[Originally published in Hurriyet Daily News]
Turkey’s 10 percent national electoral threshold is often mentioned as a flaw in its democracy. This, it is said, disallows the representation of small social groups, especially the Kurds. In fact, the Kurds still find ways to get into the parliament, and they are already represented in major parties such as the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP. But it is still a problem indeed that we have such a high threshold.
However, very few people ever notice there is another threshold in Turkey which keeps another social group, which is at least twice the size of the Kurds, completely out of the parliament. Although this group makes up at least 30 percent of the whole population, not a single individual among them has ever been accepted by the Turkish Parliament.
Well, actually there was one who once dared to join the parliament in 1999. Then 31-year-old Merve Kavakçı was elected as a deputy from Istanbul. But when she walked into Parliament on the very first day of her job wearing a headscarf she found hundreds of angry men determined to kick her out. They yelled at her for minutes, chanting “out, out,” finally forcing her to leave. Soon, the powers that be also stepped in and stripped Ms. Kavakçı of not just her seat in the parliament but even her citizenship as a Turk. Since then, she has been living and teaching in the United States — a place where, since the Mayflower, have offered religious freedom to persecuted believers.
The reason I am retelling this story of the tyrannical Turkish ban on the Islamic headscarf is that we now have a hope that it might, at least partly, be abandoned. The new leader of the arch-secularist main opposition, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who is certainly more liberal-minded than his predecessor, announced that he would support the lifting of the ban on university campuses. Although the more ideologically committed names in his party have shown resistance, it is still a big step for the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, to consider a free university open to all citizens.
But for the rest of us, it is in fact a very small step because the headscarf needs to be free not only in the campus, but simply everywhere – in public service jobs, government posts and all schools. And those who wear it should be fully equal to those who don’t.
I know that this is a very radical idea for many fellow Turks. So be it. It was a very radical idea just a decade ago that we could have TV channels in the Kurdish language. The limitations on freedom have been so gross in this country that it is a constant challenge to think about removing them one by one, and often one step at a time.
So, I have to defuse the counter arguments one by one, too. Those who are passionately against setting the headscarf free in public offices often argue two main points. They first say “religious symbols” should not be visible in any government post. That is a French-type secularism that I don’t buy, because it is based on an inherent bias against religion. A much better definition of secularism, I believe, is one that welcomes all symbols (religious or secular) to the public square, without discriminating against any of them.
In other words, a government official should be able to dress according to his or her religious commitments, and that should be no one’s business – as is the case in the admirably liberal United Kingdom.
The second argument Turkish secularists voice is that a government official will be “biased against unveiled women” if she herself is veiled. But that is itself based on a very deep-seated bias against covered women – that they can’t have a professional ethic and be fair to all. There is simply no research which confirms this presumption. Quite the contrary, there are actually reasons to believe that veiled women would be quite fair and principled when it comes to the rights of others. The Turkish media has many veiled intellectuals, for example, who take very liberal positions on the rights of Kurds, Alevis and non-Muslims.
Moreover, if wearing a headscarf is a symbol of a particular worldview, then not wearing it is a symbol of another. The state does not have the right to define one of these as the norm, and the expression of the “normal.” The state should simply be blind to all such differences and care about how public servants do their jobs, rather than what they wear.
Schools other than universities – high schools and even elementary ones – are another bone of contention. I, personally, would not prefer to see a 10-year-old girl wearing a headscarf. But that is my view. If her family has chosen to raise her in such a conservative lifestyle, they have the right to do so – just as Orthodox Jews have the right to raise their kids with kippas and peyots. Children, first and foremost, belong to their families, not the state. The state simply needs to respect what families prefer.
Finally, there is a theological debate about whether the headscarf is really an injunction of Islam. I think that is an interesting debate, but it should have nothing to do with the laws and regulations of a secular state. Women can wear, or not wear, the headscarf for any reason they want. All else, including the Turkish State, should show respect.
And that is why the secular intelligentsia is deeply worried. You simply suggest the tyranny of the majority where only Islamic rules and principles would eventually be truly valued and others are simply “tolerated”. The concept of Republic is a set of institutions based on various principles protecting people who do not need to think and live alike. It necessarily dictates compromises in our rights and freedoms. In matters related to the control of political power, let everyone do anything is the worst approach particularly in situations where one side is in majority. If one is deeply threatened by other’s headscarf or mini-skirt, liberalizing both would lead to deep enmity and conflict.
Here are some comments on your logic and quasi-democratic principles that you vehemently endorse as if you have seen fire for the first time.
1) “A much better definition of secularism, I believe, is one that welcomes all symbols (religious or secular) to the public square, without discriminating against any of them.”
Discrimination is the key point here. You can endorse any system or statement by adding “without discriminating against any of them” at the end. In other words, the use of this wild card sentence makes your statement amazingly dull. The problem is whether or not allowing the symbols of any religion/sect/group/community in majority to the public sphere would create even the perception of dominance over the others. The contemporary Islamic community, including those in other countries are so misaligned with the democratic principles that it is difficult to believe that a pious supervisor would choose an uncovered or even an atheist/agnostic person over “his kind”. What happened at the HSYK elections lately? Do you see any diversity there?
2) “The second argument Turkish secularists voice is that a government official will be “biased against unveiled women” if she herself is veiled. But that is itself based on a very deep-seated bias against covered women – that they can’t have a professional ethic and be fair to all.There is simply no research which confirms this presumption.”
That logic applies to any kind of mindset, particularly to those the principles of which are so dogmatic that they deny one a professional life free from any kind of symbols and practices even for the sake of equality and fairness. I would not trust any judge who brings his/her own personal beliefs and values to the court particularly when various aspects of those beliefs may fundamentally contradict with those of the institutions he/she serving to.
3) “Moreover, if wearing a headscarf is a symbol of a particular worldview, then not wearing it is a symbol of another.”
I think that is an amazingly unintelligent way of seeing the world. Why do you not try to see the world outside systems of subordination to symbols, nick-nacks and kitsch that we created?
4) “Finally, there is a theological debate about whether the headscarf is really an injunction of Islam… Women can wear, or not wear, the headscarf for any reason they want. All else, including the Turkish State, should show respect.”
I do not think it is that simple. First, I don’t think there is a large theological debate outside your circle. That seems to be wishful thinking. Moreover, until the irrationally pious (dogmatic) are somehow reasoned and convinced, preferably by their own, to give up their outdated practices, in this case walking around like the scary version of Casper the friendly ghost, there will always be bans and regulations on what people can and cannot wear in public sphere (government offices). The very same logic applies to people wearing mini-skirts or bikinis by the way.
I agree that the state should respect the values of the society it serves but not at the expense of freedoms. Women’s rights or abolishment of slavery would not be achieved by endorsing the idea that the state should give in to the demands of the society it serves. No wonder the Islamic community has a notoriously bad record in these faculties. Perhaps, it is time for the Islamic community to reinterpret the meaning of democracy, and adopt morally superior practices of others despite its believers.
The reform and thus salvation for Islam lies within, and I doubt attacking Republican values will do any good in the long run. I think the “Islamo-liberals” anger is misplaced.