Mustafa Kemal Attaturk

[unmerged(13241)]

Boring? Are you kiding?
Complex matters need long explanations, no need to oversimplfy that.
1. Thanks, that is very informative.
2. Quite clear, but my question is: Could the parlament, with a large enough majority, change the face of the military? Basicly undermine the secularity of the army?
Also, the current rulling party is islamic (at least according to western sources) are they secularist or do they try to strenghten the influence of the religion on politics?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

What is that religious education thing? Don't you guys have compulsory state education system?

 

[Arilou]

Originally posted by madner
Boring? Are you kiding?
Complex matters need long explanations, no need to oversimplfy that.
1. Thanks, that is very informative.
2. Quite clear, but my question is: Could the parlament, with a large enough majority, change the face of the military? Basicly undermine the secularity of the army?
Also, the current rulling party is islamic (at least according to western sources) are they secularist or do they try to strenghten the influence of the religion on politics?

From what I've seen/heard the current ruling "islamic" party is no more islamic than the CDU is christian...

 

[El Greco]

I think many would be interested to have someone's opinion who receive a greek education and a greek culture:
Ataturk was indeed a great man for Turkey as he was the founder of Turkish Republic as we know it today. He has emerged in a bad climate in Turkey after the defeat in the WW1, in a strong wave of nationalism.
After the WW1 a war began between Turks and Greeks. The Greeks have successfully attacked the Minor Asia coast and they advanced rapidly towards Ankara. Also French had promised that they would help to conquer Istanbul but they never did it.
Greeks also lived in a time of nationalism and they wanted to get back the "lost territories of Minor Asia" in which many greeks lived at that moment. However, a turkish counter-attack lead by Ataturk has thrown Greeks out of Minor Asia and the "Destruction of Smyrni" (or "Liberation of Izmir" for the Turks) has taken place, during which greek population has been thrown in the sea. This has taken place in 1922 and after this, the exchange of population has taken place: Turkish population of Macedonia and western Thrace has been expelled in exchange of Greek population of Minor Asia who refugied in Athens, Thessaloniki (Macedonia) and Peloponnese (Morea in EU2).
So, in a greek-cultured point of view, Ataturk is the symbol of the definitive lost of territories in Minor Asia so he is not very admired. I think that, at those times, he was indeed one of the greatest things that could happen to Turkey as he helped Turkey to become a strong Republic and approach Europe.
Concerning the other points, I think that Yunus describe the situation perfectly.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Ataturk means 'father of the Turks,' isn't that right? It's been a long time since I've read anything about Turkish history.

Steele

 

[unmerged(6986)]

Originally posted by madner

Quite clear, but my question is: Could the parlament, with a large enough majority, change the face of the military? Basicly undermine the secularity of the army?
Also, the current rulling party is islamic (at least according to western sources) are they secularist or do they try to strenghten the influence of the religion on politics?

The current ruling party have been trying to bring up some minor changes. They have been trying to lower the penalties for disciplinary crimes in the army for example. This may be brought to disable the expelling of some officers (who probably has ties to some religious organizations).

Basically, they can change many things but first they have to make a good deal of publicity, secondly they should have the consent of president who can demand changes on proposed new laws (although he can not reject completely), and lastly army has a say on this since it is something about them. So I think, they can change things about army but it will be very hard if not impossible.

For the current ruling party I cannot say they are fundamentalist at least in their appearance. They are trying to be perceived as a Turkish version of european CDU so far, but I don't really know their true agenda, it has been only 6 months. Afterall this is a new founded party (prior to elections in 2002)and it is formed mostly from conservative people of some center parties and moderate people of the former islamist party. I don't think any party with heavy fundamentalist attitude can get serious vote in Turkey, they probably know this and act accordingly. I think it is early to tell for certain.

Originally posted by Steele
Ataturk means 'father of the Turks,' isn't that right?

the word ''Ata'' is very rarely used as 'father', although originally it means father/ancestor. it is more used like 'wisdom' when combined with other words.