Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David Flick
13-SEP-15
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
State: A human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given
territory.
Addressing the challenges faced by Mustafa Kemal after the ‘disintegration’ of the Ottoman Empire
presents many difficulties, not the least of which is trying to contain the volumes of analysis available
within these brief pages. How are we to consider the ‘disintegration’ of the Ottoman Empire? Where or
when did it begin? How does this consideration affect how we analyze the motivations of revolutionaries
and their shifting alliances? An empire in decline being divided as spoils after war inspires more
immediate concerns than lofty ideals considered and developed by an intellectual elite over time. It must
certainly focus the same educated attention of a single, proud, military man.
This concise framework mandates painting with broad strokes. The Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of
popular history is certainly more complex than popular attitude, no matter positive or negative. It is safer
to suggest we consider the problems faced in revolution more as a confluence of ideals where the past
forcibly, if barely, eked into its future by the lens of the determined. How he came to bear the mantle
Ataturk and the hurdles overcome could hardly have been foreseen.
Italy, which is inhabited by a single race and speaking the same language and professing the same religion,
experiences so many difficulties in its unification. For the moment all it has achieved is disorder. Judge what would
happen in Turkey if free scope were given to all the different national aspirations...It would need a century and
The seeds of modernization for the Turkish National Movement came 300 hundred years earlier with
the Ottoman Empire’s first defeat at the hands of the Europeans. The basic premise of the empire had to
adapt to the technology represented in ‘treaty,’ an idea that a duality in absolute rule could exist was
unknown. The modernization, militarization, and intellectual elite classes would “fundamentally
transform in mind concerning what empire and international exchange means” (Lewis, 1995, p. 5294).
The treaty-as-technology was an outside mandate to be filtered primarily through Constantinople for the
1
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
next three centuries. It would not disseminate widely through the countryside of the pluralist empire. It
would breed new political ideologies in the Republic of Turkey, centered between Ankara and
Constantinople, and itself in the only position to operate self-contained, “with strong ties to both Europe
and the Middle East” (Atabaki & Brockett, 2009, p. 1). The debate of ‘empire’ was contained in the inner
circles of the “Ottoman officials, officers and intellectuals while the great mass of the population
What eventually followed would be known as the Tanzimat period (1839-1876), a time of
modernizing reforms that would bolster the political and social positions of the intellectual and military,
already elite. “Many reforms required that administrators undergo specialized training and education. A
new generation of technocrats arose who began to respect the West, for it was there that the needed
knowledge was stored. Along with technical knowledge, this new class also absorbed the political
philosophies of nationalism and democracy” (Andersen et al., 2012, p. 49). Spawning the Young Turk
movement at the end of the 19th century, it was essentially elitist, though always espousing and cultivating
a populist cause and character. Under the Sultanate, the Young Turks would demand concessions for the
‘people.’ A constitution at once accepted, suspended, and reinstated after the revolution of 1908. The
Development was diverted by the Ottoman entry into the First World War, “the resulting end of the
Empire-the collapse of the state and the fragmentation of its territories” (Lewis, 1995, p. 6494). World
War I devastated many of the initial system reforms. Aligned with the defeated Central Powers, the
Empire was on the verge of entering the ‘modern’ world not as a sovereign entity but as a prize to be
divided. Nowhere would this be more immediately experienced than by those in the gateway to the West
that had been Anatolia/Turkey, the seat of the elite. Undoubtedly, this was the Allied motivation behind
the imposing “a particularly harsh rule on Turkey” (Andersen et al., 2012, p. 50). While the past provided
the Young Turks the ability to contemplate revolt, their socially constructed alliance somewhere between
a modernity of Islam and European models of sovereignty and nationalism, Mustafa Kemal was afforded
2
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
no such grace period. This is how we begin to understand his becoming Ataturk. The reconciliation of
Influenced by Turkish social theorist Ziya Gok-Alp, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s vision was defined
