History engraves certain moments into the memory of nations with indelible letters. On the morning of 19 May 1919, the Band\u0131rma Ferry gliding through the misty waters of the Black Sea and docking at Samsun is one of those unique moments in which the destiny of the Turkish nation was redrawn. Mustafa Kemal Pasha recorded this historic moment in the Nutuk with the words, \u201cOn the 19th day of May 1919, I landed in Samsun. The situation and the general outlook\u2026\u201d (Atat\u00fcrk, 1927, p. 1). This sentence marks not only the arrival point of a journey but also the beginning of a nation\u2019s awakening. The Armistice of Mudros, signed after the First World War, brought the Ottoman Empire to a de facto end; the Allied Powers, invoking Article 7 of the armistice, began to occupy Anatolian territory. Faced with the capitulationist policies of the Istanbul Government and the impotence of the sultanate, the Turkish nation was driven into the most critical existential struggle of its history. Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s crossing into Anatolia in his capacity as Inspector of the Ninth Army Troops is recorded as the first strategic step of that struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Amasya Circular is the most critical stop on this journey. Issued on 22 June 1919 under the signatures of leading commanders of the period such as Mustafa Kemal Pasha, H\u00fcseyin Rauf Bey, Ali Fuat Pasha, and K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir Pasha, this document is a manifesto setting forth the justification, aim, and method of the National Struggle. In his work \u0130stikl\u00e2l Harbimiz (Our War of Independence), K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir Pasha described this process as \u201cthe first fundamental programme of the National Struggle\u201d and drew attention to the importance of the consensus reached during its preparation (Karabekir, 1960, pp. 112-115). Likewise, in his Milli M\u00fccadele Hat\u0131ralar\u0131 (Memoirs of the National Struggle), Ali Fuat Cebesoy provides a detailed account of the Amasya meetings and the signing process of the circular, stressing that the document was the first concrete expression of the national will (Cebesoy, 1953, p. 89). The statement at the heart of the circular\u2014\u201cThe nation\u2019s independence will be saved again by the nation\u2019s determination and resolve\u201d\u2014is engraved in history as the first tangible document of the transfer of sovereignty from the dynasty to the nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The torch of independence lit on 19 May acquired a political course in Amasya, matured in Erzurum and Sivas, and was finally crowned with the proclamation of the Republic on 29 October 1923. In his work \u00c7ankaya, Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay summed up this great transformation with the words \u201cHis biography is the history of the new Turkish state\u201d and traced the rebirth of a nation in Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s personality (Atay, 1969, p. 5). Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, in Atat\u00fcrk \u0130htil\u00e2li (The Atat\u00fcrk Revolution), defined this process as a \u201crevolution of rights\u201d and laid bare the philosophical foundations of the Turkish revolution (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 23). \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir\u2019s Tek Adam (The Single Man) trilogy offers a panoramic picture of this transformation by examining Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s life from birth to death in exhaustive detail within the social and political context of the era (Aydemir, 1963, Vol. I, pp. 12-15). Today, the question of how to preserve this legacy and pass it on to future generations remains as pressing as ever. The consciousness of \u201cthe first duty\u201d that Atat\u00fcrk expressed in his Address to the Youth makes it imperative that each of the principles of the Six Arrows be reinterpreted and kept alive in accordance with the requirements of the age. The Turkish nation continues its resolve to preserve its independence and its Republic in perpetuity by holding fast to its founding values and continuously developing them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.1. The Legal and Political Character of the Armistice<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The armistice signed on 30 October 1918 at the port of Mudros on the island of Lemnos meant far more for the Ottoman Empire than a mere ceasefire agreement. In his Siyasi Hat\u0131ralar (Political Memoirs), Rauf Orbay, who headed the Ottoman delegation that signed the armistice, recounted his experiences in detail and noted that the vague wording of Article 7 in particular gave the Allied Powers unlimited authority to occupy (Orbay, 1962, pp. 78-80). Contrary to the verbal assurances given by the British High Commissioner Admiral Calthorpe, immediately after the armistice the British occupied Mosul, Alexandretta, and Aintab; the French occupied Adana and its environs; and the Italians occupied Antalya and Konya. The provisions mandating the demobilization of the Ottoman armies aimed to destroy the armed resistance capacity of the Turkish nation. In her work T\u00fcrk\u2019\u00fcn Ate\u015fle \u0130mtihan\u0131 (The Turkish Ordeal), Halide Edip Ad\u0131var depicted the post-armistice atmosphere in Istanbul as \u201ca life growing ever more difficult with each passing day for the Turks\u201d (Ad\u0131var, 1962, p. 15).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The passive stance adopted by the Istanbul Government towards the occupations during the armistice period reflected the psychology of collapse that had seized the Ottoman bureaucracy and political elite. Far from preventing the occupations, the governments of Damat Ferit Pasha sought to preserve the survival of the sultanate by yielding to the demands of the Allied Powers. In his Atat\u00fcrk\u2019ten Hat\u0131ralar (Memories of Atat\u00fcrk), Celal Bayar described this period as \u201cthe moment when the fate of the nation and the fate of the sultanate diverged\u201d (Bayar, 1955, p. 34). In contrast, the Turkish nation began spontaneously to develop a spirit of resistance; in Western Anatolia, Kuva-y\u0131 Milliye (National Forces) units began organizing and engaging in armed struggle against the Greek occupation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The political and legal vacuum created by the Armistice of Mudros laid the groundwork for the emergence of a new conception of legitimacy based on national sovereignty. The occupying forces interpreted the terms of the armistice ever more arbitrarily, accelerating the dismemberment of Anatolia. In his Hat\u0131ralar (Memoirs), \u0130smet \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc assessed this process as \u201ca turning point at which the nation was forced to take its destiny into its own hands\u201d (\u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc, 1985, p. 178). Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s crossing into Anatolia is of historic significance in that it filled the leadership vacuum that would transform this awakening into an organized struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.2. The Occupation of \u0130zmir and the Ignition of National Resistance<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The landing of the Greek army in \u0130zmir on the morning of 15 May 1919 was engraved in the memory of the Turkish nation as the heaviest blow of the wave of occupations that had begun after the Armistice of Mudros. Realized in line with a decision taken at the Paris Peace Conference, this occupation openly revealed the Allied Powers\u2019 intentions to partition Turkish territory. Halide Edip Ad\u0131var recounted in detail the speech she delivered at the Sultanahmet rally in T\u00fcrk\u2019\u00fcn Ate\u015fle \u0130mtihan\u0131 and characterized the profound outrage that the occupation of \u0130zmir provoked in the Turkish nation as \u201cthe rising up of an entire nation\u201d (Ad\u0131var, 1962, pp. 45-48). Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay likewise defined the occupation of \u0130zmir in \u00c7ankaya as \u201cthe event that lit the fuse of the national awakening\u201d (Atay, 1969, p. 178).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protest rallies organized in Istanbul and many Anatolian cities following the occupation of \u0130zmir are noteworthy in demonstrating the Turkish nation\u2019s sensitivity to the question of independence. The large-scale protests held in Istanbul, most notably the Sultanahmet rally, revealed the scale of the social reaction provoked by the occupation. In his Milli M\u00fccadele Hat\u0131ralar\u0131, Ali Fuat Cebesoy described in detail the organization of the Kuva-y\u0131 Milliye units in Western Anatolia and emphasized the strategic importance of the guerrilla warfare waged against the Greek occupation forces by armed groups formed with the people\u2019s own resources (Cebesoy, 1953, pp. 112-120).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The occupation of \u0130zmir was also a factor that accelerated Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s crossing into Anatolia. Immediately after the occupation, on 16 May 1919, Mustafa Kemal Pasha departed Istanbul aboard the Band\u0131rma Ferry and, after a stormy three-day sea voyage, arrived in Samsun on the morning of 19 May. \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir treated the details of this voyage in Tek Adam under the heading \u201cthe sea voyage that changed the destiny of a nation\u201d and related, on the basis of documents, how the Band\u0131rma Ferry escaped the pursuit of the British navy in the Black Sea (Aydemir, 1963, Vol. I, pp. 345-350). The events that transpired during those four days between the occupation of \u0130zmir and the landing at Samsun clearly reveal the Turkish nation\u2019s determination in its struggle for independence and the need for a leader to guide that struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.3. The Impotence of the Istanbul Government and the Emergence of a New Authority in Anatolia<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Istanbul Government led by Damat Ferit Pasha proved completely incapable of developing an effective policy against the occupations that began after the Armistice of Mudros. The government merely contented itself with protesting the occupations and could not go beyond diplomatic initiatives undertaken with the Allied Powers. In his Siyasi Hat\u0131ralar, Rauf Orbay criticized the political atmosphere in Istanbul with the words, \u201cthe sole concern of the palace and the government was to hold on to their positions; no one cared about the fate of the nation\u201d (Orbay, 1962, p. 95). The sultanate, for its part, chose to collaborate with the occupying forces in order to survive and sought to obstruct the national resistance movement that was developing in Anatolia. This posture paved the way for the gradual erosion of the Istanbul Government\u2019s legitimacy and the birth of a new political authority in Anatolia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finding no support from Istanbul against the occupations, the Turkish nation began to take steps to determine its own destiny. The Societies for the Defence of Rights (M\u00fcdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyetleri) and Rejection of Annexation associations established in various regions of Anatolia played a critical role in organizing the national resistance. In \u0130stikl\u00e2l Harbimiz, K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir Pasha detailed the organizational activities in Eastern Anatolia and recounted how the Society for the Defence of the Rights of the Eastern Provinces prepared the ground for the Erzurum Congress (Karabekir, 1960, pp. 45-52). Mazhar M\u00fcfit Kansu, in his work Erzurum\u2019dan \u00d6l\u00fcm\u00fcne Kadar Atat\u00fcrk\u2019le Beraber (With Atat\u00fcrk from Erzurum until His Death), conveyed, from his close personal witness, the behind-the-scenes story of the national organization in Eastern Anatolia and Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s role in that process (Kansu, 1966, Vol. I, pp. 34-38).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s crossing into Anatolia proved decisive in providing the leadership that would unite these scattered foci of resistance. Endowed with broad authority in his capacity as Inspector of the Ninth Army Troops, Mustafa Kemal Pasha used these powers in the service of organizing the national struggle. In the reports he drafted after landing in Samsun, he emphasized the Turkish nation\u2019s will for independence and openly criticized the policies of the Istanbul Government. These reports stand out as the first documents in which the ideological foundations of the national struggle were laid. In the Nutuk, Atat\u00fcrk referred to these reports with the words, \u201cWith these reports I established the true situation of the nation and my thoughts regarding the future\u201d (Atat\u00fcrk, 1927, p. 12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.1. Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s Appointment to Anatolia<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s appointment to Anatolia as Inspector of the Ninth Army Troops ostensibly carried administrative purposes, such as investigating the security disturbances in the Black Sea region and ensuring the collection of weapons. In reality, however, this assignment was the result of a strategic move that Mustafa Kemal Pasha had planned together with his close circle. In his Hat\u0131ralar, \u0130smet \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc recounted the behind-the-scenes story of this appointment with the words, \u201cMustafa Kemal Pasha had realized that as long as he remained in Istanbul nothing could be accomplished. He was seizing every opportunity to cross into Anatolia\u201d (\u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc, 1985, p. 190). The broad authority granted to him in the letter of appointment would play a critical role in the organization of the national struggle in the period that followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s preparations for crossing into Anatolia were carried out in such a way as not to attract the attention of the Allied diplomatic missions in Istanbul. In \u00c7ankaya, Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay recounted these preparations: \u201cWhen Mustafa Kemal left Istanbul, he had selected the officers he took with him with great care. Each of them was to become an important figure in the national struggle in the future\u201d (Atay, 1969, p. 195). While the voyage preparations of the Band\u0131rma Ferry were being completed, British intelligence plans to sink the ferry in the Black Sea came to nothing. \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir described the Band\u0131rma Ferry\u2019s journey as \u201cthe sea voyage that changed the destiny of a nation\u201d and recorded in detail how the ferry passed through British controls (Aydemir, 1963, Vol. I, p. 352).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As stressed in the Nutuk, Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s landing at Samsun is the starting point of the nation\u2019s struggle for independence. In the Nutuk, Atat\u00fcrk conveyed this historic moment as follows: \u201cOn the 19th day of May 1919, I landed in Samsun. The situation and the general outlook: the group in which the Ottoman Empire found itself had been defeated in the Great War, the Ottoman army had been battered on all fronts, a harsh armistice had been signed\u201d (Atat\u00fcrk, 1927, p. 1). These sentences are not merely a situational assessment but also a concise summary of the historical context on which the national struggle rested. From the moment he set foot in Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal Pasha embarked on an intensive effort to organize the nation\u2019s will for independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.2. Initial Contacts in Samsun and Assessment of the Situation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Immediately after landing in Samsun, Mustafa Kemal Pasha contacted the military and civil authorities in the region and conducted a comprehensive situation assessment. During his first days in Samsun, he investigated the nature of the security incidents and gathered intelligence on the activities of the Allied Powers along the Black Sea coast. In the Nutuk, Atat\u00fcrk summarized these contacts: \u201cThe situation I observed in Samsun was just as I had thought and foreseen. The British had established dominance everywhere; although the Greeks and Armenians were minorities, they were committing excesses against the Turks\u201d (Atat\u00fcrk, 1927, p. 5). In the reports he sent to the Istanbul Government, Mustafa Kemal Pasha drew attention to this state of affairs and stressed that the necessary measures must be taken to preserve the Turkish presence in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following his contacts in Samsun, Mustafa Kemal Pasha moved his headquarters to Havza on 25 May. Havza was a suitable centre for organizing the national struggle, both in terms of its geographical location and communication possibilities. Ali Fuat Cebesoy related Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s activities in Havza in his Milli M\u00fccadele Hat\u0131ralar\u0131 as follows: \u201cMustafa Kemal Pasha had virtually established a headquarters in Havza; by communicating by telegraph with commanders across the length and breadth of Anatolia, he had begun organizing the resistance\u201d (Cebesoy, 1953, p. 145). Through the circular he issued in Havza, he called for the organization of protest meetings against the occupations, a call that found a resounding echo throughout Anatolia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s activities in Samsun and Havza began to attract the attention of the Istanbul Government and the Allied Powers. The British High Commissioner Admiral Calthorpe was disturbed by Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s activities in the region and approached the Istanbul Government to demand his recall. Indeed, as a result of British pressure, the Ministry of War sent Mustafa Kemal Pasha an order to return; however, Mustafa Kemal Pasha disregarded this directive and continued on his path. K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir assessed this critical decision with the words, \u201cMustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s refusal to return is one of the most important moments that determined the fate of the National Struggle\u201d (Karabekir, 1960, p. 89).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.3. The Symbolic and Strategic Meaning of 19 May<\/p>\n\n\n\n
19 May 1919 is not merely the date of Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s crossing into Anatolia; it is also the symbolic beginning of the Turkish nation\u2019s rebirth. This date is etched in memories as the day on which the nation\u2019s will to determine its own destiny took concrete form. In his Atat\u00fcrk\u2019ten Hat\u0131ralar, Celal Bayar used the expression, \u201c19 May is the milestone of the Turkish nation\u2019s emergence from darkness into light\u201d (Bayar, 1955, p. 56). From the moment he set foot in Samsun, Mustafa Kemal Pasha demonstrated that the national struggle would not be merely a military process but also a political one. His first activities in Anatolia were shaped as part of a systematic plan aimed at organizing the national resistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The strategic significance of 19 May lies in the fact that the organizational activities Mustafa Kemal Pasha launched on that date quickly spread across the whole of Anatolia. The process extending from Samsun to Havza and from Havza to Amasya is a preparatory period in which the institutional foundations of the national struggle were laid. \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir assessed this process with the words, \u201cAs soon as he set foot in Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal grasped that the national struggle had to be not merely a military movement but an all-out national war of liberation, and he pursued a strategy accordingly\u201d (Aydemir, 1963, Vol. II, p. 12). Through the circulars he issued and the meetings he held during this period, Mustafa Kemal Pasha delineated the ideological framework of the national resistance and clarified the objectives of the struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That 19 May is today celebrated as the Commemoration of Atat\u00fcrk, Youth and Sports Day reflects the symbolic meaning carried by this date. In his Address to the Youth, Atat\u00fcrk entrusted the guardianship of the struggle for independence that began on 19 May to the younger generations with the words, \u201cO Turkish youth! Your first duty is to preserve and defend the Turkish independence and the Turkish Republic forever.