On a New Nationalism from Turkey-1
Political scientists and historians call the 19th century the age of ideologies. The reason for this point of view is that many doctrines were born in this era. Some of these ideologies had come to the fore. These were liberalism, nationalism, and socialism.
These ideologies, which also profoundly affect today’s Turkey, are essentially interconnected. Accordingly, the doctrine of the industrial age, liberalism, emerged first. With the principles laid out in the work of Adam Smith, who is also the founder of Classical Economics, liberalism found itself in the industrial age and took its roots in the 17th century. In this state, liberalism had spread in Continental Europe, Britain, and America with its deep-rooted arguments.
But over time, his path collides with another ideology. While liberalism was the dominant ideology in the first half of the industrial age, it coincided with nationalism, which found its political meaning with the French Revolution. Finally, the effects of liberalism and nationalist-economic developments in the 19th century, revealing some dissatisfied masses, also gave rise to socialism. Socialism, as we will remember it, is an ideology that emerged in Germany. It has a close relationship with the second industrial wave of the 19th century and the rising workers’ strikes and revolts.
As such, we can say that the ideology of nationalism is closely related to liberalism. And we see the doctrine of socialism is especially opposed to nationalist-capitalist economy-politics. Ultimately socialism aims to oppose the capitalist political economy, which suffocates free entrepreneurship. Indeed, capitalist goals create an exploited working class. Conditions in this class get worse day by day. Socialism opposes the nationalist-capitalist economic policies that fortify itself with political borders. Calls for a working-class that transcends political boundaries and prioritizes worldwide unity by ignoring ethnic-religious-linguistic differences. But while making this call, it also excludes liberal economy-politics. Because, according to socialism, the state should intervene effectively in the economy, contrary to what liberals say.
Therefore, socialism finds itself in one camp and liberals and nationalists in the other. At this point, too, nationalism becomes sophisticated. Because, on the one hand, it excludes liberalism by being in harmony with capitalism, but on the other hand, it meets with liberals in its approach to national unity and the individual-state relationship. Already nationalism; “It is a sophisticated ideology that people can understand at a certain intellectual level. A nationalist will be an individual who recognizes the universal world and adds added value to his country by integrating with it. Thus, he-she will glorify his-her nationality if he-she indeed pursues this ideal with he-she due merit.” This definition makes nationalism intertwined with liberalism. Because liberalism also requires understanding the universal. He recommends that society consists of individuals. These individuals are equal before the law. The state is also responsible to the individual within the framework of the law. These are the principles of the French Revolution as a whole. In the end, the great national poet Namık Kemal both yearned for the homeland, was saddened by the loss of land, and displayed a liberal attitude in areas such as state-individual relations and the place of the state in the economy. The degree of liberalism may change anyway, but the founding cadres of the Republic made an effort to maintain the state-citizen relationship according to liberal philosophy. They are also nationalists.
Ultimately, the ideology of nationalism is based on the assumption that the citizens of a particular piece of land are a unity. This unity may be racial or cultural. They just constitute different kinds of nationalism. In this state, the community that comes together under an anchor and accepts that they are one, namely the nation, is equal with each individual. There is no bias in the law. In this society, the state cannot impose drudgery on its citizens and limit their freedom. So liberalism is current. Thus, the state, or more clearly state officials, are not privileged before the nation. It cannot burden anyone with drudgery, spoil his work, and limit his life to the power of the state. This last situation takes us away from monarchist ideals and brings us to the Republican point.
Note: This article is the article translated. For the origin article link
