Ataturk can be understood correctly through secularism

We commemorate Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the eternal commander-in-chief of our National War of Independence and our Republic, the founder of our Republic, the architect of our revolutions, with longing and gratitude on the 88th anniversary of his eternity. In Ataturk's understanding of modernization and nation-state structured on the basis of the principle of populism, the principle of secularism lies at the basis of being a political nation.

However, secularism, which reflects the founding will, has not been on the agenda much in our country in recent years. In the so-called discussion programs in the 1990s, the following definition of secularism was always made on TV, under the influence of both migration and the pressure within the rapidly changing socio-cultural shell in society. "Secularism is not atheism." The fact that a fundamental principle, which is among the basic characteristics of the Republic and is among the articles of the constitution that cannot be changed or even proposed to be changed, was handled with such a shallow and unqualified definition actually pointed out the deadlock at the point reached.

In modern societies, "secularism" came to the fore on the basis of enlightenment revolutions and bourgeois governments. In Britain, in the face of the tutelage of the Papacy, which had become obsolete under the changing conditions of the age, VIII. The Protestant movement and the Reformation process, which started with Henry VIII's establishment of the Anglican church and his choice of Protestantism, and Martin Luther's protest against the excommunication of the Catholic church in Central Europe, revealed a fundamental opposition in different geographies of Europe. Changing production relations, commercial capitalism, growing cities, cosmopolitan urban populations, class societies, the increasing influence of the bourgeoisie in legislative bodies, and steps taken towards the rule of law developed together with the concept of "secularism".

On superficial evaluations, the lines drawn between "secularism" in Anglo-Saxon countries and French-type "secularism" express an embarrassed conservative opposition. However, considering the 1789 French revolution as a milestone in bourgeois revolutions brings up a chain of methodological errors. The revolutions that developed in Britain during and after Cromwell in the 17th century, the American revolution, and the French revolution formed the basis of the "enlightenment" character. Therefore, "absolute valueist" conceptual deviations that ignore the interaction in question demonstrate efforts to create confusion in terms of "secularism".

While in some 3rd world countries, issues are confused with populist attitudes, concepts in the history of modernization reinforce their meanings in the historical and comparative axis, in their own periods and in subsequent processes, and in developing and changing social structures. Namely, of course, countries have different milestones in their own practices. However, the distinction between "evolution" in the Anglo-Saxon countries and "revolution" in the French example is both anachronistic and reminiscent of the conservative ideological fiction in Edmund Burke's "anti-enlightenment" theses. In the French Revolution, the Jacobins, who held power for a period after the revolution, and some violent incidents against churches and priests during the revolution, reflect this illusion. However, the developments in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had fleshed out a "secular" basis in modern societies, albeit with different perceptions. This was because the constitutions and laws in those countries were based not on a particular religion or belief, but on reason, law and modern needs, and at the same time, there was no mutual intervention between religion and state. This, of course, symbolized a new socio-political consensus that required religion to withdraw into its own sphere in the public, political sphere and remain in the otherworldly sphere. (Britain, which does not have a written constitution, is a pioneer in this regard, not an exception, because pragmatic networks of a secular legal-social order have been established in life through case law.)

The "secularism" process in our country did not start with the Republic, as it is thought, but it was crowned with the Republic. Ottoman modernization was institutional in nature and had a late modernization character. The "new order", which started with Selim III and Nizam-ı Cedid at the end of the 18th century, ended with II. The modern army, which came to life with Mahmud, developed in the following period with Mecelle, a new civil code, commercial law and technical dimensions including legal regulations under many headings. The reform movements, the events leading up to the Committee of Union and Progress, which expressed modern political demands, and the 1st Constitutional Monarchy, in this context, had an enlightenment foundation based on "libertarian-egalitarian-brotherhood" against tyranny on the way to the 2nd Constitutional Monarchy, and had a "secular" character, although it did not name it. II. After the Constitutional Monarchy, the "Latin alphabet and mixed education" experiments were carried out in the Turkish Hearths, which enabled the dissolution of the empire and the transition to a nation-state, and the strengthening of a national and secular surface day by day.

Ataturk enabled the nation-state to carry out a sharp transformation on a "secular" basis, within the framework of the values ​​of the Republic. "The abolition of the caliphate on March 3, 1924, the abolition of the ministry of religious affairs and the establishment of the directorate of religious affairs under the prime ministry, the adoption of the education-training union law", the declaration that the religion of the state was Islam in 1928, and the inclusion of secularism in the constitution in 1937 made history in history.

It was not a coincidence that in the transition from ummah to nation, the quest to become a secular and civilized society, secularism, the product of enlightenment, was at the basis of the Turkish enlightenment. That's why the fantasy of a "non-secular Republic" or a "non-secular democracy" is more of a nightmare than a fantasy. Non-secular societies are coalitions of communities and have an authoritarian outlook. On this basis, I would like to bring up a meaningless play on words under the title of "being secular". The debate separating the person and the state on the basis of secularism is, so to speak, putting dynamite under secularism. On this basis, people would of course be secular. It is a great deception to say that people cannot be secular. If people are in favor of a secular socio-political order, they are secular, regardless of their religious belief or non-belief. Presenting secularism as an option for religious belief means turning the country into a field of religious communities and sects. The secular state is neutral, not religious or non-religious. It does not impose any belief or disbelief on its citizens. In this regard, the secular state evaluates its citizens as equal elements because it does not make official belief categorization. It does not categorize all kinds of identities of its citizens on the basis of citizenship, but it does not prevent them from protecting or developing these identities. The reason why I specifically emphasize this is that while the state is "blind" to all kinds of identities of its citizens in this status, it does not reject or assimilate them. As is the case with many phenomena today, secularism is also enriching in its own evolution and simultaneously plays a role in the internalization of the democratic structure. The concept of secularism indicates the basis and result of being a free human being, freeing the mind from all kinds of tutelage or dogma, that is, enlightenment. Kant's words, "having the courage to use one's own mind", only attains its meaning through secular minds. The opposite of this reveals the ignorance of helplessly returning to the dark ages. The reason I say desperate is that such efforts are contrary to the evolution of human history, and such societies are doomed to live under the rule of civilized societies, as Atatürk underlined. Secularism in our country expresses the problem of existence like bread and water, just like other human societies. I repeat this truth once again and complete my lines with the well-known words of Atatürk, the leader of the Turkish revolution and enlightenment.

"Gentlemen and people, know well that the Republic of Turkey cannot be a land of sheikhs, dervishes, disciples, and members. The best, most real way is the way of civilization. Doing what civilization requires is enough to be human. The leaders of the sect will understand this truth clearly and will immediately close their lodges on their own, and will of course accept that their followers have now reached maturity..."