printed. So there is not really a great risk of “cutting the younger generations from ali the vast heritage of Ottoman litterature”:

Later the special commission was transformed into Türk Dil Kurumu. Atatürk wanted to eradicate ali Arabic and Persian words from the language. Ottoman Türkish has became an artifical and difficult language. The peasants forming the bulk and great majority of the population did not know the Ottoman Turkish : Türk Dil Kurumu was efficient and sometimes overzaelous, but Turkish of today is a purified language. Before republic, the history taught, had been mainly Ottoman history so that Turkish history began at 1299. Turkish intellectuals who studied in Europe insisted to have a general history of the Turks. Atatürk who was a remarkable student of history said: “National history will form moral front of our War of independ-ence because like our land, the past, civil identity and the human values of the Turkish nation were also invaded”.

Europe had fabricated lot of forgery and slanders about the Turks who twice besieged Vienna and Europeans said that Turks were barbarian, destructive, backwards that they had never created a civilization of their own. We can answer them saying that which barbarian nation had established more than hundred states in history. The last empire had lasted from. 1299 to 1920-In 1928 Atatürk saw a history book used in French schools in which Turks were said belonging to yellow race and a very back ward people: Upon this Atatürk ordered to make studies on the following questions: “Who are the oldest peoples of Turkey? Who have created the first civilization in Turkey and how? What is the place and service of the Turks in World History and World civilization? As it is impossible for the Turks to establish a state from a tribe in Anatolia what is the realexplanation of this fact? What is the true identity of History of islam and what are the place and role of the Turks in History of islam?

At the start a library was established. Ali Turkish historians studied books related to Turkish history and gave their reports to Atatürk : Their summary was published in 1930 under the name (The Guidelines of Turkish History). in 1931 Research Board of Turkish History (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Heyeti) was founded at the end there were four volumes of World History puplished for schools. At the 1932 in Ankara the First Congress of Turkish History met. Later Atatürk in his will left huge amounts to Türk Tarih Kurumu and Türk Dil Kurumu. Atatürk had initiated the great cultural upsurge with adoption of alphabet closing of medreses thus unifying the instruction creating Türk Tarih Kurumu to foster to study of Turkish and world history, creating Türk Dil Kurumu to render Turkish purified from foreign words. Compulsory free education in elementary schools was accepted.

One of the most important reforms of Atatürk is women franchise thus Turkish women took the place she deserved in the community. in the War of Independence Turkish women showed patriotism with endless sacrifices; they not only transported arms and wepons to front line but in many instances they were armed against the enemy. Before islam there was equality between men and women amongs Turks. in the ceremonies han and hatun sit together. Timur in the feast he gave to Spanish delegation had his wife sitting at his right. When Seljuk Sultan Sancar was taken prisoner his wife Türkân Hatun ruled the Empire; At Kutluk State, Turkish Indian States, and ilhanlılar there were women rulers and women viziers. Later by adoption of islam women lost her equal position. Atatürk saw this and said: “A society of nation consists of two kinds of people, called men and women. Can we shut our eyes to one portion of a group, while advancing the other, and stili bring progress to the whole group? Can half a community ascend to skies while the other half remains chained in the dust? The road of progress must be trodden by both sexes together marching arm in arm as comrades.” 26 At first in April 16, 1930 first time women were given by a law vote and right to be elected in local, municipal elections later by a law adopted on November 5, 1934 women were given national franchise they could vote in the election of the deputies and they were elected to the G.N.A. in Western democracies the women franchise was recognized in England on 1928, in France on 1944 and in Switzerland on 1969.

Mustafa Kemal was for entire adoption of Western civilization which was commun to ali mankind for this reason he wanted to adopt western cloths symbol of this civilization.27 in Eastern countries there was no a general dress there were local and national dresses but in West beside local and national dresses there was a general dress: fanatics who were creator of bigotry were linking the Western dress to the religion of West. Fez which was in reality a greek head gear was adopted by Mahmud the Second for the army instead of Kavuk (head gear of Yeniçeris). Civilian were putting ali kinds of caps, bonnets and head gears, there were ridiculous head gears : One of the uncountable greatnesses and first reason of Atatürk’s success was his understanding of the wants of his nation. He said: “Efendis it is necessary to throw out the fez which was at the top of the head of our nation as a symbol of ignorance, fanaticism, enemy of progress and civilization and to wear the hat which is accepted by the whole civilized world and thus to show to world that Turkish nation is sharing the civilized social life with its reasonning”.

