Turkey’s Real Enemy: Empty Rhetoric and Misery

 Turkey’s Real Enemy: Empty Rhetoric and Misery 

Turkey is being distracted by artificial agendas amidst economic misery. Official inflation has exceeded seventy percent, but the reality felt in the streets, markets, and stores is far worse. A kilo of meat costs nearly half the minimum wage, leaving people unable to afford basic necessities. Historically, the Ottoman Empire’s final days were no different: while the palace dreamed of “ruling the world,” the people grappled with hunger and poverty.

Today, those who parade fantasies like the “Ottoman model” or “United States of Turkey” are repeating the same mistakes. Bahçeli’s remarks about Öcalan, suggestions of “one Alevi, one Kurdish vice president,” and federation debates are all distractions, stealing attention from the people’s bread, jobs, and future. In times of crisis, history shows that rulers either invent external enemies or stoke nationalist fervor to diffuse public anger.

In the nineteenth century, Ottoman “reform” rhetoric was mere cosmetics to mask collapse. Today’s cries of “we’ll rule the world” try to cover up empty supermarket shelves. The US ambassador’s comment that the “Ottoman model is suitable” adds insult to injury—as if Turkey’s problem is not dreaming enough imperial fantasies!

History proves that foreign powers’ “reform” advice always serves their own interests. In the nineteenth century, the British and French dragged the Ottomans into a debt quagmire. Today’s “Ottoman model” fantasies are nothing but an elitist project ignoring the people’s poverty. Under this rhetorical shadow, the real danger is overlooked: societal tensions escalating into civil war or street clashes. The Ottoman Empire’s Balkan uprisings or the 31 March Incident show how societal anger can spiral into chaos. In Turkey’s 1970s, left-right conflicts claimed thousands of lives, plunging the country into turmoil.

Today, economic desperation, polarizing rhetoric, and injustice are sowing the seeds of a similar catastrophe. Street clashes or civil war would mean not just bloodshed and tears but a collapsed economy, severed societal bonds, and a shaken state. Ethnic or sectarian tensions in cities could make Turkey vulnerable to foreign interference. Who’s paving the way for this disaster? A clique that thinks it’s running the state but only cares about personal gain. The cries of “we’ll rule the world,” “Ottoman model” dreams, and federation debates are all theater to make people forget their livelihoods. In the Ottoman era, the palace lived in luxury while the people starved; today, the elite’s prosperity turns its back on citizens’ misery. This clique steals the people’s bread to cling to power. But the people must no longer fall for this game!

Some try to paint Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid as a “savior,” which is both historically wrong and dangerous. Abdulhamid isn’t a figure to idolize; his era symbolizes misguided policies and debt that hastened the Ottoman collapse. Over his thirty-three-year reign, he increased foreign debts, making the state dependent on Europe. The Ottoman treasury fell into foreign hands with the Duyun-u Umumiye. His “istibdat” regime silenced opposition, curbed freedoms with censorship, but failed to address poverty. His pan-Islamist dreams couldn’t hold the empire together; instead, ethnic divisions and uprisings accelerated. His “balancing act” diplomacy only bought time, not solutions.

Let’s not forget: in 1878, with Abdulhamid’s approval, Ottoman Cyprus was leased to the British—a virtual surrender of territory. Had he not handed over this strategic island, the Cyprus Peace Operation of July 20, 1974, whose fifty-first anniversary we recently marked, might not have been necessary. Cyprus would have remained Turkish soil, and our kin there would have lived in peace as citizens. The operation was a rightful victory for the Turkish nation, yes, but without Abdulhamid’s surrender, that struggle might never have been needed.

Treating Abdulhamid as a “savior” ignores these historical errors. Marketing him as a “genius leader” distorts history. Worse, it risks pulling Turkey back to the Ottoman era’s backwardness, dependency, and chaos. Clinging to Abdulhamid serves the interests of self-serving elites, not the people, as his model means authoritarianism and foreign dependency. Such an approach deepens polarization, weakens the secular and democratic republic, and opens the door to manipulative foreign suggestions like the “Ottoman model.”

The only leader we should embrace is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Atatürk built a nation-state from an empire’s ashes, debt, and occupation. Through the War of Independence, he united the people and built a sovereign Turkey with reason and science. He didn’t reject Ottoman debts but broke free from foreign yokes, abolishing capitulations and nationalizing the economy. With Lausanne, he upheld Turkey’s dignity; with the Republic, he made the people sovereign. Atatürk’s principles—secularism, unity, independence, and reason—guide us today. His factories, railways, and educational initiatives revived a nation in economic ruin. Despite the 1929 global economic crisis, Turkey built a self-sufficient economy. Atatürk’s “independence is my character” wasn’t just a slogan but a governing philosophy.

Clinging to Abdulhamid’s authoritarian and submissive policies drags Turkey backward; embracing Atatürk’s vision moves us forward.

Our only salvation lies in upholding Atatürk’s principles and defending the Republic he founded. As Atatürk’s youth, we must fight to protect a secular, democratic, and indivisible Turkey. Against economic misery, artificial agendas, and self-interested schemes, the people’s unity and awareness are our greatest weapons. At the ballot box, in the streets, and on every platform, we must defend this state. The clique that thinks it’s running the state but only serves itself must wake up!

History has written the end of such games: the Ottoman collapse was the work of those who ignored the people’s poverty. And let Ottoman dreamers remember: the last sultan, Vahdettin, fled like a rat on a foreign ship to another country. Let’s ensure that if we fail to protect this state and homeland, those who fantasize about the Ottoman past or sit at the state’s helm don’t end up like Vahdettin, seeking refuge abroad.

But hope lies with us. If we unite and fight on Atatürk’s path, this country will rise again. This nation will surrender neither to Ottoman fantasies nor to chaos. 

Ant Gökçek, July 23, 2025 - Vilnius