Views of people from Turkey and Holland on statements made by Newsweek journalist Fareed Zakaria, Turkish president Abdullah Gül and prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the Dutch VPRO documentary ‘Turkije – Het Dilemma van de Democratie’: ‘Turkey – the dilemma of democracy’ that will broadcast on 8th of October. Daily at Sargasso from October 5th until October 12th, at 13.00h (Amsterdam time, 14.00h Istanbul time). This blogging project is part of the Dutch democracy week WijZijnDeBaas (WeAreTheBoss): the Dutch contribution to the International Week for Democracy. More information here.
As Muslim societies democratize, you will see greater religious expression everywhere in society. It is a consequence of democracy.
Abdullah Gül,
Turkey’s new president,
(in a Newsweek column of Fareed Zakaria, May 2007)
Emre Kizilkaya | The Istanbulian
turkish journalist, Hürriyet newspaper, blogger.
“I like to emphasize that Islam should be politics-free, as it is only a religion. Politics is about the public, but the religion is about the individual. Associating these two words can only help political Islamists who want to exploit both of them. Abdullah Gul is -unfortunately- one of these politicians and he would stay among their ranks as long as he uses this rhetoric. A society which can only democratize by the help of a religion (actually not religion, but Islamist politicians) is neither democratic, nor religious. It is just a colony of Islamists”.
Erkan Saka | Erkan’s field diary
blogger, thesis on Turkish journalism and the European Union, Ph.D candidate Anthropology at Rice University and instructor at the Public Relations Department of Istanbul Bilgi University.
“This is in fact an ironic Turkish case so far. Association of authoritarian attitudes with staunch secular politics led the way for oppositional politics a more democratic standing. Not only Islamism but Kurdish nationalism and most of the leftist tendencies claim to offer more democratic futures. In fact, these could never practice what they preached but thanks to authoritarian official policies, they could portray themselves positively. This is of course a shallow abstraction, but depending on my experiences and (somewhat insider) knowledge I believe my abstraction has some truth. However, with the emergence of AKP, Islamist politics leaped forward to a quite different terrain of politics. I don’t believe this was really what they planned. The lack of sound secular parties left all the policy making to AKP and the latter believed that the political survival could only occur with more democracy (think of the three parties banned by the State with which most of the founding fathers of AKP had been affiliated). Most of the Islamists probably realized the virtue of democracy even before AKP, in the middle of headscarf ban crisis. They witnessed that they were virtually powerless in opposing the ban. Only in a more democratic society, they could live as they desired. But of course, one should not forget that alternative routes (like a more revolutionary approach) did not work in Turkey whereas in many Middle Eastern countries armed and revolutionary Islamic groups would flourish. The nature of politics and society in Turkey oriented the major Islamic forces which in turn chose democratisation a more appropriate venue”.
Haluk Direskeneli | Energy Newsletter Turkey
blogger, energy expert.
“Religious expression is to be kept all for yourselves. In Turkey, we have population of 70 million people whose average education is only 3.9 years as of year 2007, [editor: this is equivalent to 4th grade children]. It is just petty politics to get the votes of 4th grades.”
Beatrice Vanni | Arabisto and Turkey & My Foreign Perspectives
blogger, lives in Turkey, and helps people gain visibility for their work and attract more clients through high-quality writing, editing and project development.
“Abdullah Gul understands this issue more than many because of the interesting and tough road he has traveled. It is true that there will be greater expressions of faith when democracy crystallizes a country or a nation of countries and democracy will also reveal its many and varying aspects. We must come to terms that democracy for one country may be different than another country, but it is still democracy. Each country must progress into their concept of democracy, but building it together with each country sharing their ups and downs will always emerge more winners than losers.
Turkey has already taken their seat at the international table, now let them eat dinner!”.
Christine Quirk | Quirk Global Strategies
blogger, expert in political campaign and communications, worked, traveled or studied in more than 50 countries around the world.
“Sure, that’s true. But as countries democratize they also have to protect the rights of people who don’t practice or who hold different and potentially unpopular views. Is AKP ready to do that? I’m watching”.
Michael van der Galiën | The Gazette
blogger, frequent visitor of Turkey with interest in the politics and culture of the country, published columns in the Turkish Daily News and is correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media.
“To a degree yes, to a degree no. In the short term yes, in the long term societies may change (just look at Western Europe). Furthermore, I’m not all that much in favor of full democracy in every country in the world. In some countries, full democracy means having Hamas, Hezbollah or some other extremist movement in power. In those cases, full democracy is not in our best interest, thus we should oppose it.”.
Hans A.H.C. de Wit | Internations Musings: Istanbul, Florence, Athens, Yerevan and Dubai | blogger, international communication manager, lives in Turkey, cross cultural specialist.
“Regarding democratize a Muslim country like Pakistan or Indonesia, soon Sharia law will take over (see Aceh, Indonesia, and Kutalan, Malaysia). But when countries, which are authoritarian such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. where each part of social and private life is dominated by religion, will democratize, there will be less religious expression. Regarding Turkey: the secularist didn’t had an answer on the ruling AK party its policy. Therefore he thinks that when Turkey become less secular, there will be more religious expression. In my opinion Turks don’t want to give up their modern way of living”.
