well, I never said I liked him.
edited^^ misread you.
the point I'm trying to get across is that he, like basically all politicians, is trying to use monoliths of national history for his won ends while denying them when they are inconvenient or don't fit his desires.
He's just doing an overly obvious and bad job of it.
He's continuing the denial of the Armenian genocide not just because that's the party line in Turkey, but also because it shows him as a defender of Turkey on the world stage to his constituents. At the same time, He's doing things that are the opposite of the reforms that the same Ataturk was a part of because they don't fit his desires (eg secularism). He's trying to play both sides of the myth, both "Ataturk did nothing wrong" and "Ataturk was wrong about this".
It's like he's not even trying to hide the man behind the curtain.