Why Ataturk's regime did not last long ?
M. Orhan Tarhan
September 15, 2008
Ataturk´s regime converted Ottoman Turks with 7 % literacy in 15 years to an independent democratic republic with much higher literacy, emancipated its women, and gave them the right to elect and be elected.
It changed its alphabet to a Latin alphabet, put its children in secular schools where modern science, technology, and philosophy were taught, and professed that the best guide in life is science. It also abolished the caliphate, closed all religious schools, outlawed the Shania part of the Koran and separated religion from state (Laicism). It built also a nucleus of a modern industry, in the shade of which private industry was expected to flourish. The aim was to bring the Turkish society to the level of Western countries. Yet this wonderful regime did not last more than 70 years after Ataturk´s death.. What was missing in it?
Why did the American Republic, The United States of America, last 232 years and is still going strong? It was started from the bottom up. For a long time before the American Revolution, the British colonies had learned to govern themselves, using all the democratic methods. When the revolution came, all they had to do was to build a new state structure upon this democratic foundation. Most Americans were Christians or Jews. These religions did not claim to force the citizens to live a complete way of life, like Islam.
The French Revolution of 1789 did not last long at all. They got Napoleon, who made himself Emperor. After Napoleon, they had again kings.. Finally, after the defeat of 1871, a real republic was founded. I think they have the fifth Republic now.
The Ataturk Revolution was very successful in 1923-1938, but then Ataturk´s successors destroyed it. Why?
Did President Inonu and his successors not understand why Ataturk´s reforms were necessary for the survivability of Turkey, or did they understand it, but not believed in it? There certainly was a serious lack of communication between Ataturk and the people who worked for him.
The vital necessity of the reforms could only be explained after all the reforms were announced. Ataturk was clever enough to withhold future reforms until the proper time had arrived. Too early announcement of a reform could be counter productive because the public opinion would not be properly prepared for it. The king of Afghanistan liked Ataturk´s reforms very much. He attempted to implement them in his country without preparing the public opinion for them. He was toppled. Preparing the public opinion, and timing the reforms correctly was very important. Ataturk was a master in it. After all the reforms were announced, Ataturk had very little time left.
Of course the reforms were properly explained and implemented, but the vital necessity why they were needed was not well communicated. Although I was in High school during Ataturk´s years, I learned about these reasons much later. My father, Major General M. Hayri Tarhan, was a class mate of Ataturk in the General Staff College.(1904-1906) They all were concerned about the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and searched what the Europeans did right to be as strong as they were. For that they studied the history of Europe since Galileo, and the writings of the French Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century, namely Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Diderot. Among all his classmates, Ataturk was the only one who got the correct conclusion: Turks had to do everything the Europeans are doing, so that they be as strong , and as educated as them. Then only they could survive the European onslaught. He found that Islam was part of the problem, a subject he wisely did not share with his class-mates. It was not enough to be militarily strong, the entire population had to be educated and brought up to the European level. Of course it was already too late to save the Ottoman Empire, but after WWI and the Independence War (1919-1923) Ataturk implemented his reforms in the Republic of Turkey, he founded. During the last decade, I was curious to know what my father and Ataturk read and I read the writings of the four Enlightenment philosophers and the European history since Galileo. I think we should have been taught a summary of this knowledge in the history course on 12th grade, some 70 years ago, along with the conclusions drawn by Ataturk from them.
Kilic Ali, an uncle of my wife, wrote in his memoirs almost daily events in Ataturk´s life. He was one of the people who always were present in Ataturk´s dinner table. Only his youngest son, Altemur is still alive. I recently asked him why his father did not mention about the discussions on that dinner table of the reasons for the reforms. Altemur answered me that there were some discussion, in fact twice these discussions "were gone off the rail". Which means that some of Ataturk´s close co-workers had trouble in accepting the vital reasons for the reforms. I understand that Inonu had never properly understood Ataturk. Celal Bayar did, and that is why he had trouble dealing with Menderes. Ataturk failed to leave us a written document explaining clearly all these vital reasons.
The People´s Republican party, founded by Ataturk, created two very useful institutions: (1) The "People´s Houses" that were cultural centers open to everybody, in part to increase the public education and culture in every town. (2) the "Village Institutes" that did the same thing to villages. These two institutions , in time would have brought the reforms to the small towns and villages and Turkey would have looked quite different today. The regime would have lasted. After 1950, the Democrats closed both institutions, viewing them simply as
propaganda means of the Peoples´ Republican Party. They did a stupid thing.
Such a system of reforms represented a drastic change in the life of the Turkish people, and as such, it could be applied only top down by an authoritarian government. Unfortunately, then there was not enough time left to educate the peasantry. Ataturk died in 1938 at the age of 57. Sociological progress toward the end of the 20th century brought the uninformed and uneducated peasantry as a middle class to the big cities. They brought with them their religion and changed the entire political picture of the country.
We have to conclude, that Ataturk´s regime did not last more than 70 years after his death, because it had to be top-down, it was not properly explained to the people by his successors, institutions which would keep it alive were closed after 1950, no written document was left by Ataturk to explain the vital reasons for the reforms, and the ignorant peasantry progressed and became middle class and brought its religion to the public domain, where no religion was supposed to exist according to laicism.
