This photograph shows Mustafa Kemal during a visit by Iran's monarch, Reza Shah. I chose to feature this photograph for a number of reasons, mainly to show that while both leaders had similar goals for their respective countries, their policies played out under completely different circumstances. People often are mislead into thinking that in the same vein that Reza Shah's policies of nationalism, secularism, and etatism ultimately failed, so too will the goals of the Kemalists ultimately fail in Turkey. By this logic, according to its advocates, Turkey will become the "2nd Iran," ruled by fanatical mullahs in a theocratic state. I'm here to show that this scenario is simply not feasible.
First, let's look at the history in a comparative sense. Both Reza Shah and Ataturk were certainly authoritarian leaders who sought to mold society towards similar principles (secularism, nationalism, and etatism). In this sense, I mean "authoritarian" to be a neutral term, not a negative one. How both men went about it, however, is vastly different. Dr. Abi-Hamad once said something to the effect of "Reza Shah created a regime, Ataturk created a state." This certainly shed light on how Iran and Turkey developped differently. Reza Shah created a regime in which he was the shah, or monarch. His regime was the culmination of Iran's Constitutional Revolution from 1906-1911, which saw the conservative religious establishment of Iran fearful of "republican" principles, which they associated with secular France. Reza Shah, therefore, came to power on the idea that Iran would not be a republic, but a monarchy where traditions would be protected. Reza Shah's regime, however, enacted many reforms, such as secularization that saw forceable removal, sometimes publically, of headscarves and alienation of the religious establishment. In the end, Reza Shah could not protect Iran from an allied invasion in 1941, in which Great Britain and Soviet Russia divided Iran into spheres of influence. He abdicated the throne in 1941 in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Ataturk created a state. Authoritarian, elitist, interventionist (in the Lynn Viola sense of the term), and ideological. But it was a state nontheless. Ataturk was appointed president of a republic, in stark contrast with Reza Shah's declaration of being shah. While Turkey in the Ataturk period was government by a single party, the Republican People's Party, Ataturk, under the banner of populism, sought to bring the Turks under the fold of this party by extending participation in it. The Kemalist state extended voting rights to women, it set up "People's Houses" for educating the peasantry in the new reformed language, and enacted reforms to further define and standardize "Turkish identity." Ataturk also never banned headscarves outright though the state discouraged it.
Iran and Turkey have both had camps of secular vs. religious, traditional vs. modern. The tensions between the two camps have at points been extreme. Turkey has undergone three coups by the military for the "protection of the secular principles." So certainly, Turkey's history is not 100% ideal, but it's been better off than Iran's. A key point in Turkey's history has been it's ability to stay autonomous. Starting with WWII, Turkey neither fought in, nor was invaded during the war. İnönü was shrewd enough to avoid both. Iran was invaded and divided by Soviet Russia and Great Britian during the war, sparking a change in leadership.
Then we must consider the coup of 1953 in Iran. As stated before, Turkey has undergone three coups. But those coups were the result of internal decisions and politics. Iran's 1953 coup was sponsored by the Eisenhower administration/CIA. An act that was interventionist and bred disillustionment among Iranians. However unfair or brutal the coups in Turkey were, they are still the work of internal politics. Furthermore, Mohammad Reza Shah did not transition the regime to a state. His White Revolution was characterized by corruption, foreign intervention, and furthering a "self serving" regime. İnönü after Ataturk, moved the state to multiple parties, not just the RRP.
People often say Turkey is in danger of becoming the "2nd Iran." This statement is false. History has developped differently in these two countries for Turkey to take that course. The rise of conservative Islam in Turkey is countered with a reaffirmation of secular/nationalist values. Also, as I have spoken before, secularism and Islam overlap in Turkey. In Iran, under the Shah's they did not. And due to this, one was exclusive to the other. Turkey's rise of Islam, I feel, won't be characterized by that. The Turks don't want an Islamic state. They want a secular democracy where Islam is respected, but not necessarily the state itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment