February
14, 2011
What challenges did
Middle Eastern “nation builders” such as Ataturk, Sa’d Zaghlul, Arab
Nationalists or the Zionists face in the early twentieth century?
The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire led to the rise of nationalist movements
around the Middle East and the emergence of leaders committed to building
independent nation-states. Although there were many nation-builders that were
historically influential, this paper will focus on Mustafa Kemal Pasha and his
role in building the Turkish state. Mustafa Kemal, later known as Ataturk
(“father of the Turks”), is recognized as the founder of Turkey and its first
president. After World War I, the Grand National Assembly was formed, the
Sultanate was separated from the Caliphate and both were later abolished. As
Ataturk began creating the Turkish state he initiated radical reforms based on
secularism and faced many challenges as a result. When founding Turkish
independence in the early twentieth century, Kemal Ataturk perceived religion
to be the most difficult challenge to his rule and dealing with this threat led
him to create changes that are still prominent in the modern Middle East.
Before this argument is explored it is important to note why religion was
perceived as the most significant threat. Ataturk faced other challenges as
well, especially external pressure. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920 diminished
Ottoman control to only a small part of Anatolia and forced Turkey to accept
other demands[1].
One might think that external challenges were the most pronounced; however,
this was not the case. The Turkish War of Independence, which led foreign
powers to abandon the Treaty of Sevres and negotiate the Treaty of Lausanne
showed Ataturk that if the country was united and organized then it could
resist foreign powers and external pressure would become a minor problem[2].
The challenge of maintaining unity was Ataturk’s main focus; therefore, Islam
was deemed a threat because it created division within the state. Ataturk
committed himself to abolishing Islam as a regulating force in order to
diminish the competition for control. Now this paper will outline why religion
was perceived as a challenge to Ataturk, what his responses were, and the
long-term ramifications of his actions.
Ataturk’s Challenge:
Kemal Ataturk perceived religion to be a challenge for numerous reasons. Firstly,
it delegitimized the authority of the Grand National Assembly due to the fact
that religious institutions and leaders still maintained a significant number
of followers. Since Islam was the accepted religion among a majority of the
population, many believed that Islamic leaders were the only legitimate
authority and consequently it became a source of competition for power and
control over the state. Ataturk explains his view of the role of religious
institutions in the state through his correspondence to the Caliph[3].
The Caliph sent a letter explaining his dissatisfaction with his lack of power,
his exclusion from politics, and with “the articles which seem to lower his
authority without reason”[4].
Ataturk understood that as long as the Caliph was unhappy with his present
status, the threat of resistance against the National Assembly was possible.
This explains why shortly after the correspondence Ataturk decided to abolish
the Caliphate, saying that “the Caliph and the office of the Caliph as they are
now maintained and exist, have in reality neither a material nor a political
meaning or any right of existence”[5].
Religious institutions and policies also competed with policies of the state.
It was for this reason that Ataturk suppressed the Ministry for Religious
Affairs. He wanted to unify public policies, which he did by having the
Ministry of Public Instruction control all scientific and educational
institutions.
The second reason Ataturk viewed religion as a challenge when building the
Turkish state was because Islam was a unifying factor for pan-Arabism. The fact
that the Ottoman Empire existed for many centuries meant that notions of Arab
and Islamic unity was still prevalent in the minds of many. This was
problematic for nation-builders, such as Ataturk who wished to create an
independent Turkish state. Michel Aflaq explains what he believes is the
inextricable link between Islam and Arabism. He believes that “Islam, then, was
an Arab movement and its meaning was the renewal and completion of Arabism”[6].
In most cases religious unity is seen as a factor facilitating the development
of nation-states; however, this is not the case for Turkey. Islam acts to
diminish national sentiments and leads to feelings of unity with the greater
Arab community. It was feared that if Turkish people began accepting Islam then
they would begin perceiving themselves as Arabs, which could eventually lead to
a stronger pan-Arab movement and an end to an independent Turkish state.
The last reason why religion became a challenge for Ataturk to deal with was
because of how it was exploited by foreign powers as well as nationalist groups
within the Ottoman Empire. Western powers exploited religion for their personal
interests as a way to legitimize their gaining of new states under the pretext
of defending against religious discrimination. There were historical cases of
this, such as in 1861 when France occupied Lebanon to protect the Catholics and
during WWI Greece tried to use Christianity to facilitate the breakdown of the
Ottoman Empire by creating support from within the state[7].
A Greek organization in the Vilayet called “Mavri Mira” tried to facilitate the
breakdown by creating groups and spreading propaganda in order to support the
Greeks[8].
This explains how there was tremendous internal pressure from nationalist
groups as well as external pressure from foreign powers.
Ataturk’s Response:
The threat of religion led Ataturk to take many measures to deal with these
challenges. The first thing that he did was focus on creating a secular state.
The fact that Islam was still strongly embedded in public beliefs meant that
Ataturk had to deal with the situation carefully and make gradual changes in
order to maintain support. In 1922, Ataturk separated the Sultanate from the
Caliphate and left it with virtually no power; and later in 1924 the Caliph was
abolished[9].
