Does Kemalism allow academic freedoms and freedom of thought and expression? Well, if it left to “contemporary” Kemalists they would criminalize any act of criticism leveled at Kemalism of their understanding. The latest incidence of intolerance in the name of Kemalism involved Hou Hanru, the curator of the Istanbul Biennial, who made an opening speech and forwarded the Biennial catalog in which he “analyzed” Kemalism from a slightly critical perspective. He says:
“Turkey, as one of the first non-western modern republics and a key player in the modernization of the developing world has proved to be one of the most radical, spectacular and influential cases in this direction. But, a fundamentally crucial problem is that the modernization model promoted by the Kemalist project was still a top-down imposition with some unsolvable contradictions and dilemmas inherent within the system: the quasi-military imposition of reforms, while necessary as a revolutionary tool, betrayed the principle of democracy; the nationalist ideology ran counter to its embracing of the universality of humanism, and the elite-led economic development generated social division. Populist political and religious forces have managed to recuperate and manipulate the claims from the ‘bottom’ of the society and have used them to their own advantage.”
A group of academics headed by the dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts at the Marmara University issued a declaration condemning Hou Hanru for having thought of Kemalism in this way. The statement points to “delicate times Turkey passing through” and calls on the curator to be “more sensitive”.
Well, we are really passing through delicate times: the neo-Kemalists think they are waging a new war of independence against their own people who vote for anti-Kemalist (?) political parties and globalist forces. They want a new top-down revolution to redesign people, think that democracy has gone too far and they have lost control over the state, society, and economy.
In short, they react Hou Hanru not because he criticized the founding myths of Kemalism but because he implicitly disclosed what the neo-Kemalists today think and are trying to do.
Otherwise, what are wrongs with such arguments? It is a generally agreed view that the republican project of building a “nation-state” and making a “new nation” out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire was an example of top-down modernization. It is a historical fact that these were not carried out in a “democratic” regime but by a single-party government and through “revolutionary” means. Democracy with its elementary mechanisms and institutions began with 1950, which is described by many Kemalists as the beginning of “counter-revolution”. Even today we know that neo-Kemalists are extremely skeptical of democracy; they ask for the continuation of the top-down revolutionary command to control and shape the country.
Instead of condemning Hanru, the neo-Kemalists can take his criticisms and, in fact, advises as a starting point for the revival of Kemalism in the new circumstances. Hanru basically underlines the reasons why Kemalism was unable to reach out to the “bottom of the society”. The contemporary Kemalists should think of new ways and languages by which they can reach society. Hanru points them out for the Kemalists: do not betray the principle of democracy, devise a more humane notion of nationalism and be sensitive to social problems. These are good pieces of advice if the neo-Kemalists are interested in reproducing Kemalism in a democratic milieu.
But they seem disinterested. In order to get acceptance from the people, the neo-Kemalists ask for favoritism. They want their notion of Kemalism to be protected and even imposed by the state and by the law. They should realize that Kemalism is one among many other “ideologies” that should compete for adherence in the free market of ideas and ideologies.
The neo-Kemalists are in fact trying to preserve their power and status within the system by hiding behind an anachronistic ideology that has nothing to do with the legacy of Ataturk himself which is alive and well respected in society at large. They are neither republican, nor democrat and modern, and as such should be disassociated from Kemal Ataturk as a historical personality who laid down the basis of modern Turkey.
Unless they do not link up Kemalism with contemporary ideas of democracy, human rights, rule of law as well as a civic notion of nationalism that is in peace with the world at large the neo-Kemalist ideology cannot survive. Anyhow neither Islamism nor Kemalism as ideologies cannot be imposed on societies through state apparatus in an open society, market economy, and globalized world.
01.10.2007
“Turkey, as one of the first non-western modern republics and a key player in the modernization of the developing world has proved to be one of the most radical, spectacular and influential cases in this direction. But, a fundamentally crucial problem is that the modernization model promoted by the Kemalist project was still a top-down imposition with some unsolvable contradictions and dilemmas inherent within the system: the quasi-military imposition of reforms, while necessary as a revolutionary tool, betrayed the principle of democracy; the nationalist ideology ran counter to its embracing of the universality of humanism, and the elite-led economic development generated social division. Populist political and religious forces have managed to recuperate and manipulate the claims from the ‘bottom’ of the society and have used them to their own advantage.”
A group of academics headed by the dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts at the Marmara University issued a declaration condemning Hou Hanru for having thought of Kemalism in this way. The statement points to “delicate times Turkey passing through” and calls on the curator to be “more sensitive”.
Well, we are really passing through delicate times: the neo-Kemalists think they are waging a new war of independence against their own people who vote for anti-Kemalist (?) political parties and globalist forces. They want a new top-down revolution to redesign people, think that democracy has gone too far and they have lost control over the state, society, and economy.
In short, they react Hou Hanru not because he criticized the founding myths of Kemalism but because he implicitly disclosed what the neo-Kemalists today think and are trying to do.
Otherwise, what are wrongs with such arguments? It is a generally agreed view that the republican project of building a “nation-state” and making a “new nation” out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire was an example of top-down modernization. It is a historical fact that these were not carried out in a “democratic” regime but by a single-party government and through “revolutionary” means. Democracy with its elementary mechanisms and institutions began with 1950, which is described by many Kemalists as the beginning of “counter-revolution”. Even today we know that neo-Kemalists are extremely skeptical of democracy; they ask for the continuation of the top-down revolutionary command to control and shape the country.
Instead of condemning Hanru, the neo-Kemalists can take his criticisms and, in fact, advises as a starting point for the revival of Kemalism in the new circumstances. Hanru basically underlines the reasons why Kemalism was unable to reach out to the “bottom of the society”. The contemporary Kemalists should think of new ways and languages by which they can reach society. Hanru points them out for the Kemalists: do not betray the principle of democracy, devise a more humane notion of nationalism and be sensitive to social problems. These are good pieces of advice if the neo-Kemalists are interested in reproducing Kemalism in a democratic milieu.
But they seem disinterested. In order to get acceptance from the people, the neo-Kemalists ask for favoritism. They want their notion of Kemalism to be protected and even imposed by the state and by the law. They should realize that Kemalism is one among many other “ideologies” that should compete for adherence in the free market of ideas and ideologies.
The neo-Kemalists are in fact trying to preserve their power and status within the system by hiding behind an anachronistic ideology that has nothing to do with the legacy of Ataturk himself which is alive and well respected in society at large. They are neither republican, nor democrat and modern, and as such should be disassociated from Kemal Ataturk as a historical personality who laid down the basis of modern Turkey.
Unless they do not link up Kemalism with contemporary ideas of democracy, human rights, rule of law as well as a civic notion of nationalism that is in peace with the world at large the neo-Kemalist ideology cannot survive. Anyhow neither Islamism nor Kemalism as ideologies cannot be imposed on societies through state apparatus in an open society, market economy, and globalized world.
01.10.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment