This word has a past that goes back 100 years. It was first used to describe the people who advocated the return of the sultan's autocratic regime as a reaction to the constitutional regime introduced in 1908, just like those who advocated the Ancien Régime in post-revolutionary France. Today, irtica, or reactionaryism, is mostly used to describe "objection to the principle of secularism" or "advocacy for a theological regime," and during its lifespan of 100 years, it has been a source of controversy without losing its impact on political life. The Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism, which has been hotly debated during the last two weeks, has been influential since it relies on this 100-year-old past. Likewise, this long history can serve as a proper explanation for why the chief of general staff held a press conference and took part in the polemics yesterday, atypical of his counterparts around the world. The reason why the Turkish military is deep down inside politics is a claim about this danger. The long history of how the term reactionaryism has been used is full of details that might shed light on the current debates.Reactionary revolt in 1909
A hundred years ago, on April 13, 1909 (March 31, 1325 in the Rumi calendar), İstanbul saw a big revolt. While many aspects of this incident are obscure, the word "irtica" was first used to define it.
Its historical background was as follows: After Maj. Resneli Niyazi and Enver Bey and their soldiers revolted in early July 1908, the government residences in Selanik and Manastır were seized by the insurgents on July 23 -- this had been marked as the Freedom Festival until 1935. On July 24, Sultan Abdülhamid II put the Kanun-i Esasi (Constitution) dated 1876 into force again and introduced the second constitutional monarchy. Meclis-i Mebusan or the Assembly of Deputies (the first parliament) was opened on Dec. 17. These developments, sponsored by the İttihat ve Terakki Fırkası (Union and Progress Party), caused increased politicization of the bureaucracy and the scholars. On the other hand, since members of İttihat ve Terakki, which was the de facto government, were young military officers, they preferred to stay behind the scenes. This led to a lack of authority and chaos.
In six months, the İttihat ve Terakki government lost its credibility, and a strong opposition was formed against it. In order to suppress this opposition, the İttihat ve Terakki government implemented a dictatorial regime. When journalist Hasan Fehmi, a representative of the opposition, was killed by an İttihat ve Terakki member, this served as a spark, triggering a revolt. All dissident groups excluded from the İttihat ve Terakki government lent support to the revolt. Even, the first liberals of the country such as Prens Sabahattin supported the revolt. Later, it was understood that the British embassy played a part in this revolt. With unrestrained violence from military officers and soldiers who were scorned by İttihat ve Terakki and the support of the madrasah circles, the revolt grew further. As it became massive, its political goals were replaced by religious themes. However, the majority of religious scholars, particularly those from the Cemiyet-i İlmiye-i İslamiye (Association of Islamic Scholars), harshly criticized the revolt. Eventually, the revolt turned into unrestrained violence and pillage. As it lacked a central mind, the Operations Army lead by Mahmut Şevket Pasha entered İstanbul and quickly repressed it. Then came martial law. The leading figures of the revolt, in particular Derviş Vahdeti, the owner of Volkan, were executed. This incident served as justification for İttihat ve Terakki to establish an even stricter and more repressive regime.
This revolt, known as the Incident of March 31, is a case of revolt triggered by politics, and particularly by dissident groups within the army, but which later went out of control. The dissident military officers who were purged by İttihat ve Terakki played a leading role in the revolution with the twin goal of taking their revenge and regaining control. Religious symbols were used in order to draw support from the larger society.
Actually, even the İttihat ve Terakki Fırkası used such symbols. Indeed, the word "ittihat" (union) has a largely religious connotation, while "terakki" (progress) represents a positivist ideal of progress and of reliance on natural sciences and reason as well as adoption of knowledge based on observation as true. In this regard, it can argued that "irtica" was first generated as the antonym of "terakki." Thus, "progress" is the antonym of "reaction." In this way, İttihat ve Terakki could define the opposition as "reactionary." This original use of the words “reaction,” “reactionary” and “reactionaryism” lacks any religious reference. In parallel with its use after the French Revolution, reactionary was used to define those who advocated the old regime, i.e., absolute monarchy. Thus, this word was employed to describe the insurgent people who sought the return to the sultan of his former powers and authorities. In a sense, the word "reactionary" was first derived to depict the opposition that managed to secure popular support against a repressive government. During a period of 100 years, despotic governments have always used this word in order to silence the opposition.
Fake reactionaryism
The debates we have been conducting for the last two weeks concerning the authenticity of the abovementioned plan have actually proved that the danger of reactionaryism is a fake one. While everyone was focused on whether the document was authentic or not, no one attempted to discuss whether reactionaryism, as the subject matter of said document, is authentic or not. This matter deserves further discussion.
Please remember the voice recording that belonged to former Land Forces Commander Aytaç Yalman in which he had said, "İlker Pasha will silently overthrow the government." There is an ongoing struggle for power within the state. The military is skeptical of all democratically elected governments, including the Ecevit government. This is because they regard governments as their rivals. They need a pretext for taking the reins of the government and having greater say and power. As the likelihood of settlement of the Kurdish issue has increased, the number of pretexts the military can use fell to one, which is the "danger of reactionaryism," which has been served up to us again and again.
In a great likeness to the document the Military Prosecutor's Office concluded is fake, the General Staff Operations Department had prepared the "West Study Concept" during the Feb. 28, 1997 process. Just like the current document, this concept, too, started with the argument that the Republic of Turkey is currently facing a danger of reactionaryism that is the greatest since its establishment. There was no stretch of time when this "greatest danger of reactionaryism" did not exist. Please remember the e-memorandum of April 27, 2007, which attempted to prevent the election of Abdullah Gül as president and, to this end, described the Holy Birth Week festivities -- held to mark the birth of the Prophet Muhammad -- as a "danger of reactionaryism." Please remember also the fact that none of the claims about reactionaryism listed in this memorandum has been proven. This applies to the "Lahika" documents disclosed by Taraf. This also applies to the "Information Support Action Plan," disclosed by Taraf on June 20, in which the General Staff accused the government of "paving the way for reactionary activities."
None of these documents was investigated by the military prosecutor. None of them was refuted by the General Staff. In our current case, by trying to prove that the document is fake, the General Staff actually unconsciously showed us that this "danger of reactionaryism" is a fake one.
One thing is certain in the debates about the authenticity of the document: our military is no longer capable of orchestrating its efforts to meddle with politics as it did in the past. Primitive psychological warfare techniques and conspiracy tactics of the Cold War era are no longer useful. It cannot categorize ideologies and scandalously try to label all citizens according to their political opinions. It cannot manage the crises that erupt. Thus, the government and the opposition must save the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) from this burden and direct it to its primary duties. To do this, radical external security reform is needed. The mobilization district departments, whose numbers increased from 12 to 24, and the Protocol on Cooperation for Security and Public Order (EMASYA) and other lame efforts to get the armed forces poised against a society that it cannot correctly analyze must be completely abolished. Most importantly, the Ergenekon investigation must be concluded in a sound manner.
Today, the word reactionaryism is being used in the same sense as it was first used 100 years ago. It expresses an objection to the status quo. However, in the current state of the modern world, this word has come to denote a tool for political violence. In the past, it was used to depict those who seek autocratic rule, but today, it has become a tool that represents the opposition in the face of the modern autocrats who advocate military power and who object to democracy.
