Stevie Ann Wright

HIS 381
Professor Ibrahim
29 September 2015
Authoritarian Reform

In the years immediately following World War I, both Turkey and

Iran cast out their existing monarchies and embarked on vigorous programs
of state-sponsored reform (Cleveland and Bunton, p. 162). During this
time, Mustafa Kemal, better known as Ataturk, led Turkey. After being
defeated in World War I, [Ataturk] embarked on an astounding series of
reforms that disestablished Islam, introduced Western laws, and increasingly
obliged the Turks to act and think like Europeans (Foss). Much like
Ataturk, Reza Shah Pahlavi, the leader of Iran during this time, imposed
outward symbols of Westernization on the population (Cleveland and
Bunton, p.174). Both leaders sought out reform for their country, but each
sought it out a little differently. Ataturk took a more intense route when it
came to reforming Turkey while Pahlavis reforms were selective and were
not intended to restructure the existing political order (Cleveland and
Bunton, p. 173). There are many similarities and differences in the reigns of

both leaders, but the main similarity that both leaders possessed was the idea
of Westernization for their nation.
Mustafa Kemal, also known as Ataturk, was the undisputed ruler of
Turkey from 1923 to 1938 (Foss). Ataturk gained his surname, meaning
father of the Turks, when it was bestowed on him by the national assembly
in 1935 (Cleveland and Bunton, p. 166). He was a well-respected president,
liked by all his people and planned to use that to his advantage in the
formation of his reforms.
Ataturk controlled Turkey through the Republican Peoples Party and
sowed the seeds from which a popular democratic system took root.
His government acquired legitimacy by virtue of its electoral
victories, its establishment of the rule of law, and its adherence to the
constitutional provisions adopted in 1924 (Cleveland and Bunton, p.
178).
His reforms were broken down into six principles that he designated as the
foundations of the doctrine known as Kemalism: reformism, republicanism,
secularism, nationalism, populism, and etatism (Cleveland and Bunton, p.
167). Of the six principles, secularism was the main one that Ataturk used as
a platform for his reforms.

Similarly, Irans leader, Pahlavi, used a form of secularism that

imposed outward symbols of Westernization on the population (Cleveland
and Bunton, p. 174). Irans leader, Reza Shah Pahlavi, was very similar to
Ataturk in his ways of westernizing. However, Reza Shahs background
and political attitudes were more akin to those of Muhammad Ali than to
Ataturk (Cleveland and Bunton, p. 173). Because Pahlavi didnt want to
completely breakdown the current political order, his reforms were not as
forceful as Ataturks.
A difference between Iran and Turkey during this time was the
implementation of their reforms and modernization. For Iran,
modernization had come too fast, and it eventually tore Iranian society
apart (The Pahlavi Shahs Attempt to Modernize Iran). Ataturk, on the
other hand, acquired virtual doctoral powers, he was legally elected, and he
attempted to implant in Turkey the institutions and attitudes that would
enable full-fledged democracy to flourish under his successors (Cleveland
and Bunton, p. 162). The idea of reform that each country shared was
similar, but the execution of them was completely different, causing
different end results in both nations.
One of the most prominent similarities between Turkey and Iran is the
Westernization of clothing. In the cartoon clip, titled Gividmde Devrim,

there is a picture of two sets of families. The first set of families is

traditionally dressed; with the men each wearing a fez and the second family
is dressed in what could be considered business casual attire.
Ataturk launched a personal attack on the fez, the brimless headgear
that enabled a worshiper to touch his forehead to the ground during
prayer. To Ataturk, the fez symbolized a tie to the Ottoman past and he
was determined to force its abandonment (Cleveland and Bunton, p.
168).
Ataturk felt strongly about his reforms, including his reform on dress code,
and wasnt afraid to take action. He eventually outlawed the fez and
sentenced any unauthorized persons wearing a fez to a year in prison.
During this same time period, Iran was having similar changes take
place. Iranian men wore a rimless cap (kolah) [that was] replaced the
turban as the main headgear of urban Iranian men by the middle of the
nineteenth century (Chehabi, pg. 211). The kolah represented roughly about
the same thing as the fez did to the Ottoman, but wasnt enforced as strongly
as it was in Turkey.
Both of these countries fought to reestablish themselves during this
time period and took both similar and different paths to do so. Since being
defeated in the First World War, Turkeys foreign relations during Ataturks

presidency were excellent, fostering an extended period of peace in which

Turkish leaders could focus on domestic issues (Cleveland and Bunton, p.
170). Having this relations is probably one of the reasons why Ataturk was
so successful in his reforms. Iran, who followed closely in Turkeys
footsteps, attempted to reestablish them by taking a different reform route
that failed to reconstruct the political order. This, and the need to modernize
too quickly, is more than likely the reasons why Iran eventually met its
downfall.
All in all, these countries leaders took effective action and it helped to
establish these countries into what they are today. Without Ataturk or
Pahlavis reforms, both countries probably wouldnt have survived
politically and it would have led to their defeat in their nation.

Works Cited
Ataturk Devrimleri Kosesi. Cartoon. Print.
Chehabi,Houchang."DressCodesforMeninTurkeyandIran."Menof
Order.209231.Print.
Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. 3rd ed.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 2004. Print.
Foss,Clive."WhenTurksCivilizedTheWorld."HistoryToday55.8(2005):
115.HistoryReferenceCenter.Web.28Sept.2015.
"ThePahlaviShahsAttempttoModernizeIra."GreatEvents2(1930).
Print.