"I have been but little in," said Ninian hastily...

Another essay for my class, written early because I have other assignments I'll need to be doing this week.

Compare any three of the 'revolutions from above' in 'semi-totalitarian states' described by Kamrava on page 158. Which was most transformational? Least transformational? Will the region see any revolution of comparable transformation in the coming decade?

I chose to compare the revolutions of Ataturk, Reza Shah, and Nasser.

Of these, I would assess that the revolution of Gamal Abdel Nasser was probably the least transformational. Nasser did not make serious changes in the religious, social, or ethnic life of the country. He did not come to power as the result of a great national revolution, nor did he propagate a complex, detailed ideology, favouring instead a sort of vague socialism that resulted in economic changes (more egalitarian land ownership, government-directed development, and a range of social programs for the population at large) but without the sort of dogmatic political drive that possessed Bolshevism or Maoism. While his vision of pan-Arab unity inspired millions and still informs political discourse in the Arab world, he pursued it in a limited, rather tepid fashion. While he supported anti-monarchist forces in Yemen and briefly joined Egypt and Syria in a pan-Arab supernation, the latter lasted only three years. Nasser did not break new ground politically; modernization and a move towards adopting European practices has begun as early as the 19th century under Muhammad Ali. Nationalism and anti-Westernism had been seen in the revolt of Ahmed Urabi in 1882, in the revolt of 1919, and in the nationalist and nativist platform of the Wafd party that sought Egyptian independence after World War I.

While the coup and monarchy of Reza Shah might be said to have had a greater transformational effect in Iran than the rule of Nasser in Egypt, he too sought political power more for personal gain than in an effort to promote a specific program of revolutionary change. Reza Shah undertook economic development and sought to change some of the more conservative societal practices for ones that were more modern, but modernization and development had taken place under the previous government, the Qajar dynasty, since the 1850s. And while Iran had seen a growing movement towards more representation for the voice of the people and some sort of reform in its systems of government, starting even before the Constitutionalist movement of the early 20th century, Reza Shah had no clear sympathy for these developments and ruled Iran as an autocrat, not a political reformer. While his son expanded his social reforms during the so-called White Revolution, the changes wrought by the Pahlavis lacked widespread popular support and were for the most part reversed by the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Of the three revolutions, that of Ataturk was probably the most decisive and transformative. It had its roots in the Tanzimat (“reformation”) movement of the 19th century and the Young Turk coup that preceded World War I. But unlike the Tanzimat, Ataturk’s reforms were distinctly nationalist and aimed at creating a unified Turkist state from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. And in contrast to the Young Turks, Ataturk’s program was strongly opposed to a role for religion in the new state he proposed. Although political reforms had been underway before the creation of the Turkish republic, Kemalism promoted full-scale democracy, including female suffrage. Along with nationalism, secularism, and democracy, he promoted economic development and far-reaching changes in social customs (dress, the drinking of alcohol, and changes in education that led to a massive increase in literacy). While some of Ataturk’s reforms showed the influence of earlier movements, his Kemalism was certainly revolutionary and transformative. Its effects were more extensive than those of Reza Shah and Nasser, changing completely the public character of the nation and enduring through to the 21st century due in part to widespread popular support. While the strong separation of religion and government has come up for debate more in recent years, Turkey remains the most steadfastly secular Muslim nation in existence.


Sources

Ataturk [warning: pretty much all Wikipedia pages on early 20th century Turkey are mired in controversy over the Armenian genocide]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_Reforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalist_ideology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

Reza Shah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah [warning: badly written and very contentious]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Constitutional_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_movement_of_Gilan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Tobacco_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty

Nasser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasserism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_modern_Egypt
http://www.arab.net/egypt/et_nasser.htm