"The Line of the Republic on the 101st Anniversary: Live and Let Live! Atatürk's ‘Peace at Home, Peace in the World’ Rhetoric"

The Republic was founded with a just and honourable struggle for existence, to live and to keep alive. On the 101st anniversary of the Republic, we must remember this fact with all our hearts, and dream of a peaceful and prosperous Turkey, free from violence on all fronts, with strong co-operation...

As Atatürk also stated, this is the right of the Republic: "Today it is imperative for the nation to be in sincere unity and solidarity. This is the salvation and happiness of society. The struggle is not over. It is the right of the Republic to convey this truth to the ears of the nation, to the conscience of the nation... to create a fortress of steel around the Republic, which is the place where the true voice and will of the nation emerges... A fortress of ideas, a fortress of thought... It is the right of the Republic to expect this.’ (5 February 1924) This statement made by Atatürk to draw attention to the critical role of the press in enlightening the public opinion is the responsibility of all of us today as intellectuals.

Undoubtedly, holidays and commemorative days have the effect of strengthening social unity, solidarity and collective belonging (Traverso 2009). Husserl, ‘the present we live in, in order to exist, must contain the “preservation” of the immediate past and the “anticipation” of the immediate future, otherwise it disappears in the nothingness of its ideal point.’ (cited in May, 2007) In other words, memory refers not only to the past but also to the relationship between the past and the present and to the future.

Therefore, the Republic Day gives us a sense of security that spreads from the past to the future, which is very close to the core of ‘feeling at home’ in the face of our concerns about losing our integrity due to both external and internal developments.

However, the overall picture of the Republic of Turkey, as we march towards its new century, says: ‘things are more complicated than you think...’

Yes, we are going through difficult days that test our souls: the heavy picture of multifaceted violence (murder, education, health, etc.) and uncontrolled conditions and practices, especially targeting women, girls and all children, even babies, practices and statements targeting the gains of the Republic, constitutional debates and terrorist acts, etc.

In summary, in addition to the practices and legal regulations that target all elements of our existence, divide our unity and integrity, and create partisanship; there is a landscape in which ignorance and lack of merit prevail in every field; and a sense of anxiety, fear and helplessness with the news of violence, conflict and death coming one after another.

However, when the need arises, the national will is strong enough to overcome despair and despair with wisdom. And so it has been. The Turkish nation has not remained silent to those who oppose, challenge or threaten the founding principles and values of the Republic; moreover, it has not remained silent to those who negotiate, discuss, etc. Especially on social media, there have been posts titled ‘the first 4 articles ofthe Constitutioncannot be changed’.

Because the Turkish nation knows that with the Republic, a Turkey that carries its independence and future on its wrist, in its heart, in its head, in its Constitution, and has the words ‘Happy to be a Turk’ in its leaven has come into being.

Yes, we know what the country longs for: breathe with all your strength, with your ‘4 forces’ Turkey...

Moreover, we face enormous problems that require co-operation to reduce and solve. We need a democratic, secular, legal state structure and functioning to ensure both internal and external peace.

As is well known, ‘when the quality of public discourse declines, so does the quality of democracy’ (Crowley and Hawhee 2004). We need useful rhetoric. However, what useful rhetoric has been, is and can be in the past, present and future need not be as degraded as our public discourse or our deeply fragmented political, economic and social landscape.

Thus, the search for a ‘healing and unifying’ rhetoric to address the multifaceted national and international challenges we face leads us back to Atatürk, a great revolutionary who moved between history and the future, and his rhetoric of ‘Peace at Home, Peace in the World’, which means ‘Live and Let Live’.

For the heart of rhetoric is what is possible at a given moment. Atatürk's rhetoric of ‘Peace at Home, Peace in the World’ continues to keep the pulse of the nation in these times that test our unity and solidarity, and is respected by the world public opinion.

In summary, the founding principles and achievements of the Republic, the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his reforms, the national unity of ‘Happy to be a Turk’, and ‘Peace at Home, Peace in the World’ point to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, which is struggling in national, ethnic and sectarian divisions and conflicts, as well as in the world...

Ataturk's legacy can be seen in national, regional and international contexts as the harmony/balance of power of ‘Pen and Sword’, ‘War and Peace’, ‘Live and Let Live’.

