Why did Ataturk ascertain Ankara as the capital city for Republic of Turkey? An explanation and interpretation work

 

• ABSTRACT

It is a common acknowledgement that historical incidents might have social dimensions. In order to detect those aspects of the incident, it is necessary to benefit from methodological means. In this paper, Munz’s distinction between explanation and interpretation will be used to grasp all facets of the incident reviewed. The concept of capital city has significant role for every country or state across the globe. Ascertaining Ankara as the capital city of Turkey, a new country, after the Treaty of Lausanne has more remarkable aspects, as well. Through that paper, its reasons, the social and political conditions of that time, and its outcomes will be assessed in a holistic approach.

1.1 Introduction of Munz’s distinction between explanation and interpretation

Alike other sciences, social sciences have specific means to maintain scientific studies in a common and legitimate path. In the same way, that methodology provides lots of means in that regard is a substantial value. At glance, it might conceive a question which means is more accurate for the study, we will use Munz’s distinction, a significant approach, between explanation and interpretation owing to the paper’s purpose. Munz’s distinction between explanation and interpretation is a methodological framework that highlights the difference between understanding human actions based on reasons (explanation) and understanding them based on causes (interpretation). According to Munz there is a significant distinction between them. Those methods are being used in context of efficient scientific studies. The explanation method relies on the conscious beliefs and reasons, choices and desires that people making their actions reasonable and logical by that. On the other hand, interpretation method depends on causes or cultural, enviromental, psychological, genetic, social dimensions. Some of them might have been missed by people.

1.2 How can the process of determining the capital be described?

According to general acceptance,  the structure of the “state” has to include some compulsory elements as follows: 1. Nation, 2. Land, 3. Sovereignty. 4. Capital city. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk says exactly the same pivot in many meetings. As explained by different people with same aspects, determining the capital city has had same importance in context of the concept of state. In this regard, Ankara’s attributes and its historical background will be discussed in terms of its process of being capital city.

The process of determining the capital is considered one of the important milestones in newly established states. In the most general sense, selection of the capital is the selection of the most suitable city by the founding staff, taking into account national security, geographical features and energy, water, food and mineral resources, in order to govern the country in trust and stability for many years (Streit, s. 29). In order to establish the Republic of Turkey, extremely important decisions had to be made under war conditions. Ataturk and his staff took these decisions with unprecedented courage. One of these decisions was to declare Ankara as the capital.

In order for a city to be declared as the capital, the city that would be the capital had to have distinctive features different from other cities in the country. In the future sections of this study, we will discuss why and under what conditions Ankara was declared the capital.

1.3. What were the historical and conjunctural conditions that enabled Ankara to become the capital?

The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War, fought on many fronts and was defeated. After the defeat, Ottoman Empire had to sign the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918. This agreement offered the victorious states the right to occupy Ottoman lands according to their sharing among themselves.

In this context, Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, was occupied on November 13, 1918 (ATATÜRK, 2015, s. 314). Public buildings were seized. The city was taken under control. Cultural structures of the city were destroyed. Transportation was limited. Istanbul had a very special place in political and cultural terms. The historical buildings, monuments and cultural points of the city were virtually destroyed by the occupation forces. The press was greatly suppressed and was not allowed to provide accurate and true news. Those conditions made the governance of Ottoman Empire “Istanbul Goverment”. Because, in Anatolia Region, Ataturk and his staff were working on establishing a new state. The expression “Istanbul Government” used in the study is a formulaic expression used to express the defeated, occupied and fragmented state of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War (Aytepe, 2004).

Beginning of the Turkish War of Independence

What was worse for the Ottoman society than the sadness of the lost war was the destruction of Istanbul, the capital of the period, at the hands of the occupation forces. In addition to his past military successes and rich cultural background, the victory he achieved on the Dardanelles Front during the War of Independence turned Mustafa Kemal Atatürk into a hero. Due to the developments, Ataturk came to the fore as the military leader in whom the people had hope. The sad events experienced by the Ottoman Empire and the situation that Istanbul fell into were enough to prompt Ataturk to take action. With this will, Atatürk went to Samsun on 19 May 1919 as the 9th Army Inspector (ATATÜRK, 2015, s. 31). This date is considered the beginning of the Turkish War of Independence.

While he was taking his first steps for the struggle for independence in Samsun, he continued to act without giving up his struggle even though he was called to Istanbul (ATATÜRK, 2015, s. 49). He didn’t return.

On June 12, 1919, he shared his predictions with his staff in Amasya about how the national struggle should take place. Ataturk’s statement, “The nation’s independence will be saved by the nation’s determination and decision” is the most concrete example of this reality.

