We are all truthful: the end of Kemalist ‘Morning Pseudo-Rituals’

Compulsory education has been one of the significant sites wherein the infiltration of the militarist and nationalist discourse into the social sphere can be realized. As Foucault argues, schools and barracks are the main disciplinary institutions through which docile and productive individuals are formed. In this sense, it should be emphasized that in the formative years of the Turkish Republic military service and compulsory education were treated as two fronts of the same battle. Their primary objective was to raise “proper” citizens who would obey state rules and work hard in line with the Kemalist ideals.

Indeed, in a paradoxical way even 80 years later, the military and education are still perceived in a similar way. The only two ministries in Turkey with titles beginning with the term “national” are the ministries of Education and Defence. However, with the recent developments within the framework of democratization packages, this understanding has started to be undermined to some degree although there is still a long way to go for a complete elimination of such anomalies.

In this regard, the abolition of Our Oath is an important symbolic step in the path towards the normalization and democratization of state discourse and practices. Every morning, school children (used to) recite the following text as Our Oath:

“I am a Turk, I am truthful, I am hardworking. My law: to protect the younger, to respect my elderly, and to love my country and nation more than my own self. My ideal is to ascend and progress. I devote my existence to the Turkish existence. Oh Sublime Atatürk who provided us with our present time: I hereby swear that I will continue to walk interruptedly in the path you opened up towards the ideal you formed and the aim you showed. How happy is the man who  says I am a Turk.”

As understood from the text, being a Turk and loving Atatürk automatically meant being truthful and hardworking and all of these were seen as key to happiness and success. However, this text also leads many critical readers to the view that if you are a non-Turk (for example a Kurd) and refuse to walk in the path opened up by Atatürk (for example if you want to become a judge while wearing your headscarf) you will inevitably be pulled into unhappiness and labeled as untruthful.

Not surprisingly, the architect of Our Oath, Dr. Reşit Galip was the same person who had coined the idea of turning the Arabic call to prayer (Ezan) into Turkish. Dr. Reşit Galip, who had worked as one of the leading figures in Turkish Historical Research Committee (Türk Tarihi Tetkik Cemiyeti), had also claimed that the Turkish race belong to the brachycephalic race.

Since the inception of the republic, the White Turks, who fit to the standards of the Kemalist state discourse, standards that Dr. Galip and his like-minded associates had determined, have been regarded as the truthful and hardworking people and for many decades they have held a monopoly over the public sphere within their own lebensraum. By contrast, practicing Muslims have been seen as the Black Turks and marginalized by both state elites and White Turks. Accordingly, the Kurds’ existence has been denied. Kurds were called pseudo-citizens by some state officials and labeled as “mountain Turks.”

In a nutshell, it is quite noteworthy to say that despite not being enough, the steps to be taken -- be they legal, institutional or structural -- within the boundaries of the recent democratization package give hope for the future days with regard to a more democratic state-society relationship and the abolition of Our Oath is a good start.

It should also be noted that, despite triggering secularist and nationalist symptoms, the democratization package will undisputedly challenge and finally eliminate the pathological state practices if only it is followed by drafting a new civilian constitution.