solely by the idea of the Western nation-state. “Turkey could adopt whatever outward forms of
Government and elite culture were most progressive at the time without compromising its national
character; the ascendant Western Culture forms could serve Turkish development as a world power in the
twentieth century, just as the Persian Arabic civilization had served the purposes of centuries earlier”
(Andersen et al., 2012, p. 151). The same forces that lead the revolution of 1908, The Young Turks, lead
now by Mustafa Kemal, would supplant the Empire’s treaty with Allied occupiers by force and resolve,
repel the Europeans, and establish an independent Turkish state. It was not until October 1923 that the
“The [national] struggle was waged to the benefit of the people in spite of the people”
If one were to only consider the texts that inspired this research, Andersen et al. (2012), and Lewis
(1995), they could assume the Turkish National Movement was a minor disagreement, skirmish, and
negotiation; an afterthought of war, and an attempt to bring democracy to the masses with the blessing of
the West and statehood to follow. As “deeply symbolic” (Andersen et al., p. 152) it may have been,
outlawing the fez in order to promote the dissolution of social distinction and promote ‘homogeneity’
If the opposition military intelligence accounts were to be believed one could assume something more
akin to an epic war tale told on the big screen. Clooney as Ataturk and Pitt as Raouf Bey waging clever
battles, capturing telegraphs, riding the crest of a popular revolt already in motion and crashing,
successfully, headlong, into the Allies and winning the day - emancipating to song. The CUP acting as the
outdated mechanism of foil, a propaganda machine producing ad hoc messages for ‘who-knows,’ with an
“inveterate instinct for intrigue” (Macfie, 2002, p. 30), the rebellion a tiny portion of a great international
and well-orchestrated conspiracy. This, taken from a recent summation of primarily British Intelligence
3
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
reports: “These plans could not be carried out until arrangements had been made for the organization of
the national elements in Turkey, Syria and Mesopotamia, the alliance of the pan-Arab movement with the
Turkish national movement, the co-operation of the tribes and the unification of the whole on a pan-
Islamist basis. When unification was completed and all the plans were ready, a signal would be given and
a simultaneous action undertaken…of so widespread a nature as to force the withdrawal of the Entente
Powers from the Middle East, and possibly even from Asia” (Macfie, 2002, p. 30).
Many contradictions became obvious in the dissection of the doctoral dissertations and academic
journals, revisionism as well as simplification. The National Movement someday to be understood out
from under the idealized loom of Turkey’s founding president. “This includes the emergence of a new
social history of Turkey, one that explores the experiences of the people who actually lived through and
underwrote the end of the empire and the establishment of a new nation-state” (Atabaki & Brockett, 2009,
p. 3). There is no one picture to be painted, as there is no one vantage by which the Movement could have
been experienced.
This, to address the problem Ataturk faced and the accepted backdrop of objective setting for the
ideas that fueled The National Liberation Movement: The Ottoman Empire was defeated, the Mudros
Armistice signed in October 1918. In November, Allied forces occupied Istanbul, the seat of the Ottoman
Sultan-Caliphs, to enforce the dissolve the Ottoman Empire. In May 1919, Greek forces, former subjects
of the Turks landed at Izmir. Days later, Mustafa Kemal, sent by the Sultan as inspector-general, landed at
Samsun in Anatolia. His orders were to dismantle the army in order to complete the surrender and restore
provincial peace. Resistance groups, already in existence and hoping to preserve national independence,
were many and active. Counter to his instructions, Mustafa began to organize these groups and plan
liberation from occupation. A recall from the government was ordered. “Mustafa Kemal did not obey the
order. Having resigned from the Army on 8 July 1919, he felt free to prepare for the mission ahead. He
took up the arduous task of organizing the national forces and merging them into a united struggle. Thus
began the national movement variously named The National Struggle, the War of National Liberation, the
4
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
The Turks would achieve the first successful nationalist revolution in Africa or Asia, providing a
glimpse for the masses what had been apparent in the elite’s study of the West. Nationalism in a Western
sense, a State sense, and a modern sense was the future. “For a while, the modernizing Turkish republic
like the Islamic Ottoman Empire before it seemed to be showing the way for the whole Islamic World.
