What are the origins of Turkish nationalism? For sure nationalism in the Turkish context is a creature of the state. When the multi-national empire collapsed and its state elite founded the republic, they had all the instruments of statecraft in their toolbox. What they missed was the nation. They set out to forge a nation out of the mixed horde of people they inherited from a past that was no more.The founders of the republic were Ottoman soldiers, bureaucrats and middle-class intelligentsia. They had played important roles in the last two decades of the empire that collapsed over their heads. Yet, they blamed the failure on two culprits: the imperialist Western countries that were then called Allies (as opposed to the Axis powers where the last Ottoman government dragged the country into); and non-Turkish peoples of the empire that rebelled to have their own nation-states.
When the republic was declared the founders of the national state were keen on creating a homogeneous society to avoid “treason” and to never allow foreign intervention again. The national anthem adopted unanimously by the Parliament on 12th of March 1921 reflects these national concerns. In the first verse the lines read:
“Fear not, the crimson flag, waving in these dawns will never fade
Before the last hearth that is burning in my nation vanishes.|In the sixth verse, it reads:
|Fear not, you are great! How a dragon with one remaining tooth Called ‘Civilization,’ could drown such faith?|
The fear of extinction is obvious but what is interesting is the way the West is portrayed: not a civilization but in fact an aggressive beast that relies on one thing, its military power (one tooth). It is devoid of the humanity and moral superiority that are the sources of the Turks’ greatness. The Turk’s faith in his greatness is his power.
Today, the fear and the myth are back. Many Turks believe that their country is under siege and the same imperialist powers are here to dismantle the country by instigating non-Turkish minorities like the Kurds and Christians. Now we have to draw on our greatness once again. How we came to this point is the subject matter of another article.
One thing must be emphasized, though. The depiction of the nation is in school books and the statements of the founders. Officially the nation reflects political, linguistic, racial and ethnic (they called this “origin”) unity and historical and moral similarity. Given this description, a nation designed as such could either be built by eliminating or suppressing differences. This meant ousting of the idea of reconciling differences and rejecting the reality of ethnic, linguistic and cultural plurality. Hence democracy would not be among the instruments in forging the nation. That is why “democracy” does not exist in the six arrow emblem of the Republican People’s Party whose political philosophy dominated statecraft until 1950. The existing arrows or principles were statism, nationalism, reformism, laicism, populism and republicanism.
Of these, statism is of particular importance because the state preceded the nation and invested in itself the right and authority to shape the nation like a plastic entity without a sociological, historical and cultural character. This hierarchical relationship between state and society overpowered the former and disempowered the latter, rendering society totally dependent on the state, not only for its security but also for its livelihood.
Socio-economic development on the one hand and globalization (put EU membership in this category) on the other brought enormous pressure to bear on this format. The challenge for the ruling cadres of Turkey is obvious: either go along with the tide of the times or cling onto the existing institutional structure and legal system that upholds it and become a pariah of the modern world. Somewhere along the way, it is hoped that the people are heard too. Fortunately there are elections ahead and maybe the people may have a chance to express themselves.