Austin Bay describes Ataturk as ‘a leader, strategist, soldier and statesman whose physical and moral courage made him “a central figure linking the last days of the Ottoman Empire to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic”. And he points out that Atatürk has never been off the agenda, both in the context of public and political struggle, in terms of the personal admiration of the Turkish people. (Bay, 2013)

Atatürk utilised and implemented all military, diplomatic, economic and knowledge-based elements in a balanced integrity. As Enginsoy puts it, ‘ Atatürk's military and political genius creates a complete balance and complements each other in a great harmony’ (Enginsoy, 1982:140).

The duality of pen and sword expresses the balance of power. Therefore, the establishment of the balance of power is first of all to ensure ‘independence’. Atatürk is the name of the resistance against imperialism, raising the flag of the war for freedom and independence and the struggle for existence as a nation with the motto ‘Either Independence, Or Death!’.

He marched to his goal on ‘two fronts’ with ‘pen and sword’ in order to establish and maintain a new Turkey based on national sovereignty, unconditionally and unconditionally independent. A symbiotic relationship between the pen and the sword, that is, between military and educational victory, is inevitable.

These two fronts were expressed in the press of the period as follows: ‘While the Independence Army was fighting against the Greek soldiers on the fronts, the Teachers’ Army in Ankara was preparing a defence programme against ignorance’ (Hâkimiyeti Milliye, 18 July 1921). Because, ‘The National Army will expel the enemy from the homeland, the Teachers’ Army will expel ignorance and oppression’ (Hakimiyeti Milliye, 3 June 1921).

According to Atatürk, war is a ‘necessary and vital struggle for existence’. On 16 March 1923, when the possibility of war was on the agenda even though the armistice had been signed, he would say, ‘...I should not feel torment in my conscience when I lead the nation to war. We can go to war against those who say “we will kill” because “we will not die”. But when the life of the nation is not exposed to danger, war is a murder.’ (Atatürk'ün Bütün Eserleri, Volume 15, 2005: 215)

For Atatürk, peace signifies the ideal of ‘full independence’, because this is inevitable for the revolutionary stage to be realised with the power of independence. On 2 February 1923, when the war was over and the Lausanne Peace negotiations were continuing, he addressed the people in Izmir as follows: ‘Friends, we want peace, but as I said, we want full independence. This is the meaning of peace. We have the right and the power to demand this. Rather than dying ten years, twenty years, fifty years from now, let us die today with an open heart and conscience, and let history write us as such.’ (Atatürk'ün Bütün Eserleri, Volume 15, 2005: 86-87)

Because imperialism may try to direct the destinies of nations with its swords, but nations can redraw their own destiny and fortune with courage and determination. And so it has been. On 24 July 1923, the existence of the New Turkish State was accepted.

It was possible to preserve peace by increasing the number of hands holding a pen and by creating a society free of intellect, conscience and wisdom. Therefore, Atatürk would endeavour to create a democratic, secular and legal state based on national sovereignty, universal values, science and technology, and equality between men and women.

To summarise, Turkey went through a restructuring process to realign the path and mentality of war with the world of peace. This approach, which heralded the establishment of a new understanding of the world in the country, was a change of perspective in which not only the ideas but also the universe in which we lived were renewed in line with the idea of modernisation, which brought about an act of renewal and progress.

Atatürk's phrase ‘Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene’ refers to ‘internal peace’ and stability, the indivisible integrity of the state with its country and nation, and its unitary structure. On the one hand, this phrase invites every member of the nation to share a common duty and responsibility (Aydın, 204: 33).

As Ö.Sanberk stated in a discussion programme he participated in during his ambassadorship in London: ‘ Atatürk's greatest achievement was to combine nationalism with universal civilisation and to make it outward-looking and open to the world. Of course Atatürk was a nationalist, a Turkish nationalist, not a cosmopolitan. But his nationalism was inspired by the belief that there was a single universal civilisation, defined in Enlightenment terms. He introduced radical reforms that enabled the Turkish nation to become a natural member of the universal community of civilisation and culture... This enabled him to overcome the much debated question of his time, whether Turkey should choose the West, Islam or its Central Asian past. His answer was that it should choose universal civilisation. This is the essence of Atatürk's thought and the reason why it is still valid today.’ (Sanberk, 1997)

With the reforms made in the field of education, the New Turkey got rid of years of wars and a ‘yesterday’ that was the reason for the backwardness of the society, and wrote a culture of renewal with a new language and history and a new human being. According to the census conducted in 1927, 11 per cent of 13 648 270 people were literate. Of this population, 24.2 per cent lived in cities and 75.8 per cent in villages. Therefore, the number of hands holding a pen was small. Moreover, the number of schools and teachers was insufficient.

