Kemal Ataturk was so anti-religion because of the Ottoman theocracy, that he inculcated a culture where you basically can't discuss or express religion in public. In a country that's some 90% Muslim. That's kind of effed up, IMHO.
You can't modernize a nation without changing the fundamental nature of the society. In a nation that was only a few years ago part of the Ottoman Empire, religion had to take a fall for progress to happen.
The fact is that religion holds societies back more than it helps them, and that's not limited to just Islam.
Atatürk knew that well. That's why he was slow (actually his idea of "slow" was still kinda fast) to change the fundamentals of the country. Even after he slowed down, people still had trouble with adapting to new ideas. Before he outright rejected caliphate, he kept the "Islam is the religion of Republic of Turkey" thing going in the constitutional charter for a while.
That's not a uniquely Ottoman problem or a religious problem. it's a problem of "When you trust your security to an entire organization devoted to it, that organization eventually realizes they can be kingmakers." The only reason the Secret Service doesn't knock off presidents left and right is because such a transition would not be recognized as legitimate in a democratic populace. In an Imperial setting, the average person doesn't give a shit who runs the Empire because they have no say in it anyways.
The Turkish (and Pakistani) militaries are modern-day Praetorians. They're supposedly there to safeguard democracy, but in essence they've realized their power as kingmakers and abuse the hell out of it to safeguard their own positions, which means they curtail any reforms that threaten it. Just like the Janissaries. It's not a religious problem, it's a power problem.
Janissaries were much worse. At least the army isn't against revolutionary and innovative rulers. Janissaries were exactly like that. Osman the Young, for example, got executed when he was 17 years old because of his ideas. Granted, he tried to replace the Janissaries and of course they weren't happy with it.
My father knows about this coup stuff. He was a left-winger and he probably got into some dirty shit around the times of the second coup, but he never tells me when I ask him about these days. All I know is some of his friends got killed and, from what my grandma told me, he almost got shot once.
I'm telling my father's experience: "
In the first coup (I was 17 years old), every left-wingers supported the military coup. Because government wasn't doing it's job. The military gave an ultimatum to the government, and after the government kept failing, the army took over. Everybody had a relief. But nothing changed. The military allowed the congress to operate. A new government was formed by the military. A few political positions changed here and there. After the coup, most politicians reclaimed their positions. It was all over again.
In the times of the second coup, things were much worse. Before the coup, people were getting massacred. It was complete chaos. Working class literally walked towards police tanks. People were killing each other and even walking around was dangerous. In my personal opinion, the fire was kindled by the country who funded Counter-Guerilla, USA. (translator's note: most people here agree that USA did mess with some stuff to create chaos) Anyway, the military stepped in, killings started to decrease. Military started a new congress, they wrote the charter they wanted to and they got their favored party win the elections.
Military coups are always bad. Worst government is better than the best coup, no matter how bad the situation is."Translation is rough, but he pretty much said this.
By the way, anti-government protests are going on in Tunisia.
It's not about the revolution, it's about what happens after the revolution. I see revolutions in the east like an excuse to overthrow the government. The people living there deserve better than this after all they lived through.