Ataturk also forbade some Islamic laws and traditions, such as shari’a law, the
Muslim lunar calendar, polygamy, and worshiping at tombs or shrines[10].
Moving in a direction away from Islamic laws and towards a secular state was
central to Ataturk’s platform. Secularism was a way to prevent foreign
encroachment in Turkey under the pretext of protecting people against religious
discrimination. Ensuring equality among all citizens also facilitated the
development of unity within the state. Ataturk decreased the role of religion
in an attempt to unify policies. He stated that “it is necessary without the
loss of time to apply the principle of unity of instruction and education,”
which he did by abolishing religious schools, Ministry of endowments, and the
office of shaykh al-Islam[11].
Therefore, Ataturk had to deal with internal and external pressures when
responding to the challenge of religion.
The method in which Ataturk implemented these changes is also important to
note. Maintaining public support was necessary; therefore, security
confrontations were not enough but rather intellectual confrontation was vital
when dealing with the opposition. Ataturk had to support theorists that could
refute other writers that call for pan-Arabism or for a greater role for Islam.
For example, writers, such as Jamal al-Din Al-Afghani argued that Islam is
compatible with science and modernity and that a reinterpretation of the Quran
is necessary[12].
This acts to try to legitimize a greater role for Islam in the politics of a
nation-state, which would have been difficult for Ataturk who wanted a state
based on secularism. When abolishing the Caliph, Ataturk tried to delegitimize
his authority by comparing him to the Sultan, criticizing “his driving out in
great pomp; [and] his private life in the Palace where he goes even so far as
to receive dismissed officers to whose complaints he is listening”[13].
Ataturk wanted to solidify his authority and make sure that Islam does not act
as a regulating agent in a secular Turkish state. Another way Ataturk justified
his response was by saying that his actions were “indispensible in order to
secure the revival of the Islamic Faith [and] to disengage it from the
condition of being a political instrument”[14].
In this way, he shows how the separation of religion and state could be a way
to protect and honour Islam. Ataturk also tried to redirect the public towards
building up nationalist sentiment and promoting the Turkish identity.
Legislation was passed to translate the Quran in Turkish, and he made it
mandatory for the call to prayer to be in Turkish[15].
Therefore, the ways that Ataturk decided to deal with the challenge of religion
was by creating an intellectual response, which attempted to create a
disassociation between Islam and the Turkish state.
Ataturk’s
Consequences:
Ataturk’s response to the perceived threat of religion had considerable
ramifications and has been evident throughout the history of Arab regimes. A
consequence of Ataturk’s rule is that the borders of Turkey and the democratic
institutions that were established have generally remained constant to the
delineation set out by Ataturk. Pan-Arab movements have not been able to
significantly re-emerge in Turkey because of a redirection from a focus on
Arabic and Islam to a focus on the Turkish language and secular state. Another
consequence in Turkey is that the commitment to secularism and the suppression
of religious groups have been prevalent even after the rule of Ataturk. In 1995
the largest Islamist party in Turkey, the Welfare party, received twenty-one
percent of the popular vote[16].
Erbakan began initiating some reforms that threatened secularism in Turkey so
two years later the military pressured the leader of the Welfare party,
Necmettin Erbakan, to resign in response to the increasing strength of the
Islamist party. Religious parties were further suppressed in 1998 when the
Constitutional Court decided to ban the Welfare party and seven of its members
from being involved in politics for the following five years. States throughout
the Middle East continue to have fears of the power of Islamist groups,
especially since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Some cases of states
suppressing Islamic groups are Egypt’s banning of the Muslim Brotherhood, and
the al-Nahda party in Tunisia, etc. The exclusion of Islamic groups from
politics can also be attributed to the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism. By
ostracizing religious groups and not including them in the political process,
many groups often resort to violence. Cleveland argues that in the case of
Turkey, “his reforms were too abrupt for some, and his creation of a state that
sought to regulate individuals’ lives more directly than had the Ottomans
caused resentment and occasionally led to resistance”[17].
Therefore, Ataturk’s reforms had many consequences that still remain prevalent
today.
In conclusion, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk perceived religion to be a major challenge
in the building of the Turkish state; therefore he enacted changes, which have
still endured in the modern Middle East. Religion was a threat because it was a
source of competition, it was a major factor leading to pan-Arabism, and it
allowed foreign powers to justify intervention. The policies that Ataturk
implemented, which suppressed Islamist parties, are still apparent in Turkey
and many countries in the Middle East. Ataturk’s “sweeping secular measures,
which attempted to cut off the Turks from their Islamic past and to sever their
ties with the rest of the Islamic world, alienated segments of the population,
especially in the rural areas”[18].
The result of these policies can be attributed to the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism. It is evident that the actions of nation-builders can have an
effect on the future policies of a nation; however, it is remarkable to what
extent Ataturk has influenced Turkey and other states in the Middle East.
[7] Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) Outlines
His Vision of the Recent Nationalist Past of Turkey and the Future of the
Country, 1927. Pg 146.
No comments:
Post a Comment