Öymen’s statement alluding to the fact that it is impossible to question and criticize Atatürk’s personal aspects and political views has triggered questions about why the early years of the republic have not been analyzed by historians, journalists and scholars.Ertuğrul Özkök devoted his column on Friday in the Hürriyet daily to the “Dersim debate” and said it has influenced people to discuss the Atatürk era and the single-party period of the new regime. He pointed out that Öymen’s statements, which Özkök thinks he made unwisely, will be beneficial for Turkey as they have brought the political developments in the early years of Turkey under the spotlight.
Özkök also confessed that all he knew about the Dersim Rebellion was that it was one of the 28 earlier Kurdish revolts but that due to the ongoing debate he has begun to read books on the events in Dersim in 1937. “The debate in Parliament on Dersim has a meaning: that we have rejected the official history thesis. … This debate becomes very useful when we uncover what actually happened in Dersim,” the Hürriyet columnist added.
The author of a book titled “The Establishment of the Single-Party Administration in Turkey,” which examines the period of 1923-1931 from a critical perspective, Mete Tunçay, who was suspended from his job at a university in 1983 on charges of violating Article 1402 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), an article that was used to kick out many leftist academics whose studies were found to be “damaging” to the public order, noted that in his book he analyzed and questioned the single-party period in Turkey, in an exclusive interview with Sunday’s Zaman.
“I was not expelled from the university because I was depraved or corrupt. It was because I approached the Atatürk period from a critical perspective,” said Tunçay, adding that Atatürk and the single-party period remain taboo subjects despite some efforts to overcome this.
The 63-year-old historian underlined the importance of academic impartiality. “‘Everything that the state has contradicted is wrong’ -- this is an unhealthy understanding. Also, expressing criticism of the state for its each and every step is far from an ideal stance,” he continued, saying, “A historian should approach a period with the lights of science.” Furthermore, Tunçay stated that the taboo of Atatürk and the single-party era has lately started to be shaken; he also pointed out, though, that there are more steps to be taken.
Agreeing with Tunçay on the immunity of Atatürk and the single-party period from criticism and questioning, Mustafa Akyol, a Star daily columnist, stressed that the taboo on these periods is very strong and makes people think of Atatürk and İsmet İnönü as untouchables. “Given the fact that Atatürk is a great leader in world history, we have to remember that he was a politician, thus it is also possible for Atatürk to make mistakes. Atatürk, in addition to the Turkish military and Kemalism, can also be questioned and criticized,” emphasized Akyol, adding that formerly when someone voiced his objection to Kemalism or Atatürk’s policies, he was instantly labeled as an enemy of the country or the spokesman of foreign powers within the country.
He asserted that the democratization process and Turkey’s EU accession process have created the environment necessary to ease the restrictions on critically analyzing the founding father of the country.
“There is an article in the Constitution to protect Atatürk from criticism. Atilla Yayla [a prominent scholar on liberalism] was sentenced due to his statements that Atatürk’s period was not a progressive one; rather it took the country backwards.” He also criticized the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) for their general tendency to build up all of their policies on the dogma of Atatürk. “If it comes to Atatürk, it must be out of the question,” said Akyol, suggesting that the image of Atatürk should be normalized.
Commenting on the role of education in the indoctrination of the Atatürk taboo, Mustafa Armağan, a renowned writer known for his studies on the recent history of Turkey, considers history education in Turkey not authentic. “With this understanding of history education, younger generations cannot learn their true history,” Armağan said and underlined that not only is the period of Atatürk and İnönü exempt from questioning but also many other events in Turkish history, on which it is unwise to disagree with what the official books recount. “For example, the reforms which were implemented by Atatürk have never been questioned.” He added that the March 31 incident, which was presented as a conflict between constitutionalists and those who opposed the constitution in the Ottoman Empire in 1909, has still not been truly analyzed.
National