With Atatürk's leadership and participation, the adoption of the Alphabet Revolution and the subsequent opening of Millet Mektepleri to increase the literate population marked the beginning of social transformation.

In the January 1929 issue of The National Geographic Magazine, the opening sentence of the article titled ‘Turkey is going to school’ was as follows: ‘If the pen is sharper than the sword, Turkey is on its way to new victories.’ The article summarises the change: ‘With the excitement generated by the miraculous New Turkish (alphabet) that will awaken a nation from ignorance and backwardness... a nation goes to school day and night... The President of Turkey (Atatürk), thanks to his struggle for the New Turkish alphabet, conquered the city (Istanbul) of foreign-language, foreign-press, foreign-thinking sultans. The tool he used was not the sword but the pen. It was the pen that would convey the message to any country in the world...’ (Williams, 1929: 94-108)

The balance of pen and sword embraces the intellectual spirit of Ataturk's reforms (political, economic, cultural) and the principles that founded the ideal of modernisation not only on the ‘national periphery’. It also refers to the international vision and demands world peace.

In his declaration as the leader of the Republican People's Party ahead of the parliamentary elections on 20 April 1931, Atatürk had said ‘We are working for Peace at Home, Peace in the World.’ (Hakimiyeti Milliye, 21 April 1931)

Maintaining peace and taking precautions against perceived threats are possible through co-operation and negotiation.

Atatürk's foreign and domestic policy balance and harmony complement each other. Moreover, there is a vital relationship between the internal organisation of the New Republic and its foreign policy. Because a peaceful foreign policy is needed to realise and sustain far-reaching reforms (Aydın, 2004:30).

Atatürk did not want the Turkish nation to be seen as a separate, foreign or hostile community from the nations of the world; he did not want the nation to belong to any group with such views. He wanted Turkey to be part of the civilised world. However, in order to achieve this, in addition to the change in the system of government, a change in the mental structure of the Turkish people was also necessary. The aim of his political and social reforms was to change the centuries-old backwardness and ignorance of the Turkish nation and to create a society integrated with the requirements of modern life. (Aydın, 2004:31)

The Six Arrows, Atatürk's principles, were not only the structural and operational doctrines of the Turkish revolution, but also played an important role in shaping foreign policy. Atatürk was against totalitarian, revisionist and imperialist tendencies. Republicanism, the founding and fundamental principle of the new state, was not only a change in the system of government, but also a turning point in the political philosophy of the Turks. The Republic of Turkey was a nation state founded by the Turkish nation with its own will, through the struggle of the War of Independence. Therefore, republicanism was already a doctrinal obstacle to the demands for a return to the sultanate and caliphate(Aydın, 2004:31).

Secularism was the most important element of modernisation, encompassing not only political and administrative life but also all social and cultural life. (Aydın, 2004:32) In terms of foreign policy, secularism meant something much more inclusive than the specific historical process of separation of religion and state. Atatürk's understanding of secularism was not founded on the problem of separating the ‘spiritual and the secular’; his main struggle was over the distinction between ‘democracy and theocracy’(Aydın, 2004:32).

By opting for a democratic system of government and rejecting the idea of a nation protecting Islam, the new Turkish state ended centuries of hostility and laid the foundation for peaceful relations with Western countries. Another implication of secularism for Turkish foreign policy wasthe rejection of the idea of Pan-Islamism, which was seen as a brilliant and attractive political solution to the problems of the Ottoman Empire in its last years (but failed). The new State would no longer conquer the world or be the protector of Islam. Because such claims and approaches could jeopardise the existence of the New State.(Aydın, 2004:32) According to Atatürk, the Islamic institutional structure of the Empire was the most important factor that accelerated its decline and collapse and he was determined not to let the same thing happen to the new Turkish State. In other words, he would not give Western powers a justification to intervene in Turkey's internal affairs. (Aydın, 2004:33)

The transformation of the Turkish state and society towards the modern world ideal was kept alive by the revolutionary dynamic ideal. The adoption of a modern way of life, the fight against ignorance and superstition, the importation of new techniques, economic development and especially the continuity of change in human minds through reason and science... In this sense, Atatürk's revolutionism, unlike the aims of other reformist states, was more akin to the evolutionary ideal. Its main aim was to protect the results of Turkish reforms from counter-revolutions (Aydın, 2004:35-36).