\u201d This trust ensures the continuity of the Turkish nation\u2019s journey of independence and modernization. Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay stressed the importance of 19 May with the sentence, \u201cThis date is not merely a memory; it is the anniversary of the Turkish nation\u2019s rebirth each year\u201d (Atay, 1969, p. 200). 19 May is not a date that remains solely in the past; it is a milestone that is remembered anew every year and that casts light on the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.1. The Preparation and Signing Process of the Circular<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following his contacts in Havza, Mustafa Kemal Pasha moved to Amasya on 12 June 1919 and there began preparations for the circular that would set the roadmap for the national struggle. During his stay in Amasya, Mustafa Kemal Pasha maintained an intensive communication traffic with the commanders in Anatolia and developed the idea of convening a national congress. Ali Fuat Cebesoy described the Amasya meetings with the words, \u201cMustafa Kemal Pasha had virtually established a revolutionary headquarters in Amasya. He worked day and night, remaining in contact by telegraph with commanders all across Anatolia\u201d (Cebesoy, 1953, p. 167). The idea of national sovereignty that Mustafa Kemal Pasha had cherished since his time in Istanbul was decisive in the drafting of the circular. This idea crystallized into a clear political programme as a result of the talks he held in Istanbul during the armistice period and his observations in Anatolia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Amasya Circular was issued on 22 June 1919 under the signatures of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, 20th Corps Commander Ali Fuat Pasha, former Minister of the Navy H\u00fcseyin Rauf Bey, and 15th Corps Commander K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir Pasha. Before the circular was signed, Mustafa Kemal Pasha telegraphed the text to the other commanders in Anatolia and secured their approval as well. In \u0130stikl\u00e2l Harbimiz, K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir recounted this approval process: \u201cMustafa Kemal Pasha communicated the text of the circular to me by telegraph. I approved it without the slightest hesitation, because this text reflected the shared thoughts of all of us\u201d (Karabekir, 1960, p. 112). This process is significant in that it shows the military and civilian wings of the national struggle uniting around the same objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s leadership and vision were decisive in the preparation of the circular. Mazhar M\u00fcfit Kansu depicted the work carried out in Amasya with the words, \u201cMustafa Kemal Pasha was virtually writing history in Amasya. He meticulously scrutinized every sentence of the circular, carefully selecting each word\u201d (Kansu, 1966, Vol. I, p. 112). In the fragmented and hopeless atmosphere of the armistice period, Mustafa Kemal Pasha succeeded in setting forth a political programme capable of mobilizing the nation\u2019s will for independence. The Amasya Circular is a document that reveals, beyond Mustafa Kemal Pasha\u2019s military genius, his political foresight and his quality as a statesman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.2. The Basic Provisions of the Circular and a Political Analysis<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Amasya Circular is in essence a political manifesto containing four fundamental provisions. The most critical provision of the circular is the section beginning with the finding that \u201cThe integrity of the homeland and the independence of the nation are in danger\u201d and concluding with the statement, \u201cThe nation\u2019s independence will be saved again by the nation\u2019s determination and resolve.\u201d This statement carries a revolutionary character that proclaims the source of sovereignty to be the nation. In Atat\u00fcrk \u0130htil\u00e2li, Mahmut Esat Bozkurt described this provision as \u201cthe Magna Carta of the Turkish revolution\u201d and stressed that the principle of national sovereignty was expressed so openly for the first time (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 78). Against the idea, embedded in the six-century tradition of the Ottoman sultanate, that sovereignty belonged to the dynasty, this provision stressed the supremacy of the national will and formed the cornerstone of the path leading to the proclamation of the Republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second important provision of the circular is the finding that the Istanbul Government was not fulfilling the responsibility incumbent upon it. This finding implies a questioning of the Istanbul Government\u2019s legitimacy and constitutes the justification for organizing the national struggle as a separate political authority. Rauf Orbay assessed this situation of the Istanbul Government in his Siyasi Hat\u0131ralar with the words, \u201cThe government in Istanbul no longer represented the nation. It had degenerated into a body of civil servants that merely carried out the orders of the occupying forces\u201d (Orbay, 1962, p. 145). The third provision of the circular envisaged the convening of a national congress in Sivas. This congress was designed as the highest body in which the national will would be represented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fourth provision of the circular concerns the determination of the delegates who would attend the congress and the electoral process. Accordingly, three delegates who had won the trust of the people were to be elected from each province and sent to Sivas. This provision is of great importance in that it grounded the national struggle on a popular base and gave it a representative character. \u0130smet \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc described these provisions of the Amasya Circular as \u201cthe first constitutional expression of the idea of national sovereignty\u201d (\u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc, 1985, p. 210). These provisions of the Amasya Circular constitute a fundamental document that inaugurated the revolutionary phase of the Turkish revolution and placed the principle of national sovereignty at the heart of Turkish political life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.3. The Historical Consequences and Legacy of the Amasya Circular<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following its issuance, the Amasya Circular resonated across the length and breadth of Anatolia and accelerated the organizational process of the national struggle. Under the influence of the circular, the Societies for the Defence of Rights sprang into action and the election of delegates for the Sivas Congress began. K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir expressed the circular\u2019s impact in Eastern Anatolia with the