[ethbro]

Nationalism by definition involves suppressing a segment of the population (usually opposed to the unifying party and/or allied with external parties).

It's ugly but true.

It also happened in the United States. In Britian. In France. In Germany. In Spain. In Italy. In ancient Greece and Rome.

There are lighter / harsher ways of going about it, though the appropriateness of those is also defined by the opposition's actions.

Successfully creating a national identity, where there were disparate groups before, breaks a lot of people in the transition.

[Cyph0n]

> Nationalism by definition involves suppressing a segment of the population [...]

Great, but what does that have to do with my question, exactly? Were Kemalist leaders not nationalist autocrats?

Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy?

[ethbro]

> Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy?

I'd argue that nationalism is a requisite step for a diverse country, including multiple ethnic or cultural groups within its borders, to become a democracy. (And I'm sure I'm cribbing an old idea in the field here)

It seems like there's little basis for common action without a supergroup which includes, binds, and restrains all otherwise oppositional parties inside a legal framework.

I'd argue that's why uni-party "democracies" tend to be so fragile. When the party becomes the state, then opponents of the party can only be opponents of the state.

[yalph]

You first tell me who the hell you call “Kemalist” then I will tell you whether or not they are Kemalist at all. Dont throw around “Kemalist” liberally to make a point. Then we can discuss further.