Why is the AKP/Erodgan considered “conservative”? Isn’t conservatism support for the status quo?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ataturk was broadly "progressive" *for his time*, yes.

(at least if you forget the genocides and other "unfortunate" stuff)

Genocides, ethnic cleansing, or lack thereof don't seem to be any way relevant to who is or isn't progressive.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ataturk was broadly "progressive" *for his time*, yes.

(at least if you forget the genocides and other "unfortunate" stuff)

Not to get all American in this subforum, but Theodore "imperialist maniac" Roosevelt and Woodrow "let's actively reverse black progress" Wilson were, too (in both the capital P and lower-case senses).

[YL]

I don't think Atatürk is at all easy to classify from a modern Western perspective, and why would you expect him to be?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think the word "modernist" might be a better word here than the very slippery "progressive".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think the word "modernist" might be a better word here than the very slippery "progressive".

I must agree.
Modernist is the most succinct label that might be used for this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think Atatürk is at all easy to classify from a modern Western perspective, and why would you expect him to be?

Quite. Absolutely nothing in Turkish politics is easy to classify from a non-Turkish perspective. It's all entirely strange and utterly bewildering in the same way as the politics of Argentina is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the word "modernist" might be a better word here than the very slippery "progressive".

We could go full James C. Scott and say 'Authoritarian High Modernist' and that does actually capture Ataturk better than any other label, even if it still doesn't quite get everything.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I agree with this definition, but on the other hand, Atatürk was quite consistent with the global era in which he lived. Countries that then seemed progressive and democratic can shock modern man with their cruelty. For example, when Atatürk was a child, Chicago policemen calmly shot down workers protesting police brutality.

[ingemann]

I don't think Atatürk is at all easy to classify from a modern Western perspective, and why would you expect him to be?

Quite. Absolutely nothing in Turkish politics is easy to classify from a non-Turkish perspective. It's all entirely strange and utterly bewildering in the same way as the politics of Argentina is.

I don’t really get what’s so complex about Turkish politics, yes they don’t fit easily into a a left right dichotomy but honestly how many countries or parties really does that?

It’s started as a pretty simple split between lower class religious conservatives and middle class secular conservatives, with a few weird left winger, liberals and ethnic minorities being more marginal than these two major groups. From there we have seen a personality cult develop around Erdogan and his purges of other religious conservative leaders and his alliances with some secular conservative who was more nationalist and conservative than secular.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't think Atatürk is at all easy to classify from a modern Western perspective, and why would you expect him to be?

Quite. Absolutely nothing in Turkish politics is easy to classify from a non-Turkish perspective. It's all entirely strange and utterly bewildering in the same way as the politics of Argentina is.

There may or may not be a few countries whose names start with the letter "I" that at times, come close...

[All Along The Watchtower]

I agree with this definition, but on the other hand, Atatürk was quite consistent with the global era in which he lived. Countries that then seemed progressive and democratic can shock modern man with their cruelty. For example, when Atatürk was a child, Chicago policemen calmly shot down workers protesting police brutality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

I'm not (entirely) trolling here.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I agree with this definition, but on the other hand, Atatürk was quite consistent with the global era in which he lived. Countries that then seemed progressive and democratic can shock modern man with their cruelty. For example, when Atatürk was a child, Chicago policemen calmly shot down workers protesting police brutality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

I'm not (entirely) trolling here.

Yes, that too. Marxists lured people with freedom and progress, until became mossy reactionaries, 180 degrees opposed to their own ideology. Generally, sectarians lure with something good: even when they are going to burn a crowd of people in a cave, they promise them not a senseless mass death, but paradise. They say the same words as a good priest helping you develop self-discipline.

Post-Marxists are even scarier: they are unscrupulously ready to lure with absolutely any thing, just to gather more followers. Whether it's the same promise of paradise, heavenly or earthly, social and technological progress, or vice versa, a return to the village traditions of your great-grandfathers, or, for example, a total "holy war". Post-Marxists are able to pick up the key to anyone.