Atatürk's struggle was not against Western Civilisation, but against Western Imperialism. Turkey fought the West, but by fighting the West, Turkey became part of the Western system of civilised society. Atatürk's reforms and principles led Turkey to develop good neighbourly relations and to cooperate internationally to ensure collective security and peace. Moreover, the Western orientation of Turkish foreign policy was a natural complement to Atatürk's general distancing from the East. The fact that Turkey had never been colonised, and hence the absence of post-colonial resentments, unlike other Third World countries that gained independence after the Second World War, was also an important factor influencing Turkey's attitude towards the West. Atatürk's foreign policy was realistic, not adventurous. In order to ensure that the socio-economic reforms necessary for the modernisation and reconstruction of the Republic of Turkey could take place as soon as possible, his foreign policy had to be free of adventurism.(Aydın, 2004:36 et al.) Therefore, the most important thing that Turkey, which emerged from the war as a tired and distraught country, needed was peace.

Atatürk's rhetoric of peace also refers to the struggle of the Eastern peoples for independence and freedom. On 7 July 1922, on the occasion of the visit of the Iranian Ambassador to Ankara, he made the following statement: ‘ Although all our friends have said that Turkey's present struggle does not belong to Turkey alone, I feel the need to confirm this once more. If Turkey's present struggle were on its own behalf and account alone, it would perhaps be shorter, less bloody and could end more quickly. Turkey is making a great and important effort. Because what it is defending is the cause of all the wronged nations, the cause of the whole East, and Turkey is confident that the nations of the East, who are with her, will march with her until it is concluded...’ (Hakimiyet-i Milliye, 9 July 1922)

As an Eastern country, the reforms carried out by New Turkey under the leadership of Atatürk and its impact on the East were evaluated in the foreign press as follows ‘It is one of the interesting paradoxes of history that an Eastern country has rapidly modernised the East (Middle East) in a way that no Western state has done. The Turks, who suffer from no psychosis of oppression, freely accept whatno foreigner can impose ... Until a few years ago, Turkey was a candidate for an American mandate. Today, changes that no foreign protectorate would dare to impose are being eagerly adopted and Turkey is gaining a cultural leadership far beyond the Ottoman borders... The new Turkey is breaking away from other lands where the Arabic script prevailed, just as it did when it abolished the fez and tried to free women from the veil. But rather than a rupture, this may mark the establishment of a new bond. Already, Iran and Afghanistan are closely following Turkey's recent changes... ‘ (see: Williams, 1929: 94-108)

Turkey's important and sensitive geostrategic position is a dynamic element of national security concerns. Its borders with the Balkans and the Middle East, which are conflict zones, make Turkey highly sensitive to changes in both international and regional political balances. (Aydın, 2004:41-45)

During the Atatürk period, the Middle East was under the intervention of imperialism and many of them were even under its rule and control. However, after the 1930s, independence processes began. For this reason, the interlocutor of bilateral relations during the Atatürk period was mostly the West. However, although steps were taken to improve border security and commercial co-operation in time, it was difficult to develop a stable foreign policy due to the conflict elements in the region. Turkey's reforms in the state and social structure had established a perception of the other in the Eastern mind. Moreover, in the struggle for Turkey's territorial integrity (Mosul, Hatay), the fact that elements in the region sometimes collaborated with imperialism caused Turkey to keep its security concerns on alert (Yazıcı, 2016; Qureshi, 2014).

On the other hand, the region's multiple, divided social structure based on tribes, clans, sects, sects, etc. and the lack of a culture of reconciliation and the interventions of imperialism within the framework of energy resources do not make peace and stability possible today, as they did in the past.

