Is Kemalism compatible with democracy?

I know this question is straightforward, but it is one that we have to ask and answer if we are really interested in identifying and removing the obstacles before the democratization process. Any ideology may claim to be “good” and “right,” but if an ideology claims to have a monopoly over the “truth” and secures a constitutional superiority over other sets of ideas and ideologies, it turns out to be incompatible with democracy. Democracy requires pluralism of views that compete with one another. If the founding principles of a state are reduced to a single ideology, neither democracy nor rule of law can flourish, simply because constitutional order would not protect the pluralities of ideas and ideologies, but the one on which it is based.

The notion of state ideology is incompatible with the notion of democracy. Democracy does not only welcome plurality of views, programs, and ideologies, but requires them. These contending “views” on society should be in free competition to attract the support of the people.

As a set of ideas, Kemalism certainly deserves a place among the others and is entitled to protection from the state and law, just like other views, ideas, and ideologies. But it cannot ask for a monopoly or even a privilege. It is time for the Kemalists to understand for the sake of Turkish democracy that Kemalism is one among others that compete for adherence and acceptance by the people. The state protection and privileges for Kemalism only lead to distancing it further from society, people losing faith in democracy and producing more radicalism. In the free market of ideas, the Kemalists, too, will moderate themselves in order to appeal to a greater number of people.

We certainly need “moderate Kemalism” that accepts pluralism and democracy. But this requires abandoning the claim to be the sole provider of truth for society and the state, which is a totalitarian inclination anyway. Construction of a new and homogenized society by using the coercive means of the state is unacceptable from a liberal democratic point of view. In order not to be described as the new reactionaries of Turkey in the 21st century, the Kemalists had better come to terms with democracy and pluralism. It is the engagement in the path of democracy and the free market of ideas that may make the Kemalists feel the need for moderation.

When we look at the neo-Kemalists today, they seem to have a deep fear of the values and institutions of political modernity, namely democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The modern state cannot impose a particular ideology on its citizens. This is against the very nature of the state and its raison d’etre, which is to protect individual rights against the Leviathan, not vice versa.

However, some Kemalists still imagine Turkey as an ideological state, unaware of the fact that Turkish social, economic and political realities do not allow the imposition of a state ideology.
But some think that it is possible and they try. By doing so they opt out of the rules, norms, and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. To make people uniformly believe in a state ideology, the neo-Kemalists seem prepared to resort to authoritarian means. That is how neo-Kemalism has become an authoritarian political and social project. Their problem is viewing citizens as subservient to the state and its ideology, instead of recognizing them as autonomous moral and political entities capable of making individual and public choices.

The Kemalists also seem far from curing their strong anti-Western sentiments and position, which leads them to misinterpret the events in Turkey and abroad. Once the Islamists in Turkey thought of the West in this way, but now it is the Kemalists who think the West is the mother of all evil.

Kemalism as a state ideology above the law and principles of democracy goes against the notion of “contemporary civilization.”

Not only Kemalism but all ideologies that intend to use the state apparatus to silence and suppress other ideologies are incompatible with the principles of democracy.
04.10.2007

The future of Kemalism and the İstanbul Biennial

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