Turkey may take Ataturk out of parliamentary oath

[Hammer-fist]

AKP proposes removing Atatürk, secularism from parliamentary oath

ISTANBUL


The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has removed "Atatürk's reforms and principles" and "secularism" from the wording of the parliamentary oath in its submission to the Constitutional Conciliation Commission, daily Hürriyet has reported.

Deputies currently swear in to "remain true to the secular and democratic republic and to Atatürk's reforms and principles," however the AKP's submission excludes those lines.

Meanwhile, the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party's (BDP) submission suggests that deputies not recite the oaths all together, while the Republican People's Party's (CHP) proposal included "loyalty to the Constitution," as well as human rights.

POLITICS - AKP proposes removing Atatürk, secularism from parliamentary oath

1. What exactly did they mean by "secularism"?

French-style militant anti-religious laicism?

or

Anglo-Saxon style religion-neutral secularism?

In the first you cannot wear religious attire in a public building or as a public servant. In the second you can, and the practise of religion may even be facilitated however no legislation can be based on religion.

 

[Cherokee]

I have been reading about Such incidents in one form or the other how founding Principles of Turkey which is based on Secularism and Vision of Ataturk is slowly being Sidelined by the current ruling party and slowly religion is getting a foothold in Turkey . I maybe wrong but this is my personal Observation .

 

[Hammer-fist]

Well you're right.

The AKP is a conservative centre-right party many of whose leaders are actually members of Sufi brotherhoods.

They definitely don't want the militant anti-Islamic secularism of Kemalism, but how far will they go?

The most extreme example of conservatism is Saudi Arabia (women can't drive), then Iran.

However before that are most other Muslim states which for a westerner are very socially conservative but do not apply the "Islamic" (I question how Islamic some of it really is i.e. the non-Quranic aspects) penal code.

Indonesia in its own way is secular with its Pancasila.

The ex-Soviet states have their own forms of at times repressive secularism.

Where Turkey will go no one knows.

However Kemalism is essentially dead/dying as it became nothing more than a repressive and hateful dogma.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

However Kemalism is essentially dead/dying as it became nothing more than a repressive and hateful dogma.

What is Kemalism? Do you know? Was M.Kemal Ataturk Kemalist?

 

[Hammer-fist]

Good question, please give us:

1. Your interpretation of what is Kemalism.

2. Your interpretation and definition of "secularism", and what specifically Turkey's MPs should abide by when pledging to follow "secularism".

If however you wish me to answer your question first, that's fine. Just le me know.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Kemalism appeared out of Turkish Nationalism. M. Kemal being a Student of Turkish Nationalism, started reforming society after taking power. With every system destined to decline, as Ibn Haldun stated in his 5-stage doctrine, Kemalism founded, risen, stagnated, declined and collapsing.

Corrupt version of Kemalism became an excuse for Islamists to assault Turkish Nationalism. And I would not expect westernists, Islamists, kurdicists get along with it. Today people judge Ataturk for being harsh, tomorrow they Will judge him for being soft. Thats complicated.

 

[Hammer-fist]

There are two ways to definite Kemalism, the more accurate political science one, or the shorthand way.

1. Political science: Kemalism is an attempt to tackle the regression (irtica) of the late Ottoman period and create a new modern and successful republic (cumhurriyet), free of what had become the corrupt Ottoman dynasty.

Kemalism, now called that after Mustafa Kemal, is the accumulation of perhaps a century of late Ottoman intellectual thought and many of the late Ottoman intelligentsia were heavily inspired by French philosophy as as Kemal for instance in terms of Comte and positivism.

Kemalism seeks for Turkey and Turks, what is called in Arabic "medina mu'assare" (Turkish spelling is different) or contemporary civilization.

Also Kemalism has been defined by six key features (the 6 arrows on the logo of Ataturk's party, the CHP) which included Republicanism, Statism and other things.

2. Shorthand: A Kemalist eventually became to be thought of as basically a fascist who

- engaged in virtual worship of Ataturk
- a racist who hated Kurds.
- a secular fanatic who hated Islam and other religions.

This was until recently what most of the senior Turkish army commanders were, to the extent that they forbade prayer (namaz) and hated hijab (basortusu), as well as hating Kurds.

Erdogan has basically annihilated the second type of "Kemalists" (Ataturk-worshipping secular fascists) but Mustafa Kemal can now be studied independently and objectively for both of his positive and negative contributions.

This is in a simplistic way what I am referring to when I talk about Kemalism, and most of the time I am using it as a shorthand for definition no.2. As for the correct political science definition of Turkish Republicanism/Kemalism I only use that in the context of more advanced discussion.

