Atatürk and the Kurds

"Atatürk" has been praised by former Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt, and last October Mango was awarded an honorary doctorate degree by the Senate of Süleyman Demirel University in Isparta. Deniz Baykal, the chairman of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), attended the ceremony and congratulated the university for honoring Mango. I too greatly appreciate Mango's studies on Turkish history and politics, which have significantly contributed to a better understanding of Turkish affairs in the West.

One of Mango's articles on Atatürk that is not so well known in Turkey is the one titled "Atatürk and the Kurds" published in the 35th issue of the journal of Middle Eastern Studies in 1999. In this article, on the basis of meticulous research on the subject, Mango reaches the following conclusion: "To sum up, during the years of the War of Independence, Mustafa Kemal recognized specifically the multiethnic character of the Muslim population of Turkey, while insisting on its fraternal unity. He also promised that local government would accommodate ethnic specificity. After 1923, any idea of the self-rule of individual Muslim ethnic communities dropped out of Turkish political agenda. Mustafa Kemal devoted his energy to the consolidation of his power and to his cultural revolution. He had little time for the Kurds … Thereafter, the requirements of creating a modern nation state took precedence. It is true that Atatürk's cultural revolution was an additional obstacle to the preservation of distinct ethnic cultures, let alone to the introduction of local self-rule. But there was no vocal demand in Turkish society for either. In the circumstances, Atatürk could delegate the management of the Kurds to his government." (p. 22)

Mango observes that, with the adoption of the Law on Resettlement in 1934, "assimilation of all the country's citizens to Turkish culture" became "official government policy … The model was, as ever, France, where Bretons, Occitanians, Savoyards, Flemings, etc. had all been assimilated into French culture." (p. 20-21)

A point that Mango underlines is that "The ideology which has shaped the policy of the governments of the Turkish Republic towards its Kurdish citizens antedates Atatürk." In this context he refers to "the poet of liberty" of the Tanzimat period, Namık Kemal (1840-1888), as "the original source of inspiration of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as of other Young Turks." Namık Kemal wrote in 1878: "While we must try to annihilate all languages in our country except Turkish, shall we give Albanians, Lazes and Kurds a spiritual weapon by adopting their own characters? … Language … may be the firmest barrier -- perhaps firmer than religion -- against national unity." (p. 4)

A proper understanding of Atatürk's policies after the War of Independence requires not only the consideration of the example of the French model and the influence of Namık Kemal, but also the fact that even among 19th century European liberals, the prevailing view was that a modern nation-state necessitated either forced assimilation of national minorities or the redrawing of borders. It may be argued that in the case of Turkey, the obvious choice was the first one since the aim was to create not only a modern state, but also a nation out of the many ethnic groups that were the legacy of the Ottoman Empire.

Mango, in concluding the article, which was published almost 10 years ago, makes the following observation: "Today the Turkish historical thesis has been dropped together with the Sun Theory of Language. The diverse ethnic roots of the people of Turkey are openly discussed, and the word 'mosaic' has become a cliché in describing the country's ethnic picture. We are thus back to the language which Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) used and the ideas which he put forward, during the War of Independence. Hence the importance of recording and analyzing what the pragmatic founding father of the Turkish Republic said during that crucial period of Turkish history."

There is no doubt that identity policies adopted in the founding period of the Republic of Turkey reflect a notion of modernity that has caused much conflict and suffering and is today entirely out of touch with the spirit of the times. It is high time that Turkey adapts its identity policies to the age of human rights, democracy and respect for diversity.