Was Atatürk a Kemalist?

The lynch campaign directed at Prof. Dr. Atilla Yayla due to his thesis criticizing Kemalism for "taking the country backward" leaves no need to search for any other evidence to confirm this thesis.

If a university, trusting a newspaper report brought by a novice reporter with a blatantly immoral tone more than its thirty-year professor, immediately discards him and does so in the name of Kemalism, Atilla Yayla has understated the case.

If Kemalism is to have even a little to do with Atatürk's words and deeds, the greatest task in leading Turkey to bright tomorrows falls to scientists. Even if there were a political doctrine called Kemalism, who else besides scientists would speak the most valid words about its political performance and suitability for the era?

Especially when the subject is politics, and when it concerns Turkey's benefit regarding the compatibility of the political system's ideology and practice, Atilla Yayla is one of the few people who would make the highest-level contribution—of course within the framework of his private ideas that other scientists are not obligated to join. If this debate is allowed to be driven by the provocations of novice newspaper reporters rather than the rich knowledge of scientists, there is first and foremost a grave betrayal of Atatürk.

Was it not Atatürk himself who halted the efforts of the Kadro movement, which tried to produce a Kemalist "doctrine" and impose it on the country, on the grounds that it would "freeze the country in place"? Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu, one of the most important representatives of this movement, recounts: "One day (Atatürk) was reviewing the principles of the CHP. At that moment, I pedantically said: 'Pasha, this is a Revolution Party in every respect. And a Revolution Party cannot proceed without relying on an ideology, a doctrine.' He looked at my face as if looking at the face of an innocent and smiled, saying: 'Then we would freeze in place'" (Atatürk, İletişim Yayınları pp. 149-150).

In fact, an Atatürk who said, "I leave no stereotyped precept as a spiritual heritage. My spiritual heritage is science and reason. Time is moving rapidly. In such a world, claiming to bring provisions that will never change would be to deny the development of reason and science" could not, first of all, be a Kemalist. Because Kemalism is precisely a movement trying to bring "provisions that will never change" in such a world. Moreover, most of those who tried to develop Kemalism after Atatürk's death had serious disagreements with Atatürk while he was alive.

Furthermore, it is clear that those trying to bring these provisions tailored a suit for Turkey that was extremely narrow and ill-fitting even back then. Trying to present this suit, which is bursting and falling apart at every seam, as a very handsome suit in today's world can only be explained by an ideological blindness.

The clearest indicator that an ideology has not merely frozen in place, but has become dangerously entangled in one's feet, is that the ideology has turned into a tool of exclusion and hatred, judgment and execution in the mouths of ordinary people. In this case, people of sound mind are sidelined, and crude, narrow-minded zealots speak on behalf of the whole ideology or the whole faith. The country gets dragged behind a fanatical ignorance. From that point on, mind does not race with mind, nor is one mind superior to another. Uncontrolled fanaticisms race with others. The scientific and opinion leaders, who are expected to determine the "contemporary level of civilization" and exert the necessary efforts to catch it, are kept busy futilely defending themselves against a blind and deaf fanaticism. What is humiliated is none other than reason and knowledge, virtue and character.

Many have said it, so let me say it by joining what has been said: The AKP officials in Izmir who invited Prof. Yayla and then pretended not to know him are primarily responsible for the emerging scandal.

If anyone lacks the minimum courage and ethics required by politics, let them not walk around calling themselves a politician. Those lacking this courage and ethics have nothing to give to the people.