But Kemal Ataturk had no such desire” (Lewis, 1995, p. 6559). Ataturk’s was not a problem of empire
“Not only was the national movement led by an elite, but it also derived its features from the outlook
of that elite; it did not become a mass upsurge.” (Sadiq, 1976, p. 519). The undiscerning Anatolian
villager could not be considered a willing participant in the liberation movement. The leadership of the
movement was broadly bureaucratic, intellectual, religious, and secular, military and aristocratic. The
diversity in the elite was represented in the villager without either the vantage or ability to comprehend
the end-game as seen from the seat of the privileged intellectual. “It was only as a result of the emergence
of new social forces during the long course of the liberation struggle that the common people were
brought to the forefront of Turkish society” (Sadiq, 1976, p. 524). To establish Turkey, the ruling elites
thought and assumed they would transform the existing imperial consciousness into a Turkish national
identity.
Unification depended upon bridging a social as much as technological gap between the old and the
new. The transformation that had taken hold over the course of sixty years for the elite had to be made
tangible within a year for the villager. Forgoing that, old ideas would be cast off in favor of pragmatic
means. The future approached an already autonomous Turkey that need not suffer the Empires fate. The
occupation of ‘homeland’ by European powers and Greece played a crucial role in the nationalist
discourse, mobilizing and “defending the miserable country and territories against the foreign and
aggressive powers, who are seeking to invade and carve it out through the illegitimate policies of
imperialism and colonization” (Ozkan, 2012, p. 59). It was a bandage of unity, if not identity.
The Western nation-state was the ideal, with its borders and national identity coterminous. By any
means necessary it would provide the National Movement with the foundation for statehood. The Sivas
5
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
Congress stood as a revolt against the partition of the Turkish heartland. The Congress put forth the
concept of national will for ascertaining a national future. “Though the Erzurum and Sivas Congresses
decisively consolidated the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, he had not yet formulated his ideas in a form in
which they could be unhesitatingly endorsed by the Congresses” (Sadiq, 1976, p. 520). Rhetoric as much
as force was the tool of the movement. “There can be no dividing; our national unity, historic rights and
traditions and religion must continue, and all efforts against this must not succeed.” (Shaw & Shaw, 1976,
p. 2:696).
Mustafa’s military leadership was equaled in his political ability, speaking for and as the people while
courting the elite. The resistance under his command defeated Armenia by the end of 1920, a treaty with
the Soviet Union was made in March 1921, the Italians were forced to withdraw, and the Greeks were
fought to stand still in the summer. In October, Turkey forced a French withdrawal from Cilicia.
“Thenceforth, all ideas that had been accommodated for political convenience or which smacked of
opportunism were dropped…It was then that Mustafa Kemal was able to repudiate the past institutions in
these words: ‘Ottoman State, its independence, the Sultan, the Caliph, the government [the Ottoman
Government]-all these were meaningless words devoid of any sense’” (Sadiq, 1976, pp. 512-3). An
armistice with Greece and Britain was reached the following month. These victories required the Sèvres
treaty to be renegotiated. “However, for Turkey the real problem of yesterday, today, and tomorrow is
the question of Anatolia, which is the matter of life and death. The Anatolian question has to do with
When both Istanbul and Ankara were invited to send representatives to the conference in Lausanne in
1922, the Grand National Assembly lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk responded by abolishing the
Sultanate. The Treaty of Lausanne concluded in 1923, predominately, on the Assembly’s terms. It was
“followed that October by the declaration of the Turkish Republic and the following March by abolition
of the caliphate” (Halabi, 2012, pp. 21-2). The movement’s successful liberation of Anatolia gave a sense
of self-confidence to the Turkish intellectuals, reflected in the open discussions regarding the old Ottoman
institutions. Contrary to the Young Turks, the distinction between culture and civilization faded away as
6
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
the new regime began to take shape. For Ataturk, ideological exercises were meaningless without a
mandate for the marriage of culture and the civilized state. “This conception alone…Community of ideas
was not a determining factor” (Sadiq, 1976, pp. 519-20). Turks would not be permitted the luxury of
romanticizing their Ottoman past. The national identity would have to face a future where their Ottoman
past was unequivocally “worthy of shame and rejection; Turkish identity, therefore, had to be rooted in
the present and the future, wrought by Mustafa Kemal, and the source of immeasurable pride” (Atabaki &
Vatan— which, in Arabic, means the place of one’s birth— can be translated as “homeland” in English.
