Turkey: A Time for Truth

Turkey has ceased to be Turkey; this does not mean that the Turkish citizens started speaking another language or have been replaced by others, but it signifies that the country founded by Kemal Ataturk, whom his worst enemies mendaciously invoke ceaselessly, stopped being what it was ever since the great visionary introduced the conceptual and the constitutional frames that let him materialize his vision.

However, the aforementioned aphorism does not describe an irreversible situation thus far. With a few corrective acts, Turkey can again be Turkey; or even better, Turkey can become a 21st century Turkey, what Kemal Ataturk would have certainly wished for the state and the nation he shaped, namely a permanently updated country based on the pillars of his thought and the basic principles he had adopted.

An Anti-Turkish Option

Still there are – fortunately of unfortunately – some other options. One of them, the most ominous one, is that Turkey goes beyond the point of no return, and the alteration becomes a new political reality, solid and enduring. In that case, the dissimulation and subversion tactics of the pernicious and odious premier Erdogan will have won, turning ex-Turkey to a filthy "Arab" postcolonial state of Turkish speaking, vulgar and uncouth idiots who spread disposed sanitary napkins in the remotest beaches of the country so that ‘Westernized’ people do not find pleasure in swimming and sinning anymore.

An Un-Turkish Alternative

There is one more option, more plausible than the previous but dismal as well. This option is not totally anti-Turkish as the previous, but one would characterize it as genuinely un-Turkish. According to this alternative, the factors of the anti-Turkish dynamics that led to the present difficult situation will all be canceled and virtually outmaneuvered. An effort will be made to return back to the historically standardized ‘Turkey’. This effort will have all the characteristics of resolution, determination, and good intentions; but it will be theoretically puerile and carried out through definitely un-Turkish methods that Kemal Ataturk himself would have disapproved of, had he been alive.

This effort will be based upon the desire to preserve a situation and not upon the determination to defend principles; all accounts considered, the decision to materialize this effort will emanate from the heart and not the mind. The result will be an equally critical impasse; a country that will look like Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey without however being so.

If an Islamic Republic of Turkey is Erdogan’s purely Anti-Turkish target, why should one characterize as Un-Turkish the target of his secularist opponents, who regroup political parties, academic and intellectual elites, the Judiciary and the Military, plus the most important part of the Business Circle?

Simple Grammar is enough to clarify the situation; an adjective formed out of two components the first of which is the word ‘anti’ signifies opposition to an idea or a concept. Contrarily, an adjective formed out of two components the first of which is the word ‘un’ (or ‘in’) means absence of the basic constituent elements that compose the idea or the concept expressed by the adjective without the prefix.

Un-Turkish is everything that, without being Anti-Turkish, is devoid of the fundamental components of the theory, the ideas and the thoughts of Kemal Ataturk. Whereas an extension of his ideas and their adaptation within a different international context are not ‘un-Turkish’, the pure imitation of forms void of contents and of theoretical substance leads to a simulacrum of Turkey, not Turkey itself. But a pale image of Turkey, a structural reminiscence of the state founded by Kemal Ataturk is not Turkey anymore; it’s an un-Turkish state.

Why an effort to eliminate the Anti-Turkish enemies of the secular, democratic and progressive state of Kemal Ataturk can lead to an Un-Turkish Turkey?

Lack of Theoretical Preparatory Work

Few among Kemal Ataturk’s admirers, followers, and supporters in today’s Turkey realize that there had been a theoretical preparatory work that finally found the possibility to be first expressed as political ideas and system and second materialized as a political reality in 1920s Turkey. Speaking of theoretical preparatory work, we don’t limit it to Kemal Attautk himself exclusively, although we ascribe to the founder of the modern Turkish state a sizeable part of this work.

A theoretical undertaking is not always identical to an ideological endeavour. The latter involves books published, projects announced, and ideas debated; the former can be a system of thoughts and political measures discussed among a small circle of individuals that at a final stage takes the form of some notes and guidelines that in due course of time are materialized by a government.

This reality means that the importance of a measure taken by a Turkish government in the 20s and the 30s lies not in the imposition of a policy but in the basic principles and concepts that this measure encapsulates. In other words, Kemal Ataturk did not found a modern secular, laic, democratic and progressive state just because this form of government pleased or suited him but because he accepted the concept of it, and he found that concept very useful and absolutely constructive.

For the establishment of a modern secular, laic, democratic and progressive state a society sharing these values is necessary. All these values emanate from the basic concept and value of the People. A modern secular, laic, democratic and progressive state consists in a guarantee for the future of a people, a nation. By themselves the aforementioned ideals are good for nothing; their value is proportional to the benefit a people or nation gets from them.

The Opponents of the Anti-Turkish premier Erdogan of Turkey

As we said the opponents of the malignant Turkish premier belong to different backgrounds; working together, they intend to make use of the Judiciary in order to remove premier Erdogan and eventually president Gul from office. Their approach is based on the desire to preserve a sociopolitical environment they have been used to or they enjoyed very much. There is no indication that their attitude and activities are due to their commitment to the people of Turkey. The reason is simple; they do not care sufficiently enough to diffuse their ideas and concepts among the Turkish people.

How differently they act from Kemal Ataturk!

The founder of the Turkish state would find at least comical to impose some ideas that would be shared by some minority around him. Kemal Ataturk did not wish just to obtain political power and impose measures opposite to the choices of the Ottoman Court; he considered that his principles, concepts and values mattered if shared by the largest possible part of the Turkish people.

What the opponents of the malignant Turkish premier fail to understand in today’s Turkey is that what matters is the reinvigoration of the concept of the secular and laic society, and the principle of the progressive and democratic state – among the Turkish people. Either they kick Erdogan and Gul out or not, the issue is secondary. What matters is the Turkish people, the values and the principles shared by all strata of the Turkish society. At that level, an important theoretical battle should be engaged.

Preserving a secular and laic state by means that show a minority elite opposing the choice of the majority of the people is suicidal. First of all, Erdogan’s followers do not form the majority of the people thus far. However, they have created a certain dynamics and they rely thereon. This dynamics cannot be outmaneuvered by elites but by social strata. Either they will be mobilized and they will clash with Erdogan or gradually they will be absorbed by his followers.

Thus, an effort undertaken in order to eliminate Erdogan without triggering a vibrant ideological clash against his followers will end up in a shadowy secular Turkey whereby the majority will be pulled to Islamic Extremism. This ‘Turkish’ state will be secular but disinterested of the people, and the people will be radicalized and pulled to Islamic Extremism, and at the same time disinterested of the state.

That weak state will be ruled by an elite who in the name of Kemal Ataturk will pursue a policy totally unrelated to the practices by the founder the Turkish state. Seeking to protect their interests, these elites will end up in a simulacrum of Turkey whereby all women will be constrained to wear the Islamic veil.

The only place women will not go will be the ministries, the administration offices and Anit Kabir, Ataturk’s Mausoleum. Far from these places, the ‘Turkish’ people will be sharing the same ideas as the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the Palestinians, and the Egyptians; and Turkey will be just a name.