Erzurum and its effects

He went to Erzurum within the scope of the national struggle on July 3, 1919 (ATATÜRK, 2015, s. 72). Although he was immediately summoned to Istanbul by the Istanbul government, he did not leave Anatolia and fought for the national struggle. He was dismissed by the Istanbul government on July 8, 1919 (Aytepe, 2004).

The Erzurum Congress started on July 23, 1919, and Atatürk was elected Chairman of the Representative Committee. The Sivas Congress was organized on September 4, 1919 in order to spread the idealism of the national struggle to every corner of Anatolia and to make this struggle systematic and successful  (ÇOBAN). Mustafa Kemal came to Ankara on December 27, 1919 and moved the center of the national struggle here  (ATATÜRK, 2015, s. 86-87). After lots of meetings either with Istanbul goverment or with ministers, on April 23, 1920, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) was opened in Ankara. Mustafa Kemal was elected the first president of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and assumed both political and military leadership of the national struggle. After the opening of the parliament, the features of the city, which was supposed to be the capital, were announced by parliamentary decree on 28 November 1920. It was a necessity to choose a new capital because Istanbul was under occupation. According to this decree, this city had to have railway connections, water resources, sufficient underground resources and all the minimum conditions that would meet the needs necessary for life.

Parliament’s point

According to what Atatürk told his close circle, this city had to be too far from the coast to be not destroyed by a ship’s cannon (Şimşir, 2000, s. 191).

While the Parliament was continuing these works, the national struggle was writing an epic story with very serious wars on the field. In order to solve the capital issue, Atatürk waited for the Treaty of Lausanne to be signed after the War of Independence was won and for Istanbul to be completely freed from occupation.

The Battle of Sakarya and the Great Offensive wars took place between 1921 and 1922, and the power of the Turkish nation was felt. While the Turkish army was in a defensive position before the Battle of Sakarya, it gained strategic superiority after the battle, stopped the Greek advance and prepared for the Great Offensive; After the Great Offensive, the Greek occupation was ended and Anatolia was completely liberated (ATATÜRK, 2015, s. 452).

Thanks to these developments, the defeated forces understood that they needed to make an agreement with the Republic of Turkey, and the Treaty of Lausanne, signed on July 24, 1923, established Turkey’s independence and borders internationally.

On October 9, 1923, 14 members of parliament submitted a proposal to declare Ankara as the capital, in accordance with Atatürk’s will, and this proposal became law on October 13, 1923 (Goloğlu, 1971).

2.1. Can the process of Ankara’s election as the capital be explained with the explanation method?

First of all, we need to clarify what explanation method is. Explanation method, according to Munz, relies on understanding human actions based on conscious beliefs and desires that people use to justify their behaviors. In this context, we need to determine the conscious choices and wishes of the staff who carried out the national struggle and the war of independence. The first condition to clarify this determination is to reveal why Ankara was chosen when there is a city with many opportunities like Istanbul.

Sure, this choice is a conscious choice and the wish of the staff. As of that period, Istanbul was superior to Ankara due to its opportunities, reputation, development and similar features. It is said that Atatürk and his staff chose Ankara for two main reasons: i) The Republic of Turkey is a new state and is separate from the Ottoman Empire. The choice of the capital as Istanbul again could be explained as the resurrection of the Ottoman Empire, which had become ill and perhaps dead, and could have eliminated the possibility of the Republic of Turkey being accepted as a new state (Atay, 1998, s. 349). Therefore, one of the conditions for proving that the Republic of Turkey was a new state was to choose a new capital and establish institutions (İlyas, 2016, s. 113-116). ii) The will to save the homeland from occupation and establish a new state, described as “Kuvayi Milliye”, came to life in Ankara and did all its work in Ankara. Therefore, the capital of the established state must of course be the birthplace of the spirit that founded the state (Karal, 1981, s. 40).

Devotion…

When we carefully evaluate these two assumptions, we can assess, according to Munz’s evaluation, the reason why Ataturk and his staff chose Ankara as the capital due to their strong devotion to the spirit that founded the state and the relationship this spirit established with Ankara, already it was de facto capital (Arar, 1969, s. 31-33). In this sense, we think that this situation is based on conscious wishes and desires, that is, it can be understood with the explanation method.

2.2. Is the method of explaining the process of Ankara’s election as the capital city accurate enough?

I think it would not be the best way to evaluate with the Explanation method because there are many aspects of a country being a capital, from national security to access to resources and benefiting from underground and aboveground resources. Accepting that Ankara was declared the capital for only the above 2 reasons would mean ignoring objective criteria that most of them can be considered valid in all countries.