It changed its alphabet to a Latin alphabet, put its children in secular schools where modern science, technology, and philosophy were taught, and professed that the best guide in life is science. It also abolished the caliphate, closed all religious schools, outlawed the Shania part of the Koran and separated religion from state (Laicism). It built also a nucleus of a modern industry, in the shade of which private industry was expected to flourish. The aim was to bring the Turkish society to the level of Western countries. Yet this wonderful regime did not last more than 70 years after Ataturk´s death.. What was missing in it?
Why did the American Republic, The United States of America, last 232 years and is still going strong? It was started from the bottom up. For a long time before the American Revolution, the British colonies had learned to govern themselves, using all the democratic methods. When the revolution came, all they had to do was to build a new state structure upon this democratic foundation. Most Americans were Christians or Jews. These religions did not claim to force the citizens to live a complete way of life, like Islam.
The French Revolution of 1789 did not last long at all. They got Napoleon, who made himself Emperor. After Napoleon, they had again kings.. Finally, after the defeat of 1871, a real republic was founded. I think they have the fifth Republic now.
The Ataturk Revolution was very successful in 1923-1938, but then Ataturk´s successors destroyed it. Why?
Did President Inonu and his successors not understand why Ataturk´s reforms were necessary for the survivability of Turkey, or did they understand it, but not believed in it? There certainly was a serious lack of communication between Ataturk and the people who worked for him.
The vital necessity of the reforms could only be explained after all the reforms were announced. Ataturk was clever enough to withhold future reforms until the proper time had arrived. Too early announcement of a reform could be counter productive because the public opinion would not be properly prepared for it. The king of Afghanistan liked Ataturk´s reforms very much. He attempted to implement them in his country without preparing the public opinion for them. He was toppled. Preparing the public opinion, and timing the reforms correctly was very important. Ataturk was a master in it. After all the reforms were announced, Ataturk had very little time left.
Of course the reforms were properly explained and implemented, but the vital necessity why they were needed was not well communicated. Although I was in High school during Ataturk´s years, I learned about these reasons much later. My father, Major General M. Hayri Tarhan, was a class mate of Ataturk in the General Staff College.(1904-1906) They all were concerned about the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and searched what the Europeans did right to be as strong as they were. For that they studied the history of Europe since Galileo, and the writings of the French Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century, namely Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Diderot. Among all his classmates, Ataturk was the only one who got the correct conclusion: Turks had to do everything the Europeans are doing, so that they be as strong , and as educated as them. Then only they could survive the European onslaught. He found that Islam was part of the problem, a subject he wisely did not share with his class-mates. It was not enough to be militarily strong, the entire population had to be educated and brought up to the European level. Of course it was already too late to save the Ottoman Empire, but after WWI and the Independence War (1919-1923) Ataturk implemented his reforms in the Republic of Turkey, he founded. During the last decade, I was curious to know what my father and Ataturk read and I read the writings of the four Enlightenment philosophers and the European history since Galileo. I think we should have been taught a summary of this knowledge in the history course on 12th grade, some 70 years ago, along with the conclusions drawn by Ataturk from them.
Kilic Ali, an uncle of my wife, wrote in his memoirs almost daily events in Ataturk´s life. He was one of the people who always were present in Ataturk´s dinner table. Only his youngest son, Altemur is still alive. I recently asked him why his father did not mention about the discussions on that dinner table of the reasons for the reforms. Altemur answered me that there were some discussion, in fact twice these discussions "were gone off the rail". Which means that some of Ataturk´s close co-workers had trouble in accepting the vital reasons for the reforms. I understand that Inonu had never properly understood Ataturk. Celal Bayar did, and that is why he had trouble dealing with Menderes. Ataturk failed to leave us a written document explaining clearly all these vital reasons.
The People´s Republican party, founded by Ataturk, created two very useful institutions: (1) The "People´s Houses" that were cultural centers open to everybody, in part to increase the public education and culture in every town. (2) the "Village Institutes" that did the same thing to villages. These two institutions , in time would have brought the reforms to the small towns and villages and Turkey would have looked quite different today. The regime would have lasted. After 1950, the Democrats closed both institutions, viewing them simply as
propaganda means of the Peoples´ Republican Party. They did a stupid thing.
Such a system of reforms represented a drastic change in the life of the Turkish people, and as such, it could be applied only top down by an authoritarian government. Unfortunately, then there was not enough time left to educate the peasantry. Ataturk died in 1938 at the age of 57. Sociological progress toward the end of the 20th century brought the uninformed and uneducated peasantry as a middle class to the big cities. They brought with them their religion and changed the entire political picture of the country.
We have to conclude, that Ataturk´s regime did not last more than 70 years after his death, because it had to be top-down, it was not properly explained to the people by his successors, institutions which would keep it alive were closed after 1950, no written document was left by Ataturk to explain the vital reasons for the reforms, and the ignorant peasantry progressed and became middle class and brought its religion to the public domain, where no religion was supposed to exist according to laicism.
Print
Email