words, \u201cThe Amasya Circular was received with great enthusiasm in Erzurum. The nation had at last found a leader and a programme to guide it\u201d (Karabekir, 1960, p. 125). Disturbed by this impact, the Istanbul Government moved to have Mustafa Kemal Pasha dismissed from his post, yet these initiatives failed to block the path of the national struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most important historical consequence of the circular was that it laid the groundwork for the convening of the Erzurum and Sivas Congresses. The decisions taken at the Erzurum Congress gave concrete form to the objectives of national sovereignty and full independence expressed in the Amasya Circular. Mazhar M\u00fcfit Kansu, in Erzurum\u2019dan \u00d6l\u00fcm\u00fcne Kadar Atat\u00fcrk\u2019le Beraber, recounted the preparations for the Erzurum Congress and Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s role in this process through the daily notes he kept (Kansu, 1966, Vol. I, pp. 145-180). The Sivas Congress, in turn, enabled the national struggle to evolve into a political organization encompassing the whole of Anatolia. This chain of congresses eventually paved the way for the proclamation of the National Pact (Misak-\u0131 Mill\u00ee) and the opening of the Turkish Grand National Assembly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legacy of the Amasya Circular today is the central position that the principle of national sovereignty occupies in Turkish political life. The provision expressed in the circular that \u201cthe nation\u2019s independence will be saved again by the nation\u2019s determination and resolve\u201d constitutes the essence of the founding philosophy of the Republic of Turkey. This understanding has served as the bedrock of Turkish democracy from the proclamation of the Republic to the present day. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt assessed this legacy of the Amasya Circular with the words, \u201cThe Atat\u00fcrk revolution laid its intellectual foundations with the Amasya Circular; the Republic that rose upon these foundations has become the eternal work of the Turkish nation\u201d (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 95). Although more than a century has passed since the circular was issued, the principles it contains continue to retain their relevance and their guiding quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4.1. The Birth of the Six Arrows: The 1931 RPP Congress and the 1937 Constitutional Amendment<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Six Arrows acquired official status when they were incorporated into the party programme at the Third Grand Congress of the Republican People\u2019s Party (CHF) held between 10 and 18 May 1931. To the four principles that had been set forth at the 1927 Congress\u2014republicanism, populism, secularism, and nationalism\u2014the principles of statism and revolutionism were added at the 1931 Congress, thereby achieving a synthesis of six fundamental principles. In his Atat\u00fcrk\u2019ten Hat\u0131ralar, Celal Bayar recounted this process with the words, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk had developed the six principles as a programme born of the Turkish nation\u2019s needs. Each principle had been conceived to offer a solution to the nation\u2019s problems of the day\u201d (Bayar, 1955, p. 89). Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk regarded these principles as the compass of the Turkish nation\u2019s modernization journey and took care that each principle formed a harmonious whole with the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Six Arrows acquired constitutional status through the amendment made to Article 2 of the 1924 Constitution on 5 February 1937. With this amendment, the provision that the Turkish State was \u201crepublican, nationalist, populist, statist, secular, and revolutionist\u201d was added to the Constitution. Thus, the Six Arrows ceased to be merely elements of a party programme and became the fundamental characteristics of the state. \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir assessed this constitutional amendment as \u201cthe completion of the legal framework of the Turkish revolution\u201d and noted that the incorporation of the Six Arrows into the Constitution formally certified the ideological identity of the Republic of Turkey (Aydemir, 1965, Vol. III, p. 345). The entry of the Six Arrows into the Constitution also meant the recording, for the first time, of the principle of secularism as a constitutional provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The formation process of the Six Arrows should be assessed as the institutionalization phase of the great transformation that the Turkish nation experienced. The idea of national sovereignty, whose theoretical foundations were laid with the Amasya Circular during the National Struggle, was transformed into a form of government with the proclamation of the Republic; the Six Arrows, in turn, drew the ideological framework of that transformation. In Atat\u00fcrk \u0130htil\u00e2li, Mahmut Esat Bozkurt defined the Six Arrows as \u201cthe constitution of the Turkish revolution\u201d and analysed in detail the function of each principle in the modernization process of Turkish society (Bozkurt, 1967, pp. 112-130). Yusuf Ak\u00e7ura\u2019s ideas on the construction of national identity set forth in his work T\u00fcrk\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn Tarihi (The History of Turkism) contributed to the intellectual foundations of the Six Arrows as a significant source forming the theoretical background of Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism (Ak\u00e7ura, 1928, pp. 45-52). Atat\u00fcrk regarded these principles not as dogmatic moulds but as dynamic precepts responsive to the needs of the Turkish nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4.2. The Holistic Structure of the Principles and Their Mutually Complementary Character<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Republicanism, as the master principle of the Six Arrows, forms the basis of all the other principles. In Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s words, the republic is a form of government \u201cbased on the principle of national sovereignty\u201d and represents all the gains of the Turkish revolution. In his Hat\u0131ralar, \u0130smet \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc defined the principle of republicanism as \u201cthe most concrete expression of the Turkish nation\u2019s will to govern itself after centuries of sultanic rule\u201d (\u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc, 1985, p. 312). The principle of nationalism, intertwined with republicanism, constitutes the ideological underpinning of the Turkish nation\u2019s continued existence as an independent state. Yusuf Ak\u00e7ura, in his work \u00dc\u00e7 Tarz-\u0131 Siyaset (Three Types of Policy), comparatively analysed the currents of Ottomanism, Islamism, and Turkism, laying the theoretical foundations of Turkish nationalism (Ak\u00e7ura, 1904, pp. 12-18). Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism was built upon this theoretical framework drawn by Ak\u00e7ura and took shape as a unifying and integrative conception that rejected racism and was based on unity of language, culture, and ideal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The principle of populism, as a natural extension of republicanism and nationalism, defines the social structure of Turkish society. This principle rests on a conception that rejects class conflict, is based on social solidarity, and envisions a society without privileges. Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay explained the principle of populism with the words, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk\u2019s greatest ideal was to create a classless, privilege-free, coalesced society\u201d (Atay, 1969, p. 410). The principle of statism, as a complement to populism in the economic sphere, is based on the idea that the state should undertake those tasks that the individual cannot accomplish. Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s conception of statism was assessed not as a rigid ideology but as a pragmatic model that would ensure rapid development under Turkey\u2019s conditions of the time. Celal Bayar elucidated the balance in the implementation of the principle of statism with the words, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk never regarded statism as a system that excluded private enterprise. The state would do what the private sector could not, but without obstructing its path\u201d (Bayar, 1955, p. 102).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The principles of secularism and revolutionism are complementary elements that reflect the dynamic and progressive character of the Six Arrows. Secularism denotes the separation of religion and state affairs and the state\u2019s neutrality towards all faiths. In Atat\u00fcrk \u0130htil\u00e2li, Mahmut Esat Bozkurt described secularism as \u201cthe boldest step of the Turkish revolution\u201d and emphasized the importance of the transition from a state order based on religious principles to an order founded on reason and science (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 156). Revolutionism, in turn, as a principle foreseeing the constant renewal and development of the Turkish nation on its path of modernization, ensures the continuity of the other five principles. Atat\u00fcrk regarded the principle of revolutionism as a safeguard against stagnation and believed that the Turkish nation\u2019s goal of rising above the level of contemporary civilization could be achieved only through this principle. Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay interpreted this principle with the words, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk had placed the principle of revolutionism at the foundation of the Six Arrows so that the revolutions would not freeze. For him, revolution was a continuous process of renewal and development\u201d (Atay, 1969, p. 520).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4.3. The Place and Importance of the Six Arrows in Turkish Political Life<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From 1931 to the present day, the Six Arrows have remained one of the most important reference points of Turkish political life. Beyond constituting the founding philosophy of the Republic of Turkey, these principles have become the Turkish nation\u2019s set of shared values. Although some of the principles of the Six Arrows were debated during the transition to multiparty political life, their constitutional status as the fundamental characteristics of the state has been preserved. Both the 1961 and the 1982 Constitutions likewise contain provisions that the Republic of Turkey is a state \u201cloyal to Atat\u00fcrk nationalism\u201d and \u201csecular.\u201d \u0130smet \u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc defended the position of the Six Arrows after the transition to multiparty life with the words, \u201cThese principles are not merely those of a party; they are the shared values of the Turkish nation\u201d (\u0130n\u00f6n\u00fc, 1985, p. 450).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The place of the Six Arrows in Turkish political life is not limited to constitutional provisions alone. These principles also reveal the capacity to offer solutions to the problems encountered by the Turkish nation in its modernization process. In the final volume of the Tek Adam trilogy, \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir stressed that the Six Arrows were a programme that gave concrete form to Turkey\u2019s Westernization and modernization goals (Aydemir, 1965, Vol. III, p. 420). The principle of secularism plays a critical role in the preservation of the democratic system as a safeguard preventing the exploitation of religious beliefs for political ends. The principle of nationalism forms the basis for the construction of a national identity that transcends ethnic and sectarian differences and rests on a consciousness of a shared homeland and a shared history. The cultural nationalism advocated by Yusuf Ak\u00e7ura in T\u00fcrk\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn Tarihi was one of the principal sources that constituted the theoretical ground of Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism (Ak\u00e7ura, 1928, pp. 78-85).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The importance of the Six Arrows becomes even more pronounced in the context of the political, economic, and social challenges that Turkey faces today. At a time when the spheres of sovereignty of nation-states are shrinking in the process of globalization, the emphasis of the Six Arrows on full independence and national sovereignty retains its relevance. The ideal of \u201cfull independence\u201d stressed by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt in Atat\u00fcrk \u0130htil\u00e2li deserves to be reinterpreted today across a broad spectrum extending from economic independence to technological independence (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 200). The principle of republicanism reminds us of the necessity of strengthening democratic institutions and meticulously preserving the separation of powers. In this respect, the Six Arrows are not merely a legacy of the past but also a compass guiding the construction of the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5.1. Republicanism and Nationalism: The Guarantee of a Democratic Political Order<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principle of republicanism alive today requires, above all, the strengthening of a democratic order based on national sovereignty. The republic is not merely a form of government; it is also a regime of liberty in which citizens enjoy equal political rights. