On the 85th anniversary of the Republic of Turkey, Can Dündar, columnist at the Turkish newspaper Milliyet and a documentary filmmaker, made a documentary on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Atatürk = father of the Turks). Released in Turkey on October 29th, the documentary is called, simply, Mustafa — a clear indication of the director’s intentions of portraying the Turkish leader as… human.
This is enough to raise a racket in some Turkish circles. For bringing out Atatürk’s weaknesses — such as heavy smoking, heavy drinking, womanizing, and dying a lonely death — Dündar made dedicated enemies and was even accused of being a pawn of imperialist powers in a psychological operation aimed at undermining the Turkish army (article in Turkish). The director is also facing a criminal complaint for insulting the father of the republic (most probably under law 5816 against publicly “insulting the legacy/memory of Atatürk”).
The noise has been coming mainly from circles normally described with the blanket terms “secularist” and “kemalist”. But if the debate awakened by the release of the movie shows anything, it is the complexity lying behind these simplistic shorthands. The director himself does not fit neatly into the Turkish military’s jargon of “enemies within” — i.e. Kurds, Islamists, and “Europeanized” liberals such as Orhan Pamuk. A fan of Mustafa Kemal, he also claims to have wanted to present him “in a more intimate, affectionate light.”
The figure of Atatürk has been elevated sometimes to the degree of absurdity — school children every week swear to walk down Atatürk’s path. A Turkish friend of mine had to face school detention as a child for refusing to partake in a similar ritual. But that idealization only reflects the degree of insecurity about Turkey’s borders and identity — an insecurity that reflects more violently in the popular and institutional refusal to deal with the Armenian history, the Kurdish issue, and, in some circles, the Muslim character of the country.
It is a positive sign that the documentary was conceived, made, and delivered, even met with public appreciation and praise. When conspiracy theories are shifting political quarters with the Ergenekon trial and when Turkey is facing several crossroads of identity — from Islam and the EU to a more active regional role — such a debate is not only healthy and necessary, it is also long overdue.
December 16, 2008 at 9:36 am
Good post.
But on a somewhat related note, to what extent do the “Islamic revival” the ‘democratic’ push in Turkey owes its existence to the Attaturkean project? More than one can think…
Islamic movements, or simply, democratic efforts in the Middle East are so dependent on colonial and post colonial State building.
December 16, 2008 at 9:39 am
Ooups posted without my last sentence:
So it is easy to criticize Attaturk but can you criticize ‘Turkey’ the first and foremost Attaturkean project?
December 16, 2008 at 9:55 pm
…to what extent do the “Islamic revival” the ‘democratic’ push in Turkey owes its existence to the Attaturkean project? More than one can think…
Yes, much more. I think that is why the Justice & Development party has an ambiguous relationship with the legacy of Atatürk. They must be asking themselves another version of your question: can you criticize Atatürk without criticizing his project?
December 17, 2008 at 2:51 am
Ms Tee,
It’s good to be back after 20 days of ISP wilderness. I didn’t realise it would take so long.
I was raised with quite a number of Turks, as I lived in the outer suburbs of Melbourne where many Turkish immigrants reside.
What constantly fascinated me about the Turkish people is their ardent nationalism and loyalty to the Turkish nation, identity and Ataturk. At the same time, they considered Islam as part of their culture and would have no problems promoting it, but to a lesser extent than Arabs. Their national identity came first.
But I wonder, as has been illustrated in your post, whether this strong sense of secular nationalism is a desperate struggle to avoid confronting the truths of pre-World War I, a truth that could ultimately undermine the foundation of Turkish nationalism today.
I’ve had a few discussions with friends on this matter, and one recounted to me that he found Ataturk’s secular nationalism to be artificial i.e. Turkey today is artificial.
World War I could have eaten Turkey up and torn it to pieces. The Armenians and Kurds would have claimed the east, the Arabs would have taken Iskenderun and Mersin, the Greeks all of the Western shoreline and Istanbul.
Ankara would have been the final remnant of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, central Anatolia was where the Turks originally began their reign, and the other regions were indeed populated with Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Greeks. For the latter groups, they considered and still consider such territories as their own.
Ataturk succeeded in forming a unique identity, albeit artificial, by suppressing anything non-Turk and purging this history from the Turkish psyche.
Part of that suppression was Islam and a religious identity that could have undermined the artificial uniqueness Ataturk was formulating.
Ataturk wasn’t wrong in his intentions, he quickly needed to define Turkey as a nation-state to ensure its survival. It was a quick transition from colonial empire to modern nation-state, and the foundation of what constituted the empire was not fit for a nation-state.
But the transition was too quick. The EU negotiations and the Middle East conflict today have prompted many Turks to revisit the questions of Ataturk’s era … who are we and what defines us as a nation?
The fear is if this question is asked by the Islamists, the answers may go too deep.
I have a Turkish friend who recently discovered he’s Syrian of origin. His father recently confessed his “Syrian” roots – as if it was some major taboo to admit to anything non-Turkish – and that he could speak Arabic. My friend, of course, believes he’s been deceived all his life and can’t grasp that his Turkish identity is indeed artificial.
This is what the secularists fear. Ataturk’s Turkish identity cannot be tampered with, even in the slightest form, for it may unravel all that has been swept under the rug for the past century.
Turkey is also in the unfortunate position where all its neighbours have a deep historic distaste for it and are waiting for the right moment to pounce and reclaim their territories. That right moment may not come for a century, or even a few centuries.
Alternatively, it’s a nation that could easily implode for the same reasons. Unless Turkey finds a way to reconcile with its artificial foundations, I suspect there will be a lot more trouble to come.
Most nations have used an historic myth, legend or hero to define themselves. Troy is the most commonly used. The Romans, British, even Nazi Germany manifested links to Troy in order to define itself.
Of course, as the centuries progressed, the British began to create stories of its own like King Arthur, Robin Hood, the notion of chivalry etc. No one knows if these stories are true, or King Arthur ever lived. In fact, most of the elements of the King Arthur story originate from France, and were later romanticised in the 19th century.
The Turks have Ataturk. To humanise Ataturk is to undermine his significance as a Turkish legend. He is their Achilles, their Remus and Romulus.
Who knows maybe in 1000 years people will be asking if he even existed just as I am questioning King Arthur’s existence today.
So Turkey is definitely not the only nation to manifest artificial roots in order to justify its existence.
December 25, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Shu? Yalla more posts!
December 27, 2008 at 2:52 pm
…of course to be taken with humor…
December 28, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Taht amrak! Soon. Right now, I am jetlagged and preparing for a course I never taught before. I am sure you sympathize with that.