Franco versus Ataturk: two dictators with opposite projects
Franco and Ataturk are both cited as authoritarian modernizers, but their projects were opposites: one secularized, the other clericalized. Data and context.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Franco and Ataturk: the mirage of the modernizing dictator
The comparison between Francisco Franco and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk resurfaces every so often, but rarely with sufficient historical rigor. The central argument of those who link them is usually that both exercised authoritarian power to "Westernize" their respective countries. However, a brief analysis of their projects reveals more differences than similarities.
National project: from nothing or building on what was inherited
Ataturk created a Turkish nation-state practically from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, imposing radical secularism, the Latin alphabet, and legal equality for women. Franco, by contrast, inherited an already unified Spain, and his regime rested on national Catholicism, restoring ecclesiastical privileges and a traditional social order. While the Turkish leader destroyed a theocratic empire to found a secular republic, the Caudillo destroyed a secular republic to restore a confessional monarchy. These are opposite vectors.
The weight of the Church and the burden of Primo de Rivera
Where Ataturk marginalized religious institutions, Franco subordinated himself to them. His "failure," according to certain analyses, was allowing himself to be seduced by the most integralist sectors of Catholicism, sidelining the non-confessional Falangists and military men who had helped him win the Civil War. It is also pointed out that much of the economic and social policy of Francoism was copied from the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, not an original creation.
A distant affinity: Reza Pahlavi
Curiously, the one who came closest to the Kemalist model in the Middle East was the Shah of Persia, Reza Pahlavi. His father traveled to Turkey to meet Ataturk and raised his son in that admiration. There is no similar parallel between Franco and the founder of Turkey.
In the end, the label of "Spain's Ataturk" seems more a slogan than a defensible thesis. If Franco had dispensed with clerical influence and committed to secular modernization, perhaps the comparison would have more mileage. But history, stubborn as it is, ruled it out.
The comparison between Francisco Franco and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk resurfaces every so often, but rarely with sufficient historical rigor. The central argument of those who link them is usually that both exercised authoritarian power to "Westernize" their respective countries. However, a brief analysis of their projects reveals more differences than similarities.
National project: from nothing or building on what was inherited
Ataturk created a Turkish nation-state practically from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, imposing radical secularism, the Latin alphabet, and legal equality for women. Franco, by contrast, inherited an already unified Spain, and his regime rested on national Catholicism, restoring ecclesiastical privileges and a traditional social order. While the Turkish leader destroyed a theocratic empire to found a secular republic, the Caudillo destroyed a secular republic to restore a confessional monarchy. These are opposite vectors.
The weight of the Church and the burden of Primo de Rivera
Where Ataturk marginalized religious institutions, Franco subordinated himself to them. His "failure," according to certain analyses, was allowing himself to be seduced by the most integralist sectors of Catholicism, sidelining the non-confessional Falangists and military men who had helped him win the Civil War. It is also pointed out that much of the economic and social policy of Francoism was copied from the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, not an original creation.
A distant affinity: Reza Pahlavi
Curiously, the one who came closest to the Kemalist model in the Middle East was the Shah of Persia, Reza Pahlavi. His father traveled to Turkey to meet Ataturk and raised his son in that admiration. There is no similar parallel between Franco and the founder of Turkey.
In the end, the label of "Spain's Ataturk" seems more a slogan than a defensible thesis. If Franco had dispensed with clerical influence and committed to secular modernization, perhaps the comparison would have more mileage. But history, stubborn as it is, ruled it out.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (27 replies).
More summaries
-
Luther, Calvin and capitalism: sin or progress?
Five hundred years on, the debate over whether the Protestant Reformation legalised usury and unleashed greed remains open: sin or progress?
-
Alfonso XIII: The 1923 mistake that cost him the crown
Alfonso XIII was not overthrown by municipal elections; in 1923, he ratified Primo de Rivera's coup and dissolved the parties supporting the monarchy.
-
Was church condemnation in medieval Europe just a matter of luck?
Ecclesiastical condemnation in medieval and early modern Europe: was it luck? Analysis of cases and arbitrariness.
-
ETA and GAL: two arms of the same Gladio network in Spain
Investigation linking ETA and GAL as arms of the same NATO Gladio network, with drug trafficking funding and CIA control.
-
Peter's denial in five paintings
Five paintings of Saint Peter's denial, from Duccio to Ribera: an analysis of composition, light and the treatment of cowardice in sacred art.
-
Why Gibraltar isn't just another part of the UK
Gibraltar is British, but its 30,000 residents don't vote in Westminster. London keeps it as a military base and tax haven. What interests lie behind it?