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt expressed the essence of republicanism with the words, \u201cThe republic is the self-government of the nation. Liberty, equality, and justice are fundamental in this form of government\u201d (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 135). The sustainability of this regime depends on the meticulous preservation of the principle of separation of powers, the safeguarding of judicial independence, and the functioning of participatory democracy mechanisms. A contemporary interpretation of the principle of republicanism necessitates the institutionalization of pluralist democracy and the strengthening of civil society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism alive today requires that the unifying and inclusive quality of this principle be brought to the fore. The conception of nationalism based on \u201cunity of language, culture, and ideal\u201d advocated by Yusuf Ak\u00e7ura in T\u00fcrk\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn Tarihi constituted the theoretical foundations of Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism (Ak\u00e7ura, 1928, pp. 92-98). This understanding envisions a construction of national identity that regards ethnic and sectarian differences as a richness and unites around the common ideal of the homeland. The provision enshrined in Article 88 of the Constitution that \u201cevery person who is bound to the Turkish State through the bond of citizenship, without distinction of religion or race, is called a Turk\u201d constitutes the essence of Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism. The most powerful antidote today against divisive currents and ethnic separatism is this unifying conception of nationalism put forward by Atat\u00fcrk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principles of republicanism and nationalism alive together is the guarantee of the Turkish nation\u2019s continued existence as an independent state. These two principles express the unbreakable bond between national sovereignty and national independence. In the Nutuk, Atat\u00fcrk linked these two principles with the words, \u201cThe Turkish nation\u2019s struggle for independence is at the same time its struggle for sovereignty. Independence and sovereignty are two inseparable goals\u201d (Atat\u00fcrk, 1927, p. 345). In the face of the internal and external threats confronting the Republic of Turkey, it is of vital importance that these two principles, resting on national sovereignty and national unity, be kept alive uncompromisingly. The Turkish nation demonstrates its will to preserve its democratic order and its national existence by holding fast to the principles of republicanism and nationalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5.2. Populism and Statism: The Guarantee of Social Justice and Development<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principle of populism alive today requires the strengthening of the social state concept and the elimination of social inequalities. Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s conception of populism is founded on the principle that everyone, without any discrimination among the individuals that constitute society, is equal before the law. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt defined populism as \u201cthe organization of the Turkish nation as a classless, privilege-free, coalesced mass\u201d and stressed that this principle is the guarantee of social justice (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 145). A contemporary interpretation of this principle must be implemented through concrete policies such as ensuring income justice, establishing equality of opportunity, and expanding social safety nets. Celal Bayar explained the role of the state in implementing populism with the words, \u201cThe state is obliged to take every measure to increase the welfare of the people. This is a natural requirement of the principle of populism\u201d (Bayar, 1955, p. 110).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principle of statism alive today necessitates a redefinition of the state\u2019s role in the economic sphere. In Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s period, statism meant that the state undertook economic development in areas where the private sector proved inadequate. Today, statism should be understood as the state assuming a regulatory role in strategic sectors in the public interest and remedying market failures. Sustaining the effectiveness of the state in strategic fields such as energy, the defence industry, transportation, and communications is important for the preservation of the economic dimension of national independence. \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir stressed the flexible structure of statism with the words, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk\u2019s statism was not a rigid doctrine but a pragmatic development model that could be adjusted according to circumstances\u201d (Aydemir, 1965, Vol. III, p. 280).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principles of populism and statism alive together ensures the establishment of a balance between social justice and economic development. While the state is obliged to increase social welfare by virtue of the principle of populism, it is also responsible for guiding economic development by virtue of the principle of statism. The harmonious implementation of these two principles contributes to Turkey\u2019s construction of an inclusive and sustainable development model. Today, keeping these principles alive requires that the protective role of the social state be brought to the fore in the face of the inequalities generated by neoliberal policies. In \u00c7ankaya, Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay summed up the importance Atat\u00fcrk attached to these two principles with the sentence, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk believed that national independence could not be realized in its full sense without increasing the welfare of the people\u201d (Atay, 1969, p. 480).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5.3. Secularism and Revolutionism: The Guarantee of Rationalism and Modernization<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principle of secularism alive today requires, beyond the separation of religion and state affairs, that the state remain equidistant from all faith groups and guarantee freedom of religion. Secularism is not merely a state policy; it is also the guarantee of social peace and a culture of coexistence. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt stressed the place of secularism in the Turkish revolution with the words, \u201cSecularism is the cornerstone of the Turkish revolution. Without this principle, none of the other principles can be truly realized\u201d (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 160). A contemporary interpretation of this principle encompasses the prevention of the exploitation of religious beliefs for political ends and the delivery of scientific education to all segments of society. Secularism is likewise an indispensable principle for ensuring gender equality and protecting individual freedoms. In T\u00fcrk\u2019\u00fcn Ate\u015fle \u0130mtihan\u0131, Halide Edip Ad\u0131var expressed the role of secularism in the participation of Turkish women in social life with the words, \u201cThe secular character of the Republic is the greatest guarantee of the emancipation of Turkish women\u201d (Ad\u0131var, 1962, p. 320).