On the 10th of October we have once again grieved the death of Atatürk. He has been ingrained in the Turkish history as the founder of the republic, savior of the nation and the great reformer. Two field surveys conducted by Metropoll this year reveal that of the largest political identity group in the nation is the “Atatürkists”. When asked what political identity decribes them best, of the 1275 interviewees 27,1% said “Atatürkist” (add another 2,7% who said Kemalist), 18,6% said “nationalist”, 12,2% “Islamist”, 11,4% “nationalist” and only 0,7% said “Sahariatist” and 0,9% “Kurdish nationalist” among other smaller identity groups.


Given these facts it was a counter-productive move by the government to forbid people to place wreaths at Atatürk’s statues and walking to his tomb to pay their respects to the man who they see as the dialectical opposite of what they do not like and fear. In fact Atatürk stands for the political opposition that is not provided by the existing political parties. It is not a correct assessment that Atatürkists are all anti-AKP. There are many of them who have voted for this party. But political alienation to the system is crystallizing around the cult of Atatürk in the absence of any party or movement that could be an alternative to the AKP and its government as it falters.

Those who say they are Atatürkist or uphold the ideals attributed to him see the “social good” in what he is believed to represent, secularism and elitism being the foremost. Indeed Atatürkists believe the elite management of society. Whether this elite is supported by the popular majority does not matter much. The elite they idealize is patriotic, morally correct, progressive and not contaminated by the ignorance and opportunism of the populace. Authoritarianism is a matter of fact to keep secularism and progressivism alive.
The irony is that Atatürkists have been in power and have run this country for decades through civilian or military governments but have come short of his ideals of creating an affluent, progressive, developed and democratic society. This contradiction is always met with excuses attributed to “internal and external foes” that have aborted the national cause.


Why did Turkey fell short of the targets set by Atatürk? There are two reasons for this: 1- Failing to establish the infrastructure of science and technology that is the locomotive of contemporary civilization. 2- Forcing the individual citizen to be an obedient servant of the state and leaving little room for individual initiative to become political and economic entrepreneurs. The end result has been clientelism and state-worship that have dwarfed the civil society.
The dictum that embellishes the wall of the Parliament “Sovereignty unconditionally rests with the people” has never come true. Usurpation of sovereignty by those who wielded state power (mostly the bureaucracy) is mainly due to the confusion of freedom with independence. Independence is a collective concept that concerns the state or the nation. But freedom is individual. The citizens of an independent country may live under the severe oppression of their governments. Such nations cannot mature enough to be economically rich and politically stable. What is missing in public life such as unity, confidence, pride and collective utopias are compensated by relying on the personality cult of the founders and/or saviors such as Atatürk.
It is through this process that Atatürk was made an official symbol of the integrity of the state rather than a shared national value across the board. The legitimacy problem of the regime that could not be produced by development, freedoms, voluntary participation and citizen initiative has been placed on his shoulders. His speeches were forcefully recited by right and left wing activists in prisons during torture sessions. Coups were performed in his name. In short the man who should be revered as a historic hero was never left to rest in his eternal abode. He has been constant dragged into daily politics by those who could not find a popular base for themselves.
It is only recently that popular governments supported by vast majorities came to power and Atatürk is gradually becoming less official and more popular. Those who ruled the country in his name lost; now they in the opposition (some in prison). It is them who are soliciting justice, tolerance, freedom and political representation in his name.
I personally saw Atatürk on the 10th of November among the people when a man was hardly trying to stand at 9:05 holding tight to his wheel chair when the sirens sounded on the moment when Atatürk passed away. Kids on their wind-surf boards stood still in a sea resort on the sea at the same moment. It seems he is back as an ombudsman rather than a hefty and distant statesman looking from above.


Prof. Dr. Doğu Ergil is a Professor of political Science in Fatih University \ Turkey, and also an expert on the Kurdish Question, and he is one of the well-known authors in Turkey.