Reforms of Turkey under Mustafa Ataturk, with regards to the revelutions from above

Authors Avatar

“With Reference to Turkey, Discuss the Ability of the State to Transform Society.”

In the early 20th Century, Turkey went through many significant alterations in its political stance, in relation to the revolution above.  These changes took place after the appointment and under the rule of President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.  During this period of time other states were going through transformations, such as Egypt an Iran; therefore it was not a surprise that Turkey was following in the same direction.  If however, one is to look at all these three countries in a retrospective manner, then one will be able to identify with ease that Turkey as it stands today is in a better situation then the other two countries, therefore the conclusion can be made that reform was most successful in Turkey.

This essay will concentrate on how reforms were implemented in relation to the revolution above, the extent of their success by comparing it to Iran and Egypt, and furthermore, if they failed to prosper what was the cause of its failure.  But overall I will point out the main reasons why Turkey was more successful in its reform in comparison to the other states.

It is important to acknowledge the stances of the Turkish political system before the reformation took place, and the problems generally faced by the middle-eastern states, how they have become into existence and how they affect the way these countries govern.  Although this essay will make reference to other middle-eastern states, in order to act as a counter-argument, however, the essay will concentrate specifically on Turkey and its President at the time, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who took great care in implementing these reforms, how he gained and retained power, how he tackled the struggle faced by Turkey due to the problems the middle-east generally faced and still ultimately was able to restore success in much of his intended changes.  Finally as conclusion will be made by relating it back to amount of success his work bought about to the country throughout his rule and ultimately comparing it to Iran.  The reason for this comparison is that Iran undertook many of the same reforms at a similar period of time, however, these reforms failed to be successful in Iran but worked well in Turkey, therefore it is essential to understand the reasoning behind this.

It is important to define what a state is and how it should be structured, Max Weber poses a great example of how a state should be organized and how power should be central and using this as a tool legitimately in order to penetrate society. Talk about taxation as a means to strengthen state power as that is where the funding comes from.

TALK MORE ABOUT WEBER…

It is important here to acknowledge that although Weber poses a great example of how a state should be organized and governed and these examples have appeared to be successful in the past, this however, is not the ideal solution for middle-eastern states.  Weber’s work is a great example of states in Europe which have been established for a very long time, whereas the middle-east being organized into states is a relatively new thing therefore its population perceives it in a very hostile respect.  Another reason for the provocation of such negative feelings is that these states were imposed upon the people of this region by western powers and imperialism, and therefore see it as an invasion.  This is mainly why the governments is place are not successful, in that they are constantly being challenged and the leaders continuously fear the threat of being overthrown as people fail to obey the state laws and institutions.  Another reason for hostility is that the leaders in this region did not gain legitimacy through popular vote nor were they divinely elected and therefore they were seen as the puppets of the west as they were initially implemented by them.

Ataturk was an ex-Ottoman commander and after the collapse of the empire after WW1, he successfully managed to combat against the internal traditionalists’ opposition and foreign intervention and shortly after this triumphant whereby Turkey received their independence, Ataturk gained enough support and popularity which resulted in him being elected and consequently being able to govern Turkey.  It was then in which he was given the opportunity to lead Turkey in the direction that he imagined.  It was held that Ataturk’s principle goals were to “…secure the independence, peace and modernization of the Turkish Republic.”  Furthermore, to achieve “…republicanism, nationalism, secularism, statism, populism and revolutionism.”  It was during his rule in which he worked to implement reforms in the country’s social, political and economic life so that current institutions and attitudes in Turkey would alter and democracy in Turkey would flourish under his successors.  Many of his reforms did imitate the west as he was an admirer of western institutions and attitudes and he was determined to mold Turkey like the image he had of the west.  For Ataturk he intended to modernize stood in his eyes as westernization, and therefore these reforms emphasized Ataturk’s desire to progress towards western influences.

Join now!

Ataturk did not have an easy rule, because although he had an image in mind of where he wished to take the country it was held that it was “…very doubtful if the idea appealed to more than a small minority of his followers.”  Furthermore, during this time although the Ottoman rule had ended it was still held in high prestige and consequently gave the religion Islam a dominant position.  However, Ataturk was able luckily to eradicate the sultanate, leaving him to rule without the threat of Islam.

Another problem that Ataturk had to face during his reign ...

This is a preview of the whole essay