Kemal Ataturk was a well known secularist in in Turkey who paved the way towards some semblence of representative government whilst maintaining secularisation.
But Kemal Ataturk was pretty much the one man who dominated Turkish politics until his death in 1938, but he helped a whole deal in getting Turkey somewhat a third of the way to the democracy.
Is this is what we should at least embrace in Iraq, lest alternatives unsuitable to Western interests?
A ‘Democratic Strongman’ a person who has to use dictorial methods to bind the country whilst slowly implementing democratic reforms on the local, rather than national level could be a better way of reaching the goal of a democratic unified Iraq than the model we’re imposing now?
It would provide a few benefits, for example
It would be easier to suppress Islamic militarism
It would keep the country unified
It would provide space and security for some democratic reforms
It would remove obstacles to remove impediments to democratization
Ataturk was a product of his time, there was an entire movement behind him, bent on the preservation of the Ottoman state/Turkish republic in the face of Great Power intentions to divide their territory. The movement began with a strongly Turkish-Muslim slant, to the detriment of non-Turk, non-Muslim groups (e.g. Armenian genocides, deportations, Greek/Turk population exchanges).
First of all, who can be the Iraqi Ataturk? Certainly not anyone overtly backed by the US, since this doesn’t fit with the paradigm (preservation of X nation in the face of imperialist powers). Second, where is this underlying nationalist, secularist movement? Third, how would one address the diverse religious and ethnic factions already present in Iraq, especially areas where these groups are heavily mixed (e.g. Baghdad). Genocide and forced population exchanges are unacceptable answers, of course.
Kemalist approach as applied by an occupying power seems strange.
Sorry about the unfinished posts.
No, you can not “copy Atatürk” to Iraq and not only because Iraq is not Turkey and Itaqis are not Turks (and Sunnis are not Shias).
At the time he Socialist Experiment of Ataturk was looked at attentively and although there were attempts made to take it as an example that had enough mertis to try to copy it, all these efforts failed miserably (due to intertwined socio-economical-religious-demographic factors).
Nationalism,etatism,republicanism,revolutionism,popularism and secularism where the themes of the Atatürk’s experiment and by which he put an end to the Islamic Caliphate (1923).
Atatürk was inspired by the writings of Zya Gökalp who himself was largely influenced and inspired by Durkheim (The Human Division of Labor).
The aim was to set up a society in which the social classes, the tribal and other lyalties and ties were overrruled and made suordinate to the functioning (and the occupations) of the citizens in that society. (Especially this idea of “solidarism” appealed very much to the onlooking ME societies )
Atatürk envisioned secularity of the State, not of individuals yet by this he brutally enforced several unpopular measurements which still can become a cause of cause friction between societies, groups and between society and government.
To make his ideas gain foothold he relied on one single political party. (Other parties that eventually came to the scene were only sporadically tolerated.)
The Republican People’s Party was not only the creation of the regime. It became also the most important organisation.
He created an interventionist state that was to be at the center of every political and economical activity and was also aimed to completely reshape the whole society. (This was also an idea that was at least in its political and economical implicatons largely copied thoughout the Middle East and from which we still suffer the consequences).
I don’t see a copy of that with all its interventions and consequences rising from the dust of the Iraq mess and I don’t see any advantages in creating yet an other new interventionist state machinery either.
The Iraqis had that, remember?
They had also had secular society, remember?
Ataturk surely ranks as one of the most important leaders of the 20th Century. He was, by most measures, an exceptional man who led an exceptional life.
If the future of U.S. policy toward Iraq depends on finding a Great Leader, we are in deep doo-doo. If that is indeed our strategy, I’d rather we find an Iraqi George Washington, who would step aside to let a non-authoritarian government take charge after the war would (hopefully) be won.
While we’re on the subject, I also hoped that the US voters would have adopted an FDR strategy to find an outstanding president to unite the country and guide us through these difficult times. That didn’t work out so well. I’m beginning to doubt that these “great leader” strategies are nothing more than a waste of prayers.
Yes I know, I’m just saying that it seems apparent that a slower course to democracy might be better, as it would be more successful in weavig the idea of representative government into the minds of Iraqs along with providing better security. Its just been an idea I’ve been thinking about.
Part of this would also be recognizing that a representative government will likely have religious parties, especially since Saddam’s regime was viciously secular (especially to Shias) and favoured a Sunni elite. Dismissing the power of Iraqi Shia clerics early on was a mistake, they have shown an ability to influence large segments of the population.
Many Iraqis are interested in the idea of representative government, especially if they belonged to an oppressed minority in the previous regime (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3421024). However, democracy can easily turn into an opportunity for the majority to oppress the minority, unless minority rights are entrenched in law and law is enforced.
In theory, one could propose creating (or recreating/promoting) an Iraqi national identity that supercedes ethnicity, religion, religious sect, etc. But this is exactly what the Young Turks (just prior to Ataturk’s rise and WWI) tried in the Ottoman empire, through the promotion of “Ottomanism”. It didn’t work, ethnic-nationalist/religious affiliations made people very resistant to the idea.
