The kings without crown - Mustafa Kemal I
By Jean Bareil, from "La Presse" (September 9th, 1928)
To Lieutenant Desmons, Officer of the “Lotus”
The news of the imminent reestablishment of the Turkish Republic was sent out, under the guise of Mustafa I, current “president” of the Republic of Angora. The information was immediately denied. Let us give thanks to the goddess of liberty who is so kind as to preserve the candid brow of the democratic customs of the pashas from the impure contact of a royal crown. So far, however, nothing but legitimate.
By attraction with the self-crowning of Ahmed Zogu one could suppose that Mustafa Kemal would switch his seat for a throne. This is not the case: that’s perfect.
However where they exaggerate, is where they are outraged that a quasi dark intention could be ascribed to the dictator of Turkey and that they laud the depth of his republican convictions.
An honorable Turkish deputy, visiting Paris, has just published on this subject an article of a remarkable buffoonery for the people who know of what it speaks.
One can read in it that “the deep meaning of the Turkish revolution was… the abolition… of the omnipotence of one and the establishment of national sovereignty….” One can read in it that Mustafa Kemal has always been “the declared enemy of the omnipotence of one” (bis).
It’s hilarious or charming for the admirers of literary turqueries1 such as that of pleasant fantasists, in the manner of Pierre Loti and of Claude Farrère, who have recounted them to us between two leisure trips. It’s taking us for a bit of a ride, I mean that of the Levant.
We understand very well from the text, that Mr. Mahmoud, as that is the name of this kind fellow, has abstained from emitting an idea that would not strictly conform to the instructions of his master. It would be his head, amongst other risks, and we know how that good soul of Mustafa Kemal knows how to get rid of any slight opposition.
But there is, Mr. Mahmoud, a limit to servility, even in exaggeration.
And that limit, you have heavily crossed it, as heavily as your name seems to invite you to do so.
To speak of the free conduct of parliamentary institutions in a country where you are hung high and short, if you have the misfortune of letting out a criticism against the government, even a light one;
To speak of liberty in a country where you are hung if you do not adopt on the fixed date the haircut imposed by the law;
To speak of Republic in a country where so-called universal suffrage, brings out this truly admirable result of concentrating the unanimity of votes, with the exception of a singular contrary vote, on the candidates of the government: the only ones, besides, that dared to run, when we’re talking about a people of ten million inhabitants where there is still after all a few thousand intellectuals who think; it’s to falsify the meaning of words, it’s also to falsify the meaning of things.
There are some of us in France who know your Mustafa Kemal, and this knowledge is enough to affirm that he is the most dangerous brute, the tyrant to whom pity is least accessible that has ever reigned on an oriental nation.
At the time, Mr. Mahmoud, of our revolution of 89, whose principles are apparently so dear to you, in the very time of that period which we have loyally dubbed the Terror, you still found in France, despite the bloody threats which weighed on them, men brave enough to vote against the ruthless enlightened who held power and their lives in hand.
You also found those who braved, all the way to the Convention, the menacing phraseology of a Robespierre…
Let us simply note that under the Turkish Terror there was not a single vote, not one, to rise up against the unbridled domination of your national tyrant.
The servants matched the Master…
Long live the Republic nonetheless, Mr. Mahmoud!
But ours…
— Jean Bareil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turquerie