Atatürkist nationalism, enshrined in the Constitution, envisages as its official ideology a top-down social organization and building a nation-state in this way while Turkish nationalism emphasizes “national values,” or the elements which collectively fall under the umbrella term of “national culture,” and thereby tries to build a nationalist ideology in a more bottom-up or environmentally friendly manner. Atatürkist nationalism is the ideology of the rich and the privileged groups while Turkish nationalism is that of the Anatolian poor.Islam or religion is emphasized in Turkish nationalism, but this emphasis implies that Islam or religion is only one of the founding elements of nation. Thus, religion is not a decisive element, but only one of the many, as suggested by David Émile Durkheim. Religion is not seen as a divine road map concerning how one’s life should be arranged vis-à-vis existence, the meaning of being human as well as the purpose of life, but is reduced to an element that enables national state and national culture.
A nation itself is a construct; a nation is not a historical or social reality, but a construct or invention. A person loves his/her parents, sisters or brothers and children, but from an Islamic point of view, a person cannot love them if they do injustice because in Islam love is conditional, and there is no unconditional or absolute love. In the nationalist ideology, love is absolute. If my nation attempts to do injustice to my neighbors, my religion urges me to side with the victimized party against injustice. Nationalism tells me to side with my nation even if it is the oppressor.
In the nationalist ideology, “historical values and the past” are also stressed. History and the past are glorified, and sometimes seen as more important than religion.
Since the beginning, the two nationalist theories have been in conflict. Followers of Turkish nationalism were subjected to heavy pressures from time to time. For instance, in 1946, they were put in coffins alive and their nails were removed with pliers. After the Sept. 12, 1980, coup, the legendary leader of Turkish nationalists, Alparslan Türkeş, suffered severe torture in Mamak Prison in Ankara. He had said at that time, “I may be in prison, but my ideas are in power,” a sentence which implies that there is a conflict between the two versions of nationalism. During the Sept. 12 coup, followers of Atatürkist nationalism imprisoned those of Turkish nationalism. This divide sill continues in our time. Both groups not only further separate from each other, but also confront each other with a force that varies in magnitude depending on time and conjuncture. On one side are Turkish nationalists, including the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the Nizam-ı Alem (world order) organization, the Grand Unity Party (BBP), the Türk Ocakları youth organization and so on, and on the other side are the military, the civilian bureaucracy, big corporations and the Republican People’s Party (CHP).
Michel Aflaq, one of the theoreticians of the Baath party -- the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq were established based on his game plan, and Arab nationalists pay him great respect -- had pointed to the Prophet Muhammad as a role model for Arab nationalism, saying, “Every Arab must become a Muhammad.”
While it may sound good in the first instance, it is still crippled with a nationalist ideology. Aflaq attempted to turn the Prophet Muhammad into an Arab nationalist. However, the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, did not produce a nation, but an ummah (Muslim community). Influential Arab historian Taha Hussein gave eminence to the Arab poetry of the Jahiliyah (the age of ignorance before the advent of Islam) and considered it as important as the Holy Quran. However, Jahiliyah poetry is important only to the extent that it is instrumental in understanding the Quran. Arab poetry cannot act as a referee over the Quran, and it is never the only criterion in understanding the Quran. Hussein tried to use Arab language and poetry as an auxiliary element to his attempt to build a modern Arab identity. The attempt by Aflaq, Lebanese Christians, Hussein and others to build a new identity has eventually led to the emergence of Nasserism in Egypt and Baathism in Syria and Iraq, and this roughly corresponds to the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki), which had a past of 100 years, and its modern version and Turkish nationalism in Turkey.
