Recent events have once again thrown into sharp focus the question of democracy and secularism in Turkey. The table talk topic is whether Turkey should be democratic or secular. The July 22 elections will be a battleground for the Turkish political system to decide if it can be both secular and democratic while remaining civilized.
Those who feel that their way of life is threatened see secularism as the only way to protect themselves against what they consider to be the hidden Islamist agenda of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). For them secularism is more than simply the separation of religion and state. It is a way of life. It is the foundation of the Turkish Republic. It is the essence of Atatürk’s legacy. It is the only way to move Turkey forward against the threat of an outdated tradition and religious dogmatism. Assuming that this fear is justified, can secularism be defined to protect only the lifestyle of a certain group of people? If the modernized elites of society feel threatened by the fast social change around them, how about the middle class or rural communities? Are their fears groundless? The problem with the defenders of secularism in Turkey is that they see their way of life as the only one worth protecting. What is more troubling is that they see their lifestyle as identical to the fundamental principles of the republic. Is this really protecting the foundations of the republic or protecting the class interests of a militantly secularist minority? Our militant secularists see democracy as a threat to their notion of secularism because it challenges their monopoly over the public sphere. By public sphere, I don’t simply mean state institutions or universities. What I mean is Turkey’s social, cultural and political landscape, from music and architecture to literature, economic and politics. What was once the self-professed privilege of a small minority is now up for grabs by the larger periphery. Their demand for a larger share in political power and cultural representation irritates our militant secularists because they see this as a narrowing down of their sphere of privileges and influence. There is nothing wrong with a group of like-minded asserting themselves as a model community. The Turkish secularists may see theirs as the only way to modernize Turkey and open it up to the world. The problem is that they present their narrow notions of democracy and secularism as the foundations of the republic and do not allow anyone to dare challenge this carefully constructed dogma. Are democracy and secularism irreconcilable? The vast majority of Turkish people think not. In fact the two principles complement each other, for both aim to allow different viewpoints and lifestyles to live together. Neither democracy nor a secular political system is meant to value and protect only a certain way of life. Democracy is not a regime where everyone thinks the same way and lives the same way. To the contrary, democracy is a regime of reconciling differences by accepting different views and lifestyles as being of equal value. This means not privileging any particular ideology, view or lifestyle. The state, the most powerful agent in Turkish society, is responsible for staying in equal distance to such differences. The state cannot be the seat of representation for only one group of people. In this sense there is no contradiction between democracy and secularism. Can we hope that our militant secularists will accept this much as common sense?