(Ozkan, 2012, p. 2)
The nation-state, national identity, and vatan in Turkey are not already existing and pre-political entities. On
the contrary, competing political groups always contest them (Ozkan, 2012, p. 8)
“Both patriotic and nationalist ideas, when introduced to the Middle East, were associated with
libertarian and opposition movements. In general, patriotism tended to reinforce, for nationalism to
subvert, the existing political order…both country and nation subject to foreign, sometimes also divided
rule” (Lewis, 1995, p. 6252). It is my opinion that what is most overlooked in the analysis is this core
idea: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk seemed keenly aware of, in a pragmatic way, what the intellectual elite
could only muse over. At the particular crossroads of Anatolia, the temporal dissolve of the Ottoman
Empire, and the Western march over cultural heritage and identity, Anatolia alone was in a position
(albeit still not wholly accounted for) to leap rather than fumble into modern civilization. Ataturk was
faced with updating without sacrificing what the previous 470 years of pluralist Ottoman Dynasty and the
700 years prior to those of Islam’s golden age had provided. He would need to force the modern
adaptation of accepting the patriotic and the nationalistic as well as the vatan as the same. It is as if he
alone understood the power of Western Europe, “Where country and state on one hand, and nation on the
other became virtually identified” (Lewis, 1995, p. 6248). Modernization would be a forcible act for
“transformation of the politically meaningless subjects of the empire (the rea’ya) into citizens – a
7
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
politically meaningful category…The identification of the party with the state and the nation with the
party” (KarabeliAs, 2009, pp. 63-4). Overlooked is that Ataturk seems keenly aware of an opportunity
that he should not have been able to see. Unless this is hindsight overlay, his main problem was not the
allies, or the Sultanate, or selling politics. His main hurdle was remaining singularly aware of the
technology that lay in mandating that vatan, nationalism, patriotism, and state become synonymously
observed. “The aggressive secularism, nationalism, and republicanism of the post 1923 Turkish Republic
has obscured the fact that the Kemalist movement presented itself as one for the defense of Ottoman
8
ATATURK’S CHALLENGE: CONSOLIDATING VATAN, NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, AND STATE AS
TURKEY
Works Cited
Andersen, R., Seibert, R., & Wagner, J. (2012). Politics and Change in the Middle East. Boston:
Longman, Pearson.
Atabaki, T., & Brockett, G. D. (2009). Ottoman and Turkish Labour History: An Introduction. IRSH, 1-
17.
Gerth, H. H., & MIlls, C. W. (Eds.). (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Halabi, A. (2012). Liminal Loyalties: Ottomanism and Plaestinian Responses to the Turkish War of
Independence 1919-22. Journal of Palestine Studies, 19-37.
KarabeliAs, G. (2009). The Military Insitution, Ataturk's Principles, and Turkey's Sisyphean Quest for
Democracy. Middle Eastern Studies, 57-69.
Lewis, B. (1995). The Middle East, A Brief History of the Last 2,000 years. New York: Scribner.
Macfie, A. L. (2002). British Views on the Turkish National Movement in Anatolia 1919-1922. Middle
Eastern Studies, 27-46.
Ozkan, B. (2012). From the Abode of Islam to the Turkish Vatan, The making of a national homeland in
Turkey. New Haven: Yale University Press Books.
Sadiq, M. (1976). Intellectual Origins of the Turkish National Liberation Movement. International
Studies, 509-529.
Shaw, S. J., & Shaw, E. K. (1976). History of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Cambridge University
Press.