Istanbul

Nilüfer Göle sighed and sadly shook her long red hair. It was June 6th and the Turkish Constitutional Court had just rejected the law allowing the Islamic veil to be worn in universities. “We have the feeling that it is a way of confiscating democracy and public debate in the name of legalism” – was the immediate reaction given to Resetdoc.org by the Turkish sociologist and Professor from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Paris – “It might have some legal justifications, but it does not have in my mind political and democratic legitimacy”. The news came during the last day of the international conference organised by Reset Dialogues on Civilizations in Istanbul, a city chosen not only – as they say – because it is geographically a “bridge between the East and the West”, but also because of the extraordinary political importance Turkey has in today’s world. A weary candidate member of the European Union, this country is the living evidence of compatibility between Islam and democracy.

Nilüfer Göle is one of the most transparent intellectual witnesses of this secular European country that is also open to moderate Islam. Born in Turkey in 1953, she teaches in Europe and is the author of The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling. In her books, greatly appreciated also in the United States, Nilüfer Göle has managed to explain that the veil, far from being the mark of backwardness, is changing meaning, from being a sign of stigma, backwardness and gender inequality, to a sign of positive identity affirmation, such as “black is beautiful”, and of political activism. Her message is that one must not fear an Islamic revival, or the return of religion to the public stage. This same analysis was confirmed also at Resetdoc’s Turkish conference, held from June 2nd to the 6th 2008 at the secular Bilgi University, by the great German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who called this phenomenon (global and not only Islamic) “post-secularism”.

The best way of fomenting religious extremism, on the contrary, consists in provoking it with extremist secular decisions. Just like the one taken by the Turkish Constitutional Court which, in fact, has been greeted with scepticism by secular liberal intellectuals attentive to dialogue with the religious world. Among them there is of course Göle, who reminded us how complex decisions, such as the right to wear the veil should be taken by parliament and civil society, and in a democracy cannot be determined by judges who are not elected by the people: “People feared that by authorising the veil in universities there would have been a religious escalation, and instead, thanks to this decision we are seeing an escalation of a limitation of democracy that worries me greatly. This simply enlarges the issue of the veil, while it should instead be discussed serenely and the decision should be left to women and to universities”.

Seyla Benhabib and Andrew Arato, who both attended the conference, expressed the same concern. “It is a very problematic decision, that increases the level of the conflict and polarizes again civil society” – said Benhabib, Eugene Meyer Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University – “It raises all these issues about whether a decision properly passed by the majority, which did not appeal to sectarian basis and which really did not threaten the order of laicity, can be overturned in this way. So it is just the beginning of this big political crisis about the status of the AKP, whether they will close the party, whether there will be a move towards making a new constitution. We all have to watch carefully, but it is not a desired outcome”.

What really is at stake

What is really at stake is far more important than wearing the veil in universities. In a few weeks, the same Constitutional Court will be called-upon to express an opinion on the appeal presented by the most import Turkish political party, the AKP (Justice and Development Party), a moderate Islamic group led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the President of the Republic Abdullah Gül. The AKP, which many consider the Islamic version of European Christian Democratic parties, has been accused of violating the laicity of the Turkish constitution, and hence risks being banned. This is a dramatic possibility, seeing the party’s crushing victory in the last elections, and considering that a conviction would remove from the political scene 71 of its most important leaders for a five year period, Erdogan and Gül included.

The atmosphere is extremely tense, but there are also those who have not lost hope, such as Andrew Arato, editor of the magazine Constellations, who said: “It is a bad decision technically, but there is a chance that it can also have some positive consequences, if the Court actually now realizes that it does not have to close the governing party, because it has already defended secularism as it should be”. The West awaits with concern the Court’s next decision. “The reaction in the EU to this court case was one of disbelief,” commented Olli Rehn, European Enlargement Commissioner, “since court cases to close political parties are not normal in EU democracies.” According to Human Rights Watch, the Court’s decision is “a blow to freedom of religion and other fundamental rights”.

The alliance of extremisms

The advocates of dialogue between civilisations hope that the judges will not inflame even more the “clash” between secular and religious people, and that they will not decide to allow Turkish democracy to fall into darkness, an event that would with one single blow deprive the country of a President of the Republic who is very respected abroad, and a democratically elected Prime Minister. Some instead might sigh with relief, such as the extremists on both sides; the ultra-Islamists and the ultra-secularists, both convinced that Islam and democracy are not made for each other. These are the short-sighted Europeans who see the EU as a Christian club, and they would use the chaos in Ankara as the umpteenth pretext for delaying forever Turkey’s entry in Europe. These are those Middle Eastern regimes tired of being pointed out as “Muslim countries that, unlike Turkey, are not yet open to democracy, to wellbeing and to the West”. It is a shame that this chaos might confuse Arab public opinion, which should instead look to Turkey as its main political model.

Of course the atmosphere of Islamic revival one experiences in Turkey nowadays can be annoying. A member of parliament belonging to the SPD, Delik Kolat, was not served wine in a hotel in Istanbul, because unlike her colleagues she was “not a tourist”; she was in fact born in Turkey: “The AKP – said the hotel manager – does not grant permits for alcoholic drinks. We make exceptions for foreigners, but if they discover we have sold some to a Turk, they will close us down immediately”. And there is more. A court ordered the only Association for the rights of homosexuals that exists in this country to close. The Diyanet, the Agency for Religious Affairs, described courting as a sin equal to adultery and prostitution, and invited women to “cover themselves very well before leaving their homes”. All one needs do is exchange a few words on the streets of Istanbul to discover that Erdogan attracts from secularists the same degree of hatred that liberals feel in America or in Italy for George W. Bush or Silvio Berlusconi. But all this