Joost Lagendijk | GroenLinks
Member of the European Parliament: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Chairman Delegation of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee.
‘Gül is right, certainly in the case of Turkey. In Turkey there still exist strict controls on expressing your religious convictions in public spaces. The best know example is the law against wearing headscarfs by students on universities. I would vote for ending this law. In no known European country such law exists, even not in France. And the majority of the Turks don’t seem to have a problem with it. The challenge will be to find a new, good balance during this period of rapid modernisation and democratisation of Turkey. Female students that want to wear headscarfes shouldn’t be stopped from going to university. But in the same time it’s important to make sure that female students that don’t want to wear headscarves will keep that freedom. In a country as Turkey where the majority of the people is Muslim and the same majority klings to the seculare nature of the state, freedom of both groups should be garanteed.’
Nevin Sungur |
Turkish journalist working in Brussels
‘Tolerance is one of the most important components of democracy. Today, the biggest concern of the people who don’t agree with AKP policies in Turkey is the lack of trust that this tolerance will exist in the future.
Although Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an has promised to be “the government of all” in the eve of the elections, the practises we have seen so far has not proven so. The main task of the AKP government should be to show that those fears are baseless. Otherwise, the freedom and the democracy which they refer to will only be limited to those who vote for them’.
‘
Altin | Altin.nl
dutch-turkish rapper
‘I agree. If we all agree that democracy is the highest level of civilisation as a policital system, then this is the case. Islam is not a way of living that disagrees with democracy. It’s meant for the individual and everybody is responsible for his own life and may live it like he or she wishes. These are also basic principles of a democracy and a state based on law. Problems arise when people try to mix their religious views with political ideals and through this try to oppress other people. That’s wrong’
Reacties (15)
As an immigrant, I say many thanks to Michael van der Galiën for his insightful declaration that ‘In some countries, full democracy means having Hamas, Hezbollah or some other extremist movement in power. In those cases, full democracy is not in our best interest, thus we should oppose it’.
In the Netherlands, full democracy means having Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders, Rita Verdonk or some other extremist nationalist xenophobe in power. In those cases, full democracy is not in our best interest as immigrants, thus we should oppose it.
If you are interested in what the Turkish Constitution of 1982 says about religious freedom, see it online at: http://www.byegm.gov.tr/mevzuat/anayasa/anayasa-ing.htm.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on limiting religious freedom: forthcoming interview in Reason magazine, some quotes here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/10/is-europe-finished.html
In the initial reactions and in the comments I see that people look at the statement by Gül as being something static. That democracy will immediatly lead to changes.
I read the statement as a thing that will happen over time. Having 20, 30 or 40 years of democracy, changes your country, changes your people.
It’s no use refering to Palestina now, it’s only a weird snapshot. What will happen to that country if they had 5 elections?
See what’s happening in Lebanon. Even though the situation is difficult, people do want to fight for their democracy, for a system not connected to one religious group.
Personally I have more fear for Turkish (ultra) nationalism – which is bad for every democracy – than for Islam.
Democracy goes all and only about impartiality in lawgiving.
The statement of Abdullah Gül is preposterous. And it is at once contradicted by the fact that the ‘democratic’ military is often in opposition with Islamists.
In a poll: which comment do you favour the most, my vote would go to Emre Kizilkaya | The Istanbulian.
What Gül says is particulary true for Turkey. The authoritarian and forced secular governements before have done their utter best to ban any religious expression. Hence a democratization of the country, logically accompanied with the levitation of such bans, will offer the chance for religious people to express themselves, as they couldn’t before. It’s a simple truth.
Reading all the various viewpoints, I think it is no doubt that this is a complex issue for Turkey, yet reveals that Turkey, just like most other countries, face many problems incorporating their style of democracy. In America, we see the opposite where democracy is not what it once was due to the changing cosmetic makeup of the country and new needs and possibly turning back the wheels of time.
While I agree with Emre that religion should be politics-free, unfortunately, it is not, and at times we parade around the flag of separation of church and state. Listening to George Bush, sometimes I am left to wonder if any country can truly be separated from a large part of who they are or what they stand for.
On my latest entry at Arabisto, I wrote more about these many faces of a democracy in transition.
http://www.arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=848
You can never say that politics and religion are really separated of course. Because thinking/believing/talking about it influences other things.
But you can set up a system of law and democratic rules that exclude explicit influence from one to the other.
Like the fact that the state can never have a say in who’s the religious leader (like in China/tibet) or the other way round that the head of state should belong to a particular brand of religion (like we have in the Netherlands).
Als de vos de passie preekt, boer pas op je kippen………
With the head of state, you mean the queen, don’t you Steeph ? Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact you could call it a democratic outcome when the head of state takes part in the largest religious community ;) Provided that he does not abuse the legal system, as did the head of state and fanatic church member who put Anna Boleyn to death.
Yes, the queen. Uh, “largest religious community”?? That’s just how you define it. If you mean “christian” probably yes, if you use the more strict definition “protestant”, no.
And the head of state needs to be protestant.
(Is atheism a religion? Then they are the largest group now)
Needs to be protestant ? I did not know….. That is contrary to de Grondwet. Every one is free to choose his/her religion.
Something with Irene as well, you might be right.
While we are loosing soldiers at the south east corner of our country, the head scarf should be a minor issue to consider