Can a Conservative be a Revolutionary?
in order to talk about revolutionism, it is necessary to disrupt the existing order, the status quo, and make new radical changes. This is where the contradiction arises. The conservative is against radical changes that upset the existing order. Conservatism is a political philosophy that seeks to preserve all teachings, traditions, culture and existing institutions from the past. At first glance, revolutionism and conservatism seem to be two concepts that cannot go hand in hand.
First, let's look at the dictionary meanings of the concepts: TDK Dictionary defines conservative as "conservative" and revolutionary as "someone who makes rapid, radical and qualified changes in a certain field". Of course, the word meanings give an immediate idea. Both words seem to be almost opposites of each other. However, we will make an evaluation on the meanings of these words in political science rather than their dictionary meanings.
Let's take a look at the names associated with these words. Che Guevera, Mao, Lenin, Cromwell, Robespierre are revolutionaries. Che in Cuba, Mao in China, Lenin in Russia, Cromwell in England, Robespierre in France made rapid, radical and qualified changes. How do we know? If we are talking about them and the changes they brought about even today, it means that these people had a serious social impact.
Let's come to our country. Let's take a look at the revolutionary names in our history. Fatih Sultan Mehmet is a revolutionary in my opinion. Because he replaced the idea of the state with the idea of empire with a visionary perspective. Not only the conquest of Istanbul, but also his decrees, his administrative regulations, his innovations in the field of military service are important stages in the transition from the Ottoman State to the Ottoman Empire. We can say that another revolutionary was Mahmut II. His nickname was "Gavur Sultan". The innovations he introduced were meant to bring a collapsing Empire back to its feet.
The process that started with the abolition of the Janissary Corps was followed by making primary education compulsory and establishing Rüşdiye schools equivalent to today's primary schools, the establishment of the Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-i Şahane, the first modern medical school, and the Mekteb-i Harbiye, the first war school in the modern sense, in order to provide Western-style education. During his reign, the institution of the vizierate was abolished and the ministerial organization was introduced in the modern sense. Many administrative regulations followed, but for some reason we know Mahmut II as the first sultan to wear pants. So, is it possible to talk about revolutionaries in Turkish history and not mention Mustafa Kemal Atatürk? Of course not. We will not talk about what he did for social change and transformation. Just the Republic, which he called his greatest work, is enough to explain his revolutionary character. In terms of social impact and paradigm shift, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is the greatest revolutionary in Turkish history.
The most prominent characteristic of revolutionism is that it completely abolishes the old. These changes must also be radical and qualified. If there are no qualified changes, we cannot talk about revolutionism as in the examples of Stalin or Hitler.
The subject of our article was the question of whether conservatives can be revolutionaries. As we can see from the examples, in order to talk about revolutionism, it is necessary to disrupt the existing order, the status quo, and make new radical changes. This is where the contradiction arises. The conservative is against radical changes that upset the existing order. Conservatism is a political philosophy that seeks to preserve all teachings, traditions, culture and existing institutions from the past. At first glance, revolutionism and conservatism seem to be two concepts that cannot go hand in hand.
Conservatism, which originated from the aim of protecting against the dizzying and destructive impact of the French Revolution, has blended with liberalism in Western practice, especially after the 70s, and has become a movement called neo-conservatism. Based on authority, the state, interventionism and social order, neo-conservatism found application in the West during the eras of Reagan, Thatcher and Bush Jr. So the concept we are talking about is not classical conservatism.
Let's come to the present day; populism has dominated world politics since the 2000s. Some leaders, recognizing the sense of exclusion due to the inequality of income distribution brought about by liberal economic practices to large masses of people, characterized the existing order as elitist and discriminatory, and proposed change. The key to this change is the individual vote, i.e. the numerical majority, which is the representative apparatus of democracy. Populism is a practice, a discourse, not an ideology. It emphasizes religious values, traditions, nationalism and anti-elitism. Populism can be practiced on the left or the right. In other words, a conservative can be a populist and a revolutionary can be a populist. These concepts should not be confused. Defining a populist politics as revolutionary and then reaching the definition of a conservative revolutionary from there would only be forced.
Another point of debate is what kind of changes revolution encompasses. A revolution is a paradigmatic change, that is, a change in the set of values. These changes need to be addressed under the headings of the individual, society and the state. The individual changes his/her attitudes, behaviors and habits, society is reformatted sociologically and culturally, and the state adopts a new political order. Innovations in an existing order are not revolutionary but transformational.
Finally, let us look at the relationship between conservatism and religion. We mentioned that conservatism has conservatism at its roots. We also mentioned that conservatism aims to preserve the existing order and proposes a strong state, society and order. In fact, this proposal is based on the feeling that today's social order has deteriorated, the state has become corrupt, and society has moved away from its values and traditions. In this respect, we see that today's conservative people embrace the values of the past. Among the values carried over from the past, the most prominent ones are beliefs, traditions and national discourses. In other words, it is an expected result for a person who is attached to religious values and traditions to be a conservative. From this point of view, is it possible for conservatism to evolve into revolutionism? From the starting point, we can say yes. The Prophet Muhammad, who proposed a new order to the corrupt Quraysh, was of course a revolutionary for his time. However, proposing his ideas and practices for today's state and social order can only be a populist conservatism.
