The reflection of July 24 in the hundred-year political/Social equation of the Turkish Minority
Over a hundred-year process, while the institutional structure of the minority changed hands, governments simultaneously continued their activities to divide and fragment the Turkish community without interruption.
The day of July 24, which has woven an intertwined relationship with the fate of the Western Thrace Turks, symbolizes two important events in the collective memory of the community. The connection that makes these two events meaningful to each other is that on the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, which secured the existence of the Turkish minority, a prominent community leader who stood out with his struggle lost his life in a suspicious traffic accident. In such an incident, what matters is not only the death of a political leader but also the symbolic timing of this event and, of course, the dynamic processes that his struggle for the community gained, tied to the spirit of the Lausanne Treaty. In the case of Dr. Sadık Ahmet, these interrelated phenomena define the resistance process of a denied community. While such an approach is hypothetical (a conspiracy theory), there is no reason why certain circles, which perceive Lausanne as a nightmare, should not consider a possible scenario.
In the hundred-year history of the Turkish minority, there are of course other examples besides Dr. Sadık Ahmet of people who paid a price for this cause and defended the community’s legal rights. Activists who were imprisoned or subjected to various attacks are always remembered with respect and gratitude among the Western Thrace Turks. However, if we pay attention, Dr. Sadık Ahmet is a distinct figure who went beyond the theoretical dimension of the event and turned his visions into action. It should not be forgotten that as a man of action, he managed to present a vision of struggle that extended beyond the borders of the country to the Turkish minority. Thanks to him, the minority issue gained a universal dimension. Being commemorated every July 24 by magnificent crowds at his grave is, in essence, the most concrete expression of a cause that derives its strength from the Lausanne Treaty rising in his person.
Looking at the history of the Western Thrace Turks, and more generally the Turks/Muslims with minority status in Greece, the struggle to defend minority rights has never been absent. As is known, after the Balkan Wars, a considerably large Muslim minority began to live on the lands of this country. I say “Muslim” because at that time in the Ottoman State, the definition of nation and belonging was determined by religious identity. In that period, that is, two to three years before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, a large group of deputies was elected to the Greek Parliament to represent the Muslims. In the 1920 elections, Hamit Mehmet Beyzâde, one of the 18 minority deputies from different regions of the country in the Greek Parliament, gave a speech in Thrace condemning the violent actions of Greek authorities against Muslims. Greek Christian deputies tried to prevent this with angry speeches and hand gestures. During the same period, at the London Conference held in 1921, some clauses of the Treaty of Sèvres were considered for improvement. The Muslim deputies, who refused to sign the protest text prepared by the Greek government, which was disturbed by this proposed change, were further provoked by various accusations from Greek deputies.
As can be recalled, similar events occurred in relatively recent times as well. Between 1989-1993, during various election processes, independently elected Turkish minority deputies Dr. Sadık Ahmet, İsmail Rodoplu, and Ahmet Faikoğlu drew attention to the violated rights of the minority during their speeches in the Greek Parliament. The minority deputies, who mentioned the pressures imposed on the minority, completed their speeches under the harsh interventions of the Speaker Tsaldaris when they used the term “Turkish minority.”
So, in this past hundred-year period, can it be asked whether, contrary to these exemplary behaviors, no mistakes were made at all?
Of course, mistakes happened! Let us mention a few.
In the years following the incorporation of Western Thrace into Greece in the 1920s, a chain of mistakes followed one another. Everything began with religion and faith exploitation, trusting in the goodwill of the Greek government. Societies close to the Greek government were established. These societies, under the patronage of Greece, acted as a breakwater aimed at severing Türkiye’s relations with the local population. These societies, mostly in exchange for official positions, compromised the minority’s gains. Amid the polarization in society, the Greek government first set its eyes on education, the lifeline of the community. It established a form of partnership in the Turkish curriculum. Then, irreversibly, it began to reshape this institution according to its political goals. Years later, as if to say, “I no longer need you,” it completely took education under its control. Simultaneously, following the same methods, it seized the mufti offices and foundations through its affiliates. Finally, through puppet administrators, all institutions of the Turkish minority passed into the hands of the state.
Like the “Yellow Ox,” first education, then the mufti institution, and then the administration of foundations, these distinguished institutions have left the minority’s ownership and come under the absolute control of the state. Today, in order to hold any activity in a school building inherited from our ancestors, it is necessary to obtain permission from the state first.
The Greek government responds to the demand of students and parents who want to use the right to Turkish education granted by the Lausanne Treaty and request a school building by closing two or three minority schools every year.
Over the past hundred years, while the institutional structure of the minority changed hands, the Greek government simultaneously continued uninterrupted activities to divide and fragment the Turkish community. First, it began dividing society for the Turks living in mountainous regions by labeling them as Pomaks, saying, “They are a separate community.” Then, while saying the Roma are separate, the Nea Dimokratia government finally announced that the Alevis-Bektashis are a separate group and passed a law in Parliament on the matter.
In response to the Alevi-Bektashi event, three minority deputies expressed a reaction. Although not sufficient, this reaction, referencing Lausanne and declaring these practices unacceptable, is a noteworthy stance. This recent incident shows that the Nea Dimokratia government does not recognize the Treaty of Lausanne and has carried out a process explicitly aimed at dividing and assimilating the minority. Indeed, the labeling of this law by the Komotini deputy Özgür Ferhat as a “law of separatism” is an important finding regarding the government’s intent toward the minority. In this process where the Turkish minority is besieged, what matters is not, as some do, to pose as a “politician” on podiums and social media, but to overcome the “learned helplessness” syndrome and be the conscience of the community.
In conclusion, there may always be individuals or mechanisms within the minority that can be used. However, the Lausanne Treaty, which guarantees the rights of the Turkish minority, does not address individuals but the signatory parties who are obliged to fulfill its requirements.