Atatürk had left on August 24, 1925 very early for Kastamonu. He wore a panama hat. He adressed the people: “We must be civilized men from every point of view: Our ideas, our reasoning will be civilized from head to toe. Nation must know clearly that the civilization is such a fire that burns and destroys those who are not interested in it. We will find our deserved place in the civilized family in which we are and we will keep it and will announce it. Welfare, happiness and humanity require this.”28 On another occasion Atatürk said the following: “Nations who insist to maintain the in-tellectual level of Middles Ages are condemned to annihilated from the world. Turkish nation is obliged to be a branch of international civilization. This fact must be shown clearly with external appea-rance of the Türk: Civilized and international dress is a deserving dress for our nation.”29

Turban which was a symbol of religious knowledge and virtue by time had became a tool of swindlers to use the ignorants for their own benefits; turban was like the academic cap of western universities. Only those graduating from medresses were authorized to wear then Atatürk indicated this fradulent practice too. The G.N.A. enacted on October 25, 1925 a law by which it forbade wearing of the fez from November 28, 1925 on. The Cabinet had issued an ordinance on September 2, 1925 by which the only authorized religious people were permitted to wear turban and cloak. The G.N.A. enacted a law on December 3, 1935 which forbade the wearing of religious garb for every men of religion outside mosques, churches andsynagogues.

Orders, Tarikats (ways) were in the beginning useful institutions to enlighten Moslem peoples: for example Mesnevi were propagating fine arts, Bektaşi the idea of tolerance. But later they deteriorated, separatism and enmity among them was well spread. This is against islam which is a unifying force.

Atatürk spoke again: “The aim of the revolutionary measures we have been and are taking, is to bring the people of the Turkish Republic into a state of society which is entriely modern and civilized, in every sense and in every way it is essential that we bring about the utter rout of mentalities incapable of accepting this fact.

About the tarikats he said: “I take it that the aim of the orders can only be wellbeing of their followers, in worldy and spiritual life. I cannot accept the existence, in the civilized Turkish community, of people so primitive as to seek their material and spiritual wellbeing through the guidance of any old sheikh, today, when they stand in the radiant presence of learning and science of civilization and ali that it means. Gentelmen, I want you and the whole nation to understand well that the Republic of Turkey can never be land of sheikhs, dervishes, disciples and lay -brothers. The straightest, truest Way (tarikat) is the Way of civilization. To be a man, it is enough to do what civilization dictates and demands. The heads of the orders will grasp this truth I have stated and will at önce close their tekkes of their own accord. They will acknowlegde that their disciples have at last attained right guidance30.

Elaborate tombs (türbe) were built to remember great Turks, and holy men but it ended up with an exaggerated veneration paid to them. Atatürk spoke again and said: “it is disgraceful for a civilized society to seek help from the dead.”

The tekkes and zaviyes were closed by the Ordinance of September 2, 1925 and the law of November 30, 1925: Ali sheiks, disciples and dervishes were not going to use their title again and were forbidden to wear their respective dresses. On December 26, 1926 two laws were enacted abolishing Moslem calendar and Moslem system of telling time: On May 24, 1928 Moslem system of weights and measures were abolished by a law: The law of June 1, 1935 made sunday the weekend holiday instead of friday.

Among many qualities of Atatürk he was also an excellent orator. From i5th to 20 October he read his speech “not only one of the longest but also one of the more remarkable orations of modern times.” 31

The secularization and the westernization were only possible with the severence of Islamic law and adoption of Western law. The nature of legal reform was radical: the Swiss Civil Code which was newest amoung the European civil codcs and also was öpen to interpretation according to the needs was adopted entirely with very minör changes on February 17, 1926. There was no debate and no dissenting vote in the adoption at the G.N.A. The equality of women was thus confirmed from the point of private rights, inheritance and family law. Polygamy was abolished Mustafa Kemal called the Turkish civil law in his Great Speech “the law which secured the free-dom of woman and which rendered stronger the family law.”32 Jews and Christians were governed by their own old religious law. Art. 41 of the Lausanne Treaty had gauranteed this right. “The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of these minorities”.

In October 1925 the leaders of the Jewish and Armenian communities formally renunced this privilege “in view of the forth-coming introduction of a Western Civil Code:”33 in Jaunary 1926 the Greek community also renunciated the rights conferred in Art. 41.