Unlike Ankara, very important meetings, circulars and congresses were held in cities such as Samsun, Amasya, Sivas and Erzurum, and extremely important decisions were taken. In fact, Samsun, as the starting point of the national struggle, could have been more effective in choosing the capital. Considering all historical, military and social data, it is possible to say that environmental and geopolitical reasons were more effective in Ankara becoming the capital, as a city located in the center of the mainland.

2.3. Can the process of Ankara’s election as the capital be assessed with the interpretation method?

As we have done above for explanation, we need to clarify what interpretation method is. Interpretation method, according to Munz, covers understanding human behaviours based on causes such as genetic, environmental, psychological, social, and cultural factors that individuals may not be aware of.

In this context, I will try to explain why I rely on the interpretation method through the environmental factor. In the decree issued by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 28 November 1920, the features of the city that would become the capital were listed (Aytepe, 2004). Among these features, the notable details are that the capital can be reached from all parts of the country via railways, that there are sufficient water resources around it, that it is close to waterfalls that can generate electricity, that it has suitable land for establishing a city, and that it is a place where sufficient construction materials can be obtained to build buildings.

Warship Threat

In addition to these qualities, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s opposition to the idea of a capital that could be hit by a warship cannon destroyed the chance of coastal provinces such as Samsun becoming capitals (Şimşir, 2000, s. 191).

According to experts, Ankara’s location at the foothills of the starting point of the mountain range makes it geographically extremely strong against invasion attempts (Darkot, 1965: 437-453).

When we need to make an evaluation in terms of psychological, social, and cultural factors, the idea of staying away from the psychological pressure created by the caliph in Istanbul, the social ties established by the spirit that founded the state with Ankara, the cultural factors that reveal that Ankara could be the capital as it has hosted several civilizations before  (Atay, 1998)  (Dinçer, (April 1997), s. 229). The situation attracts attention.

As we discuss above, the main reasons behind becoming Ankara the capital city are geographical and environmental causes. Waterfalls, natural resources and other similar points of the criteria are linked to environmental issues. According to Munz’s distinction concentrated summary, the cases depend on environmental issues should be assessed by interpretation method. This context reminds us again that the interpretation method will definitely be a more accurate choice.

3. Conclusion

Undoubtedly, determining the capital city for a newly founded country is one of the most difficult decisions a nation can make. Ataturk and his staff made this difficult decision by taking many criteria into consideration in front of war’s losses. The process of Ankara becoming the capital can be explained with the explanation method in various sources. As a matter of fact, the two important theses explained in the relevant section are deep enough to legitimize Ankara becoming the capital. However, we need to address the issue from all aspects. When the approach put forward by Munz in terms of methodology is carefully examined, it can be seen that Atatürk and his staff cared about the geopolitical and environmental aspects of Ankara in the selection of the new capital and that is, they accepted environmental factors as basic criteria in the decree dated 28 November 1920, so it would be more accurate to assess the selection of Ankara as the capital by the interpretation method.

According to this distinction put forward by Munz, we examined the subject with interpretation and explanation methods. We have seen that both methods can be used on the same event axis. We have revealed the details that the interpretation method would be more accurate in the process of determining Ankara as the capital.

Attorney Semih TEMİZER

References

Arar, İ. (1969). Atatürk’ün İzmit Basın Toplantısı. Burçak Publication.

ATATÜRK, M. K. (2015). Nutuk. Ankara: Kaynak Publication.

Atay, F. R. (1998). Çankaya, Mustafa Kemal’in Çankaya’s. İstanbul: Bateş Bayilik Teşkilatı A.Ş.

Aytepe, O. (2004). Ankara’nın Merkez ve Başkent Olması . Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi , 15-22.

ÇOBAN, E. ANKARA’NIN BAŞKENT OLUŞUNUN YANSIMALARI. Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 12/26, p. 101-113 .

DARKOT, B. (1965). Ankara. MEB İslam Ansklopedisi, (V: 1, p. 437-453) (s. 437-453). içinde İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.

Dinçer, G. ( April 1997). Ankara’nın Başkent Oluşunun Anlamı. Atatürk Research Center Journal , 229.

Goloğlu, M. (1971). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti 1923. Ankara.

İlyas, A. (2016). Kemalizm’in Propaganda Araçları veya Araçsızlığı. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies , 113-126.

Karal, E. Z. (1981). Atatürk’ten Düşünceler. İstanbul.

Streit, C. The Unknown Türk. Part II, chapter VI, p. 29.

Şimşir, B. (2000). Ankara: Bir Başkent’in Doğuşu. İstanbul: Bilgi Publication.