Eternal Torch: Atatürk

In times of crisis, some societies produce extraordinary men and women who are able to change history for the better.
 
The rarest individual of all is the one who not only changes the flow of history but is able to create a new progressive time frame for both the state and society. It is the most difficult mission of all to take over an imploding state that is completely surrounded by foreign armies intent on squeezing the very last breath of life out of a disintegrating empire and to then not only achieve miraculous military victories but also create an enlightened state from the ashes of the previous structure. Kemal Atatürk is one of those rare geniuses.
 
He is not the only person in the 20th century to have struggled against enemies to establish a nation-state. India's Mahatma Gandhi is another giant in the pantheon of immortal personalities who successfully pushed back imperialists to create an independent nation. It should be noted that historians of the 21st century continue to applaud the achievements of both Atatürk and Gandhi while laying bare the atrocities committed by many disreputable national leaders.
 
The case of Atatürk is a prescient one, given the fact that he died 75 years ago today -- that is, Nov. 10. His achievements were possible due to his charismatic nature and genius as well as the fact that the bulk of his nation believed, trusted and followed him. Needless to say, he did not win the revolution singlehandedly; there were others who were equally committed to the cause and who were willing to die for it. That was the starting point and -- for many unsuccessful revolutionaries -- the end point. Commitment is everything. Belief that a better world can be realized in one's own lifetime is what drives such individuals. To achieve this, they have to possess the widest possible horizons that one can imagine.
 
Many, such as his friend Mazhar Müfit Kansu, thought at the time -- and some still do today -- that Atatürk was dreaming an impossible dream. To believe the things that he did, to say the things that he said at the time, made him seem like a madman. A good example to illustrate this point is the celebrated conversation he had with his close friend İbrahim Süreyya Yiğit (coincidentally, this author's grandfather) on the night of July 7, 1919 during the Erzurum Congress.
 
Anatolia had been invaded; every man, woman and child feared for their future and was preparing for and expecting the worst. At such an unenviable time, for one to sit until dawn and contemplate the future political structures of a new state and insist on this being recorded so that it wouldn't be forgotten is simply breathtaking. With all the odds stacked against him, being able to create a blueprint for a future nation-state that would be a republic and that would implement social reform and elevate women's rights as part and parcel of a new secular representative project, is truly remarkable.
 
Reformist peacemaker
Atatürk, similar to all military men who care for their soldiers, abhorred war, declaring that it was a crime to engage in war unless national salvation was at stake. This is the origin of his dictum, “Peace at home, peace abroad.” During his lifetime, as well as after his death, the world honored Atatürk and gave him the highest compliment that any statesman can hope to achieve: that of peacemaker. Here was a military man who had confounded each and every general who had met him on the battlefield and who later, as head of state, ended the lingering bitterness and emotional distrust and transformed that mindset and relationship into deep and meaningful friendships that have been carried forward to today.
 
Atatürk was committed to improving the lives of citizens. It is a truism that his social reforms were top-down. Turkish society at the time was very uneducated; a vast proportion of the nation remained illiterate. One cannot say that women were chaining themselves to rails, trampled to death by horses at racetracks, or petitioning Atatürk to be given the right to vote and to be represented in Parliament. Yet this is precisely what they received in 1934. A year earlier, the Weimar Republic had appointed Adolf Hitler as chancellor. In 1935, the führer was dictating the Nuremberg Laws. Another year later, General Francisco Franco took the first step in asphyxiating the Spanish Republic and replacing it with a fascist dictatorship.
 
One need not dwell on the extremist successes of the 1930s, though it would be wise to recall that in that decade most people in Western Europe and beyond did not believe democracy had a future; it was thought that the answer lay in authoritarianism, whether it be from the political left or the right.
 
Atatürk for one, however, had no doubts. He desperately wanted to bring democracy to the republic and had taken the lead in creating an opposition party to compete in free and fair elections. He first attempted this in 1924, then for a second time in 1930. While Atatürk established model farms in 1925, Italy's Prime Minister Benito Mussolini introduced press censorship, closing down all independent newspapers. This was followed a year later with the banning of all political parties except the fascists. In 1933, Atatürk approved the first five-year development plan and new regulations concerning university education, while Hitler was passing laws according to which Jewish civil servants and employees were to be excluded from government service. One can add many other comparisons to this list.
 
In the final analysis, no individual is likely to be universally loved. No leader in history has captured the hearts and minds of everyone, but those who established organized societies under the roof of a state are remembered fondly and revered by many. Atatürk is one of those leaders. The first president of the US, George Washington, is certainly another. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder and governor-general of Pakistan, also fits into this category. After 75 years, a vast majority of Turks hold steadfastly to Atatürk's enlightening ideas and ideals.