PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

to to have happened in Turkey. Kemal's stature grew to even greater proportionsafter his death, when Turkey did venture into a multi-party system,and the electorate had the democratic choice to replace his legacy,but refrained from doing so. During the Menderes regime, the Kemalistdoctrine vvas indeed severely tested, but it nevertheless survived. The durabilityof Kemalism is therefore a powerful manifestation of its relevanceand legitimacy in the context of the Turkish political culture.Does this mean that Kemalism is an immutable phenomenon in Turkey'sbody politics? The answer to this question depends, of course, onhovv Kemalism is experienced by the masses and interpreted and appliedby the key political role players. An orthodox or rigid interpretation andapplication vvould make it increasingly difficult for Turkey's authoritiesto cope vvith a rapidly changing internal and external environment. An approachis called for vvhich vvould contribute tovvards a greater sense of nationalpurpose and of the Turkish people. A divided or polarised society,and a "torn" state is a too high and unnecessary price to be paid for a foreignpolicy vvhich is by no means the only alternative. Of course, tochange the existing order of things, as vve learned from Machiavelli,could be a highly risky or even dangerous exercise. But as Atatürk himselfhas proven vvhen he dismantled the anachronistic Ottoman Empire,vvithout modernisation and revision it is virtually inconceivable that anypolitical doctrine or regime could vvithstand the test of time. Even hallovvedinstitutions like for example the American and Svviss constitutions,along vvith various others, have from time to time been changed oramended in order to deal more effectively vvith the exigencies of contemporarypolitics.The continued relevance of Atatürk's historical legacy depends,therefore, on its dynamic and modernistic interpretation and implementation.Atatürk himself favoured the dynamic approach, thus he proclaimed"reformism" and "populism", obviously and inherently dynamic in character,as part and parcel of his quiver of "arrovvs" It vvould, therefore, belogical to conclude that Atatürk himself did not preclude changes i'n theapplication of his legacy.Against this background, hovv shall one then vievv the future of Turkishdomestic and foreign politics? Of course, an objective-scientific analysisof the deeper motives and cultural predilections of the Turkish people,insofar as it affect policy-making, is hardly possible for any outsideobserver. At best, the outsider can only judge Turkish policies in terms ofverifiable, objective and concrete results. As C E Black pointed out, "[C]hance may be vievved vvithin the framevvork of the conception that a societyevolves vvith reference to the problems that it faces".(4) This conception,according to Black, is reflected in a particular society's religion, ideology,and value system, permeating ali modes of expression. "Asociety's understanding of itself and its problems- its sense of identity703