As for "secularism", late Ottoman intelligentsia were heavily influenced by France and its neo-Jacobin inspired thinkers and this caused two problems.

i. The embracing of French-style militant laicism which hated religion and sought to suppress it and ban it from the public sphere.

ii: Embracing French-style ideas of a mono-cultural, mono-linguistic centralist state. France to this day does not ratify EU treaties on minority languages and restricts education in traditional regional languages. The problem with this in the Turkish context was that in practical terms it meant an attempt at the linguistic and cultural genocide of Kurds.

Post-Kemalist Turkey and the post-Kemalist AKP have abandoned both of these French-inspired ideas and are now looking at an Anglo-Saxon version of secularism (practise of religion in the public/private sphere is fine but cannot influence the state) and a multi-cultural approach to the ethnic and linguistic mosaic of Anatolia.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Multiculturalism wont work, as Islam would not create umbrella for ethnicities. Atheism, Shamanism, Yezidism are on the rise. People now openly refuse their Islamic background. Instead of coexistance of Islam and Nationalism, people select one of either.

In order to satisfy Kurds, you are playing with the feelings of Turks. That would lead nowhere. Mosaic would get broken some time in the future, as it happened many times since the arrival of Turks in Anatolia. Necessaties brought this system, it was necessary to do so. Implementing a new one comes with his problems.

 

[mb444]

Whilst i see nothing wrong in lionising Ataturk, taking oath to him seems strange in a democracy after he has died.

I support this move by Erdogan. Turkiye is the leading Muslim nation in the world and where it goes other countries will follow.

I am hoping that turkey remains an example of a islamic democracy where all strands of society and opinion can exist side by side ..... Islamic, secularist etc. My personal opinion ataturk did what he did because it was necessary at the time. Without him turkey would have fallen to the western power and that would have meant total subjugation of Muslim nation.

Because turkey remained independent colonials could not solidify their gains after WW1 and the Arabs gained freedom. Beyond the region he had profound impact on the Muslim of the subcontinent and Bangladesh in particular.

I salute ataturk for his achievement but also support erdogan. Ataturk legacy is secure, let him exist in the higher echelon of history. Bringing him in to day to day politics so far after his death I think cheapens him.....

 

[somebozo]

AKP is taking Turkey into an identity crisis like Pakistan.

 

[Hammer-fist]

Multiculturalism wont work, as Islam would not create umbrella for ethnicities. Atheism, Shamanism, Yezidism are on the rise. People now openly refuse their Islamic background. Instead of coexistance of Islam and Nationalism, people select one of either.

In order to satisfy Kurds, you are playing with the feelings of Turks. That would lead nowhere. Mosaic would get broken some time in the future, as it happened many times since the arrival of Turks in Anatolia. Necessaties brought this system, it was necessary to do so. Implementing a new one comes with his problems.

1. I don't think Yezidsm is anything major, but from what I can see (not that I am an expert) yes there is an increase of Turks who reject Islam, mainly from the secular urban classes especially the Aegean, but they are a minority and increasingly a weak minority, though they were the ruling elite not any more though with the capture of power by the "black" (kara) Turks and "Anadolu Aslanlari" (Anatolian tigers/lions). The Naqshbandi tariqa is the most powerful factor in Turkey now through both its competing sub-groups, the Nurcular and the more powerful Milli Gorus (real power behind a lot of the AKP).

2. Most Kurds in Turkey are not interested in the secular Marxism of the PKK and simply wanted the ability to express their Kurdish indentity but within the framework of the Turkish state. Anti-PKK Kurds heavily outnumber PKK Kurds. It was only "Kemalism" (fascism) that really gave the PKK such support. The PKK are a terrorist and mafia organization anyway and in the long run just as the brutal TSK were eventually crushed by the Milli Gorus (AKP) the brutal PKK will not fare too well, when there is no major repression against Kurds.

The PKK ideologically, economically has nothing to offer Kurds.

3. It is easier to reconcile with Sunni Kurds than with Alevis (of either ethnicity) and it is Alevis who have provided a lot of support for the CHP and also the PKK, but still they are a minority.

4. Islam in Turkey would provide the umbrella for the different groups, Alevis, secularists, secessionist Kurds etc are all minorities and always will be as modern Turkey is still fundamentally a continuation of the Sunni Ottoman Turkish state.

 

[Hammer-fist]

Whilst i see nothing wrong in lionising Ataturk, taking oath to him seems strange in a democracy after he has died.

I support this move by Erdogan. Turkiye is the leading Muslim nation in the world and where it goes other countries will follow.