The Code of Obligation was also translated from Swiss Code of Obligations: it was put in to force on May 8, 1928. The commercial Code was adopted from German Commercial Code it was put into effect on may 10, 1928: the penal code was based on Italian penal Code, the civil procedural code of Code of Neuchatel Canton and the penal procedural Code on German Federal Code of Procedure. The western laws were adopted but The Constitution itself was not yet secularized. Its Second article read: “the religion of the Turkish State İslam”. Its Twenty sixth article read: “The Religious affairs are run by the G.N.A.” On April 5, 1928 these religious provisions were delated from the Constitutions by Constitutional amendment.

Atatürk was a peace lover during his time five international disputes were solved by peacful settlement of international disputes. Two of them relate to Turkish Greek Population Exchange, one is the famous SS Lotus Bozkurt collision, case, the fourth is Musul problem and the fifth is Hatay problem. The first three were decided at the Permanent Court of International Justice, the fourth was solved by the League of Nations, the fifth with the help of League of Nations. Atatürk was the builder of Balkan and Saadabad Pacts. Balkan Pacts allied Turkey, Greece, Rumania and Yugoslavia, while Saadabad Pact united Turkey, Iran, Irak.

Atatürk knew that economics were crucial for the welfare of Turkey. So he adopted statism or etatism as his guiding principle. Turkish etatism was not inspired by communist experiment in Russia. The communism was not chosen by Atatürk as an economic model neither the capitalism. Turks chose a mixed economy and Atatürk used the term etatism and explained it in his opening speeches of the G.N.A. as early as 1931. While the drafting of the Mixed economy theory by Lord Keynes in his chief work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” was done in 1936. Turks dread capitalism which meant economic dependence on foreign states. The etatism was explained as follows in 1931: “in order to further the welfare of the nation and the restoration of the country within the shortest span of time and to maintain at the same time private enterprise as a working basis, the state will intervene only when all-out and vital interests of the nation are at stake.”34 This norm was amanded in 1935 by the following statement: “to the same extent as the state has to intervene with the economy of the country in order to secure effective and constructive production, the state will encourage private initiative and will direct and control enterprises already in existance.” 35 Etatism was explained as follows in the Program of the People’s Republican Party:36 “The thought of raising welfare level of the nation and reconstruction of the fatherland exposed the necessity of using the comprehensive and superior force of the state in the f ield of economy and development instead of limited activities of individual enterprises. The People’s Republican Party who felt this necessity in the existence of the nation eventhough takes as essential the private and individual activities accepts as the principles that in the businesses where general and high interests are at stake especially in economic field the state must be put in action and this principle is included in the Party’s program.

in the party program the necessity of etatism is formulated in two principles: The state will intervene in two ways in the national economy.

1. The state as a founder and as a builder

2. The state will organize and control those activities left to private enterprises. These two principles are stated in the program as follows: “The interest of the State with economic activities is not only its factual contribution to production but also is to give preference to private enterprises and to organize and control the activities going on”.

“One point especially needs clarification, the etatism of the People’s Republican Party is not related at ali to collectivist and wholesale etatism hich does not render possible private and individual initiatives and activities, does not recognize the property rights and concentrates ali economic activities and ali means of productions in the hands of the State.”37

The six principles of the People’s Republican Party were included into the Constitution. Second Article read: “The Turkish state is republican nationalist, popülist, etatist, secular and reformist”.

The existence of one party (two opposition parties were established but they had a short life because of the action of reactionaries) would have led emergence of a dangerous totalitarianism. However it is a tribute to the traditional temperence and wisdom of the Turkish policy that the country was not led into that path. The instincts and the sentiments of the Turks tended throughout the ages towards the democratic way of life. it is noteworthy that the Turks never had a class system, never a nobility. The capable person always could reach the highest positions.38

The radicalism of the Kemalistic evolution limited itself to the abolition of the governmental methods of the sultanate while though the program of modernization the spirit of Western democracy penetrated country more and more: The disposition in Ankara was not “doctrinaire” at ali, it was realistic to the point where it would be difFicult to phrase and ideological definition of Kemalistic Re-volution. The main aim was to build a Turkey fit to live and to survive, that vitality could be achieved only by modernization39:

On June 21, 1935 Atatürk said “I am happy because I succeeded.”40 He was right the Kemalist reforms were normative as well as far reaching; they were also capable of uniform application throughout the country. 41

