Ataturk established an authoriatrian rule with the aim of stopping religious political opponents who wanted to rip the country open into an Islamic republic. The point of his leadership was to create a safe transition to a parliamentary Democracy, hence why in the last decade of his life, once he had finished that work, he established the CHP and assumed the role of the first Prime minister of Turkey, at which point the transition to secular democracy has been complete.
What are you talking about? The Republican People's Party existed from the beginning of the Republic of Turkey and he started out as Prime Minister and then became President. Also the CHP was the sole party allowed for much of that time even three decades after being created. The only parties created were spun-off fromthe CHP and had very short lifespans. The most successful one was after Ataturk died and that government was eventually removed in a military coup d'etat for being more moderate. During this time a number anti-Greek pogroms were initiated, which eventually cleansed Turkey of most of its remaining Greek population.
Kemalism is the idea that a country is a unified body with a secular stance on domestic and foreign issues. It is against dynastic and one party rule, and your comparisons to fascism is just dishonest BS.
My comparisons to fascism are rooted in factors like militarism, nationalism, an attempt to subvert religion to national goals, brainwashing in the education system, and seeing the people as cogs in a machine. Kemalism had embraced state socialism, which is a common economic element of fascism. Of course, this ideology developed at about the same time as Fascism. While I understand the transitional aspirations of Kemalism such ideas are present in Marxism and the philosophy of Sun Yat-sen. Of them all I would say Sun Yat-sen's philosophy is the only one that does not inherently invite autocracy.
Then you need to make up your mind.
The problem isn't me I can tell you that.
The Greeks invaded much of Turkey. The war of independance got Turkey back. What genocide? Where has this come from? What historical bases do you have for this claim? This was a war with the odds tipped against the Greeks. We handed there arses to them. Are you for real?
There is no question about the Greek genocide. While Greeks did commit massacres it was not of the same nature as what the Turks did. Turkey sought to exterminate Greeks in the region. It essentially carried on from the Ottoman genocides against Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians. This is aside from deliberate ethnic cleansing.
How? What brings you to this conclusion? I was under the impression the CHP had expelled an Iranian diplomat for anti-semetic remarks, but clearly your sources are flawed.
I am sorry but citing some incident over a diplomat, is not nearly enough. There was a very public rapprochement beginning in this period.
Actually, just you, as an outside observer. If you believe weakening secularism in state politics and 'protecting religious freedom' only for ONE religion in paticular while ignoring the Christians and Alveli's then you have your facts muddled up. And in regards to Democratic standards, what exactly has he done to improve these, again? Please remind me.
Democratic standards includes religious freedom and it also means loosening the grip of an unelected elite on the mechanisms of democracy. Both of these things have been advanced by Turkey.
What does this have to do with what i just said?
You are arguing CHP is an ally of the U.S. and opposes ties with Iran so I am pointing out how their objections seems to mainly be that they fear Turkey being isolated because of Erdogan's rhetoric.
Wrong. Turkey under the AKP has become the 2nd biggest violator of human rights in the ECHR, and freedom of media has declined the most under the AKP, whereas under the CHP it saw increases- and we where not even close to the 2nd biggest violator in the ECHR.
Oh come on, talk about spin:
According to statistics from the Foreign Ministry, Turkey was sentenced to 33 million euros in 567 different cases between 1990 -- when Turkey allowed individual applications to the European court -- and 2006. A majority of these cases are related to events that took place in southeastern Anatolia when it was declared that the region was in a state of emergency. This label was officially applied to the Southeast between July 1987 and November 2002 due to terrorist activities perpetrated by the outlawed Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK).
Turkey, which accounts for 9.5 percent of the cases at the European court, has been fined many times due to the violations of human rights that took place in the Southeast at that time, where JİTEM -- a secret and illicit military intelligence agency -- was active. JİTEM has now come up again on Turkey's agenda after retired Col. Arif Doğan was detained in the investigation into Ergenekon, a criminal network suspected of plotting a coup against the government.
Source: Today's Zaman
Honestly, if you want proof of how the situation has improved you just need to look at the human rights situation of the Kurds.
Not neccessarily. After the coup, Turkey today is far more democratic and free then it was, say, under Suleyman Demirel.
Turkey today is far more democratic, but not because of any coup.
The CHP's foreign policy is to promote western ties. Whats so hawkish about it?
Their positions on Cyprus and the Kurds for one. Indeed, their policy with regards to the Kurdish issue will guarantee they cannot have good ties with the U.S. and Israel. Right now the Kurds are an essential ally in Iraq and against Iran, while Turkey has common cause with Iran against the Kurds.
I dont see a 21st century CHP wanting to embrace Iran. I also would like to make it clear that Iran and Turkey have always been regional power contenders, especially under the CHP. In fact, this large "shift of axis" "in favour" of Iran if you will happened under AKP. Not MHP, not CHP, but AKP. There is a very good reason for that too.
Maybe as it stands they are not "embracing Iran" so to speak, but they are also not opposed to Iran ties like you said. I think CHP would be more leaning towards Russia then Iran, though the two go hand-in-hand.
A natural geopolitical shift? If it was natural it wouldn't have taken 100 years.
Turkey's ties with Iran haven't taken 100 years. Their ties took a hit after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, but before that ties were splendid. This was due to Iran and Turkey's mutual alignment with the U.S. and the Islamic Revolution challenged that. Now a different re-alignment is taking place with Russia and regardless of who is in power that will continue and push Turkey and Iran closer together. One should also note this is partly due to a moderation of politics in Iran. The fervor and excess of the revolution has largely faded.
And without a measure of gaurentee from the West to protect our own economic interests in light of a regional economic power in our sphere of influence going down, nobody is likely to get much out of Turkey for the long term.
Just thought I'd say something. Iran is definitely not going down. I think people greatly underestimate Iran and greatly underestimate the impact of a war in the region for those going after Iran.