PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

THE FUTURE OF KEMALİSM AND DEMOCRACY IN TUR-KEY AND THE MÜSLİM COUNTRİES*The Kemalists have worked to establish a strong and modern countryby surmounting ali obstacles in their path. Despite outside pressures onthe subject of religion, Kemalist nationalism has not deviated from theprincipal of popular independence. At the end of switch in time frameTurkey had got rid itself of ali foreign infiltration of influence vvithin differentregions of the country as it had in the Ottoman times. With effectivepressures on the religious fundamentalist sector the laicism of Kemalismhas been established. Kemalists approximated Western models intechnology and aimed to become contemporary vvith Western countries,but vvithout making compromises such that Turkey's independence vvouldgo unprotected. While observing a very direct and honest foreign policyvvith ali povverful countries and neighbours, especially the USSR, they removedali obstacles to the implementation of reforms vvithin the country,an example being the closure of the opposition party formed in 1924.Whereas the protection of the Kemalist reforms, particularly in thenation's transition to democracy vvas necessary, the Democratic Party'sdemagogic deviations from the Kemalist principles of government havebeen noted. The religious fundamentalists vvere pressuring the governmentto stand against laicism, the basic principle of Kemalism. The government,to be able to ensure economic development, had overlooked itsspending ability and had, in borrovving, fallen into the hands of foreign financialpovvers reminiscent of the fınancial capitulations made during thelast stages of the Ottoman Empire. The firm policy of peace and stabilityin matters of international diplomacy, maintained to ensure the continuityof reforms, vvas transformed to a policy of defense after 1945 vvhen theformation of outside threats vvas perceived. But internal threats to theKemalist principles had not been a cause for concern. The governmenthad in fact taken risks in using events in foreign policy as tools in internalpolicies, as in the 6 September 1955 events in İstanbul vvhich arose inconnection vvith the Cyprus conflict of the same year 1 .* This is the english translation of the previous text vvhich was written by Dr. MenterŞahinler.1. According to the Lausanne Treaty in 1923, Turkey accepted that Great Britain woulddominate Cyprus. During a period vvhen Great Britain accepted the existance of tvvoseparate populaces on the island, Greece vvho desired Cyprus Greeks to have the rightto "determine their own destiny", brought up the problem in U.N. in 1954. WhileTurks and Greeks vvere living on the island, "EOKA" vvhich vvas an illegal organisationaiming for "ENOSIS" vvhich meant annexation of the island to Greece. WhileTurks vvere observing these events vvith anger, demonstrations took place in İzmir,Ankara and İstanbul on 6 September 1955 upon the spread of the rumour that a bombvvas placed in the house of Atatürk in Salonica. We evaluate these events as a politicalmethod by the Menderes government to divert the attention of the publicopinion. French Ambassador considers these events as a "demonstration of radicalism".322