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principle of revolutionism alive today is of vital importance for ensuring the continuity of the Turkish nation\u2019s modernization journey. Atat\u00fcrk regarded revolutionism as a guarantee against stagnation and reactionism and stressed that the Turkish nation\u2019s goal of rising above the level of contemporary civilization could be achieved only through continuous renewal and development. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt defined revolutionism as \u201ca principle of dynamism established so that the Turkish nation would not freeze but would constantly progress\u201d (Bozkurt, 1967, p. 175). The principle of revolutionism foresees keeping abreast of developments in science and technology, renewing the education system in accordance with the requirements of the age, and continuously improving institutions. This principle also requires the encouragement of critical thinking and creativity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keeping the principles of secularism and revolutionism alive together is the guarantee of the Turkish nation\u2019s continuous progress on the basis of rationalism and scientific thought. While secularism prevents religious dogmas from shaping political and social life, revolutionism enables society to adapt to developments in the contemporary world. These two principles reinforce the Republic of Turkey\u2019s place in the modern world and contribute to the Turkish nation\u2019s attainment of the goal of contemporary civilization. Today, keeping these principles alive is possible through concrete steps such as the dissemination of scientific education, the promotion of technological innovations, and the deepening of democratic culture. Addressing the youth in the Nutuk, Atat\u00fcrk stressed that this ideal of continuous renewal and progress exists in the essence of the Turkish nation with the words, \u201cThe strength you need is present in the noble blood in your veins\u201d (Atat\u00fcrk, 1927, p. 543).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The National Struggle that began in Samsun on 19 May 1919 and whose political course was charted by the Amasya Circular is the greatest epic of existence of the Turkish nation on the stage of history. This epic not only resulted in a military victory but also opened the path to the construction of a new state based on national sovereignty and a modern society. This great transformation, which Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk narrated over the course of six days in the Nutuk, became institutionalized through the set of principles embodied in the Six Arrows and turned into the fundamental characteristics of the Republic of Turkey. The principles of republicanism, nationalism, populism, statism, secularism, and revolutionism guide the Turkish nation\u2019s modernization journey within a structure in which they complement and complete one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The principle proclaimed in the Amasya Circular that \u201cthe nation\u2019s independence will be saved again by the nation\u2019s determination and resolve\u201d has survived to the present day as the unchanging reference point of Turkish political life. This process, recorded from different perspectives in K\u00e2z\u0131m Karabekir\u2019s \u0130stikl\u00e2l Harbimiz, Ali Fuat Cebesoy\u2019s Milli M\u00fccadele Hat\u0131ralar\u0131, Rauf Orbay\u2019s Siyasi Hat\u0131ralar, Halide Edip Ad\u0131var\u2019s T\u00fcrk\u2019\u00fcn Ate\u015fle \u0130mtihan\u0131, and Falih R\u0131fk\u0131 Atay\u2019s \u00c7ankaya, demonstrates that national sovereignty and full independence are the founding mortar of the Republic of Turkey. \u015eevket S\u00fcreyya Aydemir\u2019s Tek Adam trilogy reveals the difficulties through which the Turkish nation passed to arrive at the present day by presenting in exhaustive detail the life story of Atat\u00fcrk, the leader of this great transformation, within all the complexity of the era. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt\u2019s Atat\u00fcrk \u0130htil\u00e2li, meanwhile, lays out the legal and philosophical foundations of this transformation, delineating the ideological framework of the Six Arrows. Works such as Yusuf Ak\u00e7ura\u2019s T\u00fcrk\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn Tarihi and \u00dc\u00e7 Tarz-\u0131 Siyaset provided the intellectual legacy that constitutes the theoretical background of Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s nationalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As long as the Turkish nation and the State of the Republic of Turkey continue to hold fast to the Six Arrows and keep these principles alive, they will preserve their independence and their goal of modernization. The principle of republicanism must be realized through the strengthening of the democratic order; the principle of nationalism through the construction of a unifying and inclusive national identity; the principle of populism through the establishment of social justice; the principle of statism through the realization of strategic development goals; the principle of secularism through the safeguarding of freedom of religion and conscience; and the principle of revolutionism through the will to continuous renewal and development. The consciousness of the \u201cfirst duty\u201d stressed in Atat\u00fcrk\u2019s Address to the Youth expresses the responsibility of Turkish youth and the Turkish nation to uphold these principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The torch of independence lit in Samsun on 19 May 1919 acquired a political course in Amasya, was transformed into a state form with the proclamation of the Republic, and gained its ideological framework with the Six Arrows. Today, every link of this chain remains alive in the memory of the Turkish nation and awaits transmission to future generations. As Celal Bayar stated in his Atat\u00fcrk\u2019ten Hat\u0131ralar, \u201cAtat\u00fcrk left to those who came after him not only a homeland but also a system of thought that would keep that homeland alive forever\u201d (Bayar, 1955, p. 195). As long as the Turkish nation maintains its resolve to keep this great legacy alive, it will never compromise on its independence, its Republic, and its ideal of modernization. The six lights of the Six Arrows will continue to burn as beacons illuminating Turkey\u2019s path in dark times; the Turkish nation will continue to advance on the road to contemporary civilization under their guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sefa Y\u00fcr\u00fckel<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures<\/p>\n\n\n\n