The western style modern nation state was built and Atatürk was its chief architect. Joseph C. Grew the US Ambassador to Turkey (1927-1932) observed in 1930 in his diary: “Modern Turkey is working out a problem which never before has been attempted in so short a space of time. Realizing that in the exacting demands of modern competition, parity with European nations could only be achieved though the adoption of western civilization and western culture, the new Turkish Republic has thrown off the retarding trammels of orientalism as practices under the regimes of Abdul Hamid and his predecessors. The Sultanate and the Caliphate have been abolished and with them has göne, too, the old time fez which was symbolic of the unproressive past. The Government has separated itself from islam; the old Moslem schools, where the youth of the country spent its formative years chanting the Koran and were largely hindred from acquiring a \vestern education, have been suppressed; the women have been unveiled and will, according to present indications, eventually received the vote; polygamy has been abolished and western codes of civil, criminal and commercial law have been adapted to the Turkish needs; the Latin alphabet has supplanted the old Arabic script-and ali this has been done not as a process of slow development, but in the very few years that have elapsed since the Republic was founded. One by one old branches dead and rotting, have been chopped off almost overnight, from the central tree-trunk where the sap is healthy and capable of contributing to new and healthy growth. This amazing revolution is due to a keen and forceful nationalistic spirit, much of the same intensity as that which inspired our own country in 1776, but it is due in greatest measure to one man, the father of this country, Mustafa Kemal who having driven the foreign invaders from this land, set about to cure “the Sick Man of Europe” and to make him perma-nently well and strong.” 42 This is an eloquent summary of Atatürk’s reforms.

And Atatürk as he said in 1935 has succeed to build his modern nation state: 48 year after his death Turkish nation defends his legacies and respectfully venerates his unforgettable memory.

1 Richard Peters, The Story of the Turks from Empire to Democracy, NewYork, 1959, p. 93.
2 ibid. p. 94.
3 Arnold J. Toynbee and Kenneth P. Kirkwood, Turkey, New York, 1927, p. 85.
4 ibid.
5 ibid. p. 85-86.
6 ibid. p. 85.
7Yaşar Nabi Nayir, “Atatürkism and Secularism” Political and Social Thoughlin the Contemporary Middle East, Edited by Kemal H. Karpat, New York. 1968 p. 323.
8 Lewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye. The United States and Turkey and İran, 19,51 p. 67.
8 G.N.A stands for Grand National Assembly. 10 Thomas, op. cit. p. 72.
11 ibid. p. 71.
12 Falih Rıfkı Atay, Çankaya, istanbul, 1968, p. 445.
13 ibid p. 73.
14 Hüseyin Nail Kubali, Türk Devrim (inkılap) Tarihi, 1973, p. 107-108.
15 Nayir, op. cit. p. 326.
16 Lewis, op. cit. p. 75.
17 Ministry of Seriye and Evkaf is the Ministry for Religious Affairs and Foundations
18 Lord Kinross, Atatürk. The Rebirth of a Nation, 1964, p. 385.
19 Arnold J. Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs, 1925, p. 571; Lewis, op. cü. p. 83; Kinross, op. cit. p. 384.
20 Count Garlo Sforza, Makers of Modern Europe, Indianapolis, 1930, p. 130.
21 Tarik Z. Tunaya, Atatürk ve Atatürkçülük, p. 83.
22Kinross, op. cit, p. 386 footnote 1.
23 Lewis, op. cit. p. 84.
24 ibid. 97
25 ibid.
26 ibid. 93.
27 islam Ansiklopedisi, Atatürk, p. 783.
28 Altuğ, op. cit. p. 332.
29 Dr. Ernest Jackh, Yükselen Hilal, Dünkü, Bugünkü, Yarınki Türkiye, Çeviren Perihan Kuturman, 1946, p. 213.
30 Lewis. op. cit. p. 93.
31 Thomas. op. cit. p. 78
32 Atatürk, Nutuk, v. 2, p. 336.
33 Lewis. op. cit. p. 95.
31 Peters, p. 190.
35 ibid. 191.
86 Altuğ, p. 219.
87 ibid. p. 220.
38 Peters, 190.
81 ibid.
40 A. Afetinan, Atatürkten Yazdıklarım, 1969, Ankara, p. 58.
41 Oğuz Babüroğlu, Towards a Theory of Stalemated Social Systems :Turkish Case in Dependence and Inequality, Edited Van der Zoumer and Felix Geyer, 1982.
42 Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era. A Diplomatic Record of Forty years, 1904-1945, Edited by Walter Johnson, Assisted by Nancy Harvison Hooker, Boston, 1952, vol a, p. 707-708.  

Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Altuğ 

Source: ATATÜRK ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ DERGİSİ, Sayı 7, Cilt: III, Kasım 1986