Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T10:24:10.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atatürk and After: Three Perspectives on Political Change in Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2014

Bill Kissane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The retaking of Gezi Park by the Turkish police began on June 11, 2013. The government's aim was to “clear banners from the Atatürk Cultural Centre and the statue of Atatürk.” The center, built in Istanbul's Taksim square in the 1960s, in order to advertise the Western identity of the new Republic, after a military coup, is eventually to be replaced as part of urban redevelopment schemes. Whether Atatürk's general legacy is secure in contemporary Turkey is open to debate. The electoral victory of the AKP party in 2002 had weakened the ability of the secular elite to prevent change. Many Gezi Park protestors saw the AKP's legislation as a growing threat to their lifestyles. Yet the AKP's victory was also seen as a vindication of democracy, and it look little time before a “Turkish model” began to be promoted for the Middle East. The Gezi Park protests raise the question of what really has changed since 2002. This article discusses three books. The first studies Atatürk's ideas. The second, focused more on popular culture, traces changes in identities. The third discusses change in the state-society relationship. The concluding section relates them to the question of democracy in Turkey.

Type
Review Essay
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , Spring 2014 , pp. 293 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gaddis, John Lewis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 121.Google Scholar

2 Zürcher, Erik-Jan, “The Ottoman Legacy of the Turkish Republic: An Attempt at a New Periodization,” Die Welt des Islams 32 (1992): 237–53Google Scholar.

3 Gaddis, Landscape of History, 121.

4 “Tek Parti Dönemi Türk Siyasal Rejimi,” in Anzerlioǧlu, Y., Doǧaner, Y., Gökgöz, S. S., eds., 80 Yilinda Cumhuriyet ve Demokrasi (Ankara: Atatürk Ilkeleri ve Inkilap Tarihi Enstitüsü, 2004), 63.Google Scholar

5 Hanioǧlu, Şükrü, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

6 Keyman, E. Fuat, “Introduction: Modernity and Democracy in Turkey,” in Remaking Turkey: Globalization, Alternative Modernities, and Democracy, ed. Keyman, E. Fuat (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007)Google Scholar.

7 Keyman, “Introduction: Modernity and Democracy in Turkey.”

8 Hürriyet, 16 June 2013; “Turkey's Democratic Path,” New York Times, 29 July 2013.

9 Keyman, Remaking Turkey.

10 Köprülü, M. F., Demokrasi Yolunda (The Hague: Mouton, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Zürcher, “The Ottoman Legacy.”

11 A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, 210.

12 Blackburn, S., Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Penguin Books, 2005), 152.Google Scholar

13 McLaren, Lauren and Cop, Bulent, “The Failure of Democracy in Turkey: A Comparative Analysis,” Government and Opposition 46, no. 4 (October 2011): 485–516.Google Scholar

14 Ali Bayramoǧlu, “Democratization and Political Change in Turkey: What Future for Cyprus?,” House of Commons, Grand Committee Room, 12 December 2011.

15 Eagleton, Terry, After Theory (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 194.Google Scholar

16 Hutchinson, J., The Nation as a Zone of Conflict (London: Sage, 2005), 111.Google Scholar

17 Kücükömer, Idris, Cuntaciliktan ‘Sivil Toplum'A (Istanbul: Baǧlam Yayincilik, 1994).Google Scholar

18 Ekonomik, Türkiye ve Vakfi, Toplumsal Tarih, Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlari Rehberi (Istanbul, 1996), 20–22.Google Scholar

19 Sanayicileri, Türk ve Derneǧi, Işadamlari, Türkiye'de Demokratikleşme Perspektifleri (Istanbul 1997)Google Scholar. Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen Association (Tüsaid).

20 The full name is Müstakil Sanayaci ve Işadamlari Derneǧi (The Independent Industrialists and Businessmen's Association). Sevket Pamuk, “Globalisation, industrialisation and changing politics in Turkey,” Re-Public (online journal).

21 Hürriyet, 28 March 2000.

22 Doǧan, Mehmet, Halka Karşi Demokrasi (Istanbul: Iz Yayincilik, 1997).Google Scholar

23 Gemalmaz, Mehmet Semih, Anayasada Olaǧanustu Rejim; Demokratikleşmede Sivil Toplum (Istanbul: Kavram Yayinlari, 1995).Google Scholar

24 Richter, M., The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 48.Google Scholar

25 Parla, T. and Davison, A, Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey: Progress or Order? (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Navaro-Yashin, Y., Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Erdoǧan, N. and Üstüner, F., “Quest for Hegemony: Discourses on Democracy,” in The Politics of Permanent Crisis: Class, Ideology and the State in Turkey, ed. Balkan, N. and Saura, S. (New York: Nova Science, 2002), 195–213.Google Scholar

26 Introduction to 80 Yilinda, Türkiye Cumhuriyet ve Demokrasi, ed. Anzerlioǧlu, Doǧaner, and Gökgöz.

27 Aykut Kansu, “Meşrutiyet Döneminde Demokratikleşme Süreçi,” in 80 Yilinda, Türkiye Cumhuriyet ve Demokrasi, 23.