So perhaps a first step, before any sort of (modern western) democratic ideals are applied, would be trying to instill a common cause, shared social contract and vested interest in preserving Iraq as a nation (instead of Balkanised states). If you’re still considering a Kemalist approach, it would be leaders campaigning with anti-American platforms and a rejection of foreign interference in Iraq, because most Iraqis could agree on that. Of course, it wouldn’t be acceptable to the US if the new government really did decide to be anti-American.
These are more “capitalistic” models… the government rules without much question and the people gain prosperity. Not too sure it would work. Arabs have become to dependent on oil revenues.
I think the Ataturk example might be a good one… but Turkey is right next to Europe and had a good reason to modernize or die. The contrast with their more prosperous european neighbors and the world wars. Still for todays standards Ataturk might be labeled a horrid dictator ? Using the military as a guarantee of modernization ? Saddam did make Iraq more secular than ever… but that doesn’t automatically bring “modern” into the equation.
It’s not just proximity, a big part of ME nationalist movements post-WWI came about as a reaction against foreign intervention. Turkey’s economic fortunes declined because of the rapid industrialization of Europe (particularly Britain) and subsequent interference by European powers in trade and the handling of minorities (e.g. Xtians, Greeks, etc). Iranians also had strong opposition to the interference of foreign powers in their economic affairs, specifically control over things like oil, tobacco and infrastructure. If you define modern states as having (a) force monopoly within defined borders and (b) bureaucracy/government service delivery, all of these states (incl. Iraq) were modern already.
Ataturk’s movement was nationalist, secularist and Turk-centric. Many of the Xtians and other ethnic groups had already been deported, killed or removed through conquests by European powers. Iraq has religious and ethnic factions, none of which I’m sure are willing to be relocated/deported/killed. Ataturk successfully led a resistance against European powers who were attempting to seize Anatolia, which won him a large amount of popular support. There is no equivalent figure currently in Iraq. The situations are not very similar.
Your quite right… I agree its quite different. I forgot to mention that “Turks” are more united than Iraqis. You forgot to mention that Ataturk was not only a brilliant general but very inteligent. Not something we’ve seen in Iraq or their occupiers lately…
Saddam was a secular strongman leader who united Iraqis (during the 70’s and 80’s before dividing them again in the 90’s to protect his own rule) and was aided by foreign powers to assist in combating muslum extremists. Given how that turned out, I recommend trying something different this time around.
Well, it can be argued that CPA/Iraqi government leadership failed to recognize the influence wielded by religious leaders as it worked to implement secular systems. You see this in Sadr’s and Sistani’s influence over Shia muslims. If you look at old CPA polling (c. 2003 - CPA-IRAQ.org: Homepage of The New Iraq - Information about the Iraqi Dinar), you’ll see that while the majority of Iraqis preferred Democracy, many felt that the country could be governed by some unique democratic-Islamic system or as an Islamic state similar to Iran. In Baghdad, there was a three-way split in preference.
Many ME countries sought to marginalize religion by controlling religious endowments through state ministries, showing preference to those educated in modern systems vs. quranic schools or through more obvious forms of repression (e.g. Saddam’s regime). This caused problems. Recognizing that support from the religious community can add legitimacy to a government (especially wrt “just” leadership), it may be easier to work with Islamic concepts rather than against them when developing a new democratic system. Kemalist secularism doesn’t really allow for that.
Well, all I hope is that even when the Iraqis do elect a government with Islamist overtones, they allow the democratic processes to continue, shouldn’t there be clauses in which they cannot overthrow the democracy the US is trying to implement, I think if an Islamic government (and I mean Islamic as in the clerical form) trashed up the constitution, the US has a right to go in and restore the processes it tried to leave behind.
I think that if the constitution we leave behind requires the support of US armed interventions every so often to keep it from being overthrown, then it probably isn’t worth saving.
Well, maybe the constitution could be structured such that the state could have an “Islamic” character, but not to the detriment of non-muslim minorities, women, etc. Somewhat like the notion held by conservative/Xtian Americans that the US was built on Christian values and morality (yes there are disputes around this, but you can see the parallel). This is something the Americans could negotiate with religious and political leaders in the background. If the clerics are engaged in the process, they are more likely to keep the result, especially if there are good incentives to do so. It would save the US a lot of trouble to do it this way, rather than be forced to invade - ironically similar to the Turkish military tossing out their politicians whenever they felt things were going wrong. Not a good practice for fostering democracy.
The other issue is framing. al-Qaeda has been very successful so far in creating a link between being pro-Islam and anti-American, to the point where it’s tough to reasonably support Islam and the US at the same time. In developing a democracy with an “Islamic character”, politicians would have to start working on removing this implicit association. Part of that would be winning the support of muslim clerics so they won’t try and replace the government with a non-representative theocracy. Also important that Americans avoid being portrayed as “crusaders” because that makes it easy to rally political opposition under the banner of Islam.