I am hoping that turkey remains an example of a islamic democracy where all strands of society and opinion can exist side by side ..... Islamic, secularist etc. My personal opinion ataturk did what he did because it was necessary at the time. Without him turkey would have fallen to the western power and that would have meant total subjugation of Muslim nation.

Because turkey remained independent colonials could not solidify their gains after WW1 and the Arabs gained freedom. Beyond the region he had profound impact on the Muslim of the subcontinent and Bangladesh in particular.

I salute ataturk for his achievement but also support erdogan. Ataturk legacy is secure, let him exist in the higher echelon of history. Bringing him in to day to day politics so far after his death I think cheapens him.....

1. A while back the AKP foreign minister Davutoglu cancelled a trip to Argentina due to some anti-Ataturk action (can't remember what exactly) by the Argentines. So despite being a tariqah (Sufi brotherhood) cabinet and government, the AKP are cognisant of Mustafa Kemal's contributions and do not hate him.

Contrary to many lower rank and file Milli Gorus Turks they do not despise him, since having more education they are appreciative of what he did. However Kemal also did things that have to be condemned. Neither extreme of virtually deifying him to potraying him as a demon are correct. He was neither.

2. The very fact that the AKP is even openly contemplating an idea now shows how much power has swung to conservatives in Turkey and how much "Kemalism" has weakened.

Erdogan has crushed the Kemalist army and put most of the top Kemalist army thugs in prison.

However Erdogan would never insult Ataturk and is not an Ataturk-hater (just someone who doesn't agree with his excessive secularism).

What sort of Turkey will emerge from all this will be interesting to see, however we Bengalis will always support Turkey and Turks as we did in the Turkish war of independence, over North Cyprus so wish them all the best!

 

[Tshering22]

Whilst i see nothing wrong in lionising Ataturk, taking oath to him seems strange in a democracy after he has died.

Ataturk inspires a kind of nationalism that has never been experienced in the subcontinent. Because our leaders of that time (1947) were nothing more than British toilet cleaners (Congress).

So it is difficult for you to understand.

I don't know whether you're aware of Netaji.

But picture him in his place.

You will understand why Turks respect and love Mustafa Kemal so much.

I support this move by Erdogan. Turkiye is the leading Muslim nation in the world and where it goes other countries will follow.

Wrong.

Turkey is not an islamic country and you need to grow out of the Ottoman era when the Turks themselves have matured and come out of Ottoman mindset.

It is an era gone and about time non-Turkish Muslims such as you and Pakistanis come out of it.

You don't see us living in emperor Ashoka's or king Dushyant's era.

There is no as such leader of the Islamic world and your own leadership is in your hands.

Realize this.

I am hoping that turkey remains an example of a islamic democracy where all strands of society and opinion can exist side by side ..... Islamic, secularist etc. My personal opinion ataturk did what he did because it was necessary at the time. Without him turkey would have fallen to the western power and that would have meant total subjugation of Muslim nation.

First line here you are contradicting the second line. I agree strongly with your second.

Today Turkey is strong, modern and rational because Ataturk made it. If it had continued the Ottoman way, there would have been no Turkey today.

Because turkey remained independent colonials could not solidify their gains after WW1 and the Arabs gained freedom. Beyond the region he had profound impact on the Muslim of the subcontinent and Bangladesh in particular.

That is simply because of the confusion of subcontinent's Muslims who are confused about their identity to this date.

Ataturk inspired no religious passion and kept religion to personal life. His ideals were totally civil and considering that Ataturk stood on the other side of practising your religion, I am surprised you and the Pakistanis consider him as a star religious figurehead who inspired some sort of islamic grouping.

Please read about what and who Ataturk was.

Ataturk legacy is secure, let him exist in the higher echelon of history. Bringing him in to day to day politics so far after his death I think cheapens him.....

Beautifully said.

Totally agree.

 

[INDIC]

It won't be a nice move to belittle secularism in Turkey.

 

[mb444]

AKP is taking Turkey into an identity crisis like Pakistan.

Pakistan having an identity crisis.... How bro?

In terms of turkey.... It is the inheritor of Islamic empire.... The highest seat of our civilisation. It remains the foremost of Muslim nations. I do not see anything that should change that identity. Ataturk was a great man and should be given his due. But turkey is bigger than ataturk. Turks and turkey may not wish it but it needs to be the beacon that the rest of the Muslim nation can rally around..... It is the burden of empire .... Ataturk kept the empire from disintegrating but turkeys destiny can not in my opinion be be just a middle size central Asian country.