Moreover, today we are experiencing all the negative effects of the instrumentalisation of this social structure in the region in domestic politics. Moreover, parodying the developments taking place today with the phrase ‘foreign/foreign powers’ is far from being realistic. It should not be forgotten that whatever is happening outside reverberates inside in different dimensions and tones. At this point, it is useful to make a reminder; it is possible to see the developments in foreign policy, the results of the destabilisation constructed by imperialism with the discourse of ‘democracy’, in the region and the world experiencing ‘spring’.

As I have tried to summarise in general terms, Atatürk's ‘Peace at Home and Peace in the World’, which means ‘Live and Let Live’, has dominated the domestic and foreign policy of the Republic of Turkey from the liberation to the establishment.

The saying ‘The pen is sharper than the sword’ establishes a wise ideal, the rhetoric of making peace possible. For this reason, it is very valuable. However, the emergence of the pen without the sword and the power of the sword without the pen is far from realistic due to the symbiotic relationship between them. Moreover, the point that both have reached today as a weapon and power is quite frightening. Therefore, without overlooking the relative virtues of the sword and the pen, it is necessary to establish a balance of power and to encourage them to overcome despair and helplessness when the need arises. Just as Atatürk did...

Today, we are in a circle of fire in a geography where swords are drawn and weapons are spoken. And we face the threat of this fire engulfing the home front and shaking the integrity of the state and the nation. Are we hopeless? No! Because Mustafa Kemal Atatürk continues to exist in our collective consciousness and ideals with gratitude and gratitude, respect and longing. It is precisely for these reasons that it is all the more important and valuable for us to be together these days. However, with respect for history and memories, and a careful attitude towards the future...

And as a final word,

For the new century of the Republic;

for the new century of the Republic,

The Republic, which was realised through the struggle for independence of the whole nation, men and women together, and the political triumph based on national will

Let us make a call to share the common duty and responsibility of every member of the nation with the phrase ‘Happy to Say I am a Turk’, which is the leaven of the democratic, secular, social-legal state that has developed and strengthened with the revolutions of our founding President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: Long Live the Republic ofTurkey !

Source

Note: All emphasis in the article is mine. It is not included in the mentioned sources.

1. ‘Iki Cephe’, Hakimiyeti Milliye, 18 July 1921, p.1.
2. ‘Maarif Congress’, Hakimiyeti Milliye, 3 June 1921, p.1.
3. Atatürk'ün Bütün Eserleri (2016), C: 13, C: 15, İstanbul: Kaynak Yayınları.
4. Aydın, M.(2004). Turkish Foreign Policy Framework and Analysis. Ankara: Strategic Research Centre.
5. Bay, A. (2013) Atatürk: Lessons on Leadership from the Genius General, Founder of Modern Turkey, Istanbul: Pegasus Publications.
6. Bora, T., Reiter,W., Horak,R.(1993). Football and its Culture: Teams, Fans, Industry, Legends, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
7. Carr, J., Parnell, D., Widdop, P., Power, M.J., Millar, S.R. (Eds.) (2020). Football, Politics and Identity. London: Routledge.
8. Crowley, S. and Debra, H. (2004). Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 3rd ed 3rd ed., Print Book.
9. Elias, N., & Dunning, E. (1986). Quest For Excitement: Sport and Leisure in The Civilising Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Enginsoy, C. (1982) Devlet Adamı Atatürk (1881-1938), Belleten, C.46.S.181, ss.133-144
11. May, T(2017). Deleuze: How an Individual Can Live, Istanbul: Kolektif Kitap
12. Qureshi, M. N. (2014). Ottoman Turkey, Atatürk, and Muslim South Asia Perspectives, Perceptions, and Responses, Oxford University Press, Karachi.
13. Sanberk,Ö.(1997) Transcript of Interview on the Collin Bell Programme, BBC Radio Scotland, 15 July 1997, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 2(3) Sept-Nov 1997.
14. Traverso, E.(2009). History, Memory, Politics, Istanbul: Kitap Yayınları
15. Williams, M.O.( January 1929) ‘Turkey Goes to School,’ The National Geographic Magazine, Vol.55, No.1, pp.94-108.
16. Yazici. N.(2016). The Mosul Issue in the Oil Framework 1926-1955, Istanbul: Ötüken Publishing House.