From Kemal's lips to Allah's ear

[excerpts from] The Rhetoric of Nationalism: 
An analysis of Mustafa Kemal’s Büyük Nutuk & contemporary Middle Eastern nationalism

---

Introduction     
​
The Büyük Nutuk, or ‘Great Speech’, is Mustafa Kemal’s seminal address to the weary subjects of a deposed Ottoman Empire. Its English translation comes equipped with a preface by the Ministry of Turkish Education: “With the publication of this translation, […] [we] hope to be of service to foreign students of the Turkish Republic”. There is one word in this preface that conveys the gravity of Nutuk’s legacy: “Republic”.      

Before Mustafa Kemal spoke to the 1927 Grand National Assembly, ‘Turkey’ was not a place at all, but an idea. By carefully overlaying a rhetorical analysis of Kemal’s portrayal of Turkishness and deliberate narrative of struggle with the region’s historical context, we can reconstruct the birth of a nation. Nutuk is the rosetta stone of an ongoing struggle to not only define, but physically implement the idea of nationalism in the Middle East. If we can cull the rhetoric of one of the region’s most influential nationalist leaders, we can glean crucial insight to the contemporary challenges facing national stability in the Middle East. ​

Contemporary Insight from Nutuk

Nutuk is a marvel of nationalist rhetoric. The broad-shouldered figure emerges from a cloud of gunsmoke: Mustafa Kemal is transformed from the subservient subject of the Empire to Ataturk, ‘Father of the Turks’, independent and strong. Today, Kemal is regarded as a hero by secular nationalists. However, the Middle East is currently embroiled in another war of ideologies. This war is not only geopolitical, not only between tribal plays for power, but between secular and Islamist political platforms. This is a conundrum for historians and sociologists, generals and politicians alike. 
    
Nationalist movements—especially in the contexts of Palestine, Syria and Iraq—are thwarted by the myriad ideologies touted by this group or that group which splinter both on macro- and micro-terms. Recall the chiefly Arab and Persian mistrust of nationalism due to its Western origins. Recall the canon of Westernization: democracy and secularism. There are those national ideologies which embrace democracy through a sectarian lens, such as the region’s economic superpowers:  Iran (maj. Shi’a), Saudi Arabia (maj. Sunni), U.A.E. (maj. Sunni) to the extent that they have parliamentary governments along with the recent push to hold elections for fair representation.  Then, there are those like modern Egypt and Turkey which embrace democracy through a secular lens. Each is not without its danger and pitfalls, however. 
  
 Islamist ideology is denounced most emphatically by the international community because it is in direct opposition to secular world powers such as Britain, France, Russia and the United States. Western governments are built on the precept of ‘separation of religion and state’. Islamist governments are built on the precept of ‘religion and state as one’. Both ideologies are fundamental anathemas of the other. There are of course many serious failures of Islamism: subjugation of minorities due to lack of protective legislation, ethnocentrism, persecution of apostates and religious dissenters, lack of representation for those outside of patriarchy. These are the failures that Mustafa Kemal foresaw when he advocated for secularism in the Turkish Republic. 
    
As Rome begot the Ottomans, so the Ottomans begot Turkey. Perhaps it is because of this lineage and its geographical proximity to Europe that Turkey chose not to reject secular nationalism on its Western heritage. Egypt too is economically tied to the West by way of the Suez Canal and perhaps this is why it chose to modernize industrially on the Western model. The reasons for such are riddled with complexity. Yet, more importantly, leaders like Mustafa Kemal or Reza Shah deeply understood the culture informing their national movements. Here is a pertinent lesson to be had from Nutuk: In order to create a national identity, one must parse the lineage of that identity. If the majority of Turks are not religious fundamentalists whose identity is not wholly informed by obedience to Allah, do not structure Turkish law on the tenets of Shari’a. 
    
Turkey and Egypt, as well as Iraq and Syria, have suffered countless coup d’etats replacing one oppressive regime with another and subjection to martial law. Is there any wonder why there is growing support amongst Middle Eastern citizenry who look to Islamism as an alternative to endless conflict? This is, after all, a foothold of the Islamic State as it continues to capture territory in Syria and Iraq. Yet, the atrocities committed by ISIS can only be accepted as a valid alternative in full view of global apocalypse.  Which ideology then, should we support? 
    
Turn once more to the seminal line of Nutuk: “the creation of a new and completely independent Turkish state, founded on the principle of national self-determination”. Read Nutuk not for its secular undercurrent or particularities of Turkish experience, but for its hallowing of independence and ‘self-determination’ by will of the people. The real insight of this rhetoric bridges all citadels standing in isolation: a nation must decide for itself what is best for itself.  To achieve this, the consensus of a majority is needed which only results from a democracy.  
    
​So, should we rally under the banners of secularism or sectarianism, Saddam or Khomeini? The grotesque oppression and ultimate failure of these regimes resulted from two things: 1) deafness to the voices of its citizenry and 2)  attempts by the international community to control political regimes for their own short-sighted benefit. The ideology to champion is democracy-- and if its etymology is disputed, then think only of the simple right for a person to choose the manner in which his body is governed. Self-determination: this is the lasting insight of Mustafa Kemal’s Büyük Nutuk. 


NOTE: 
If this topic interests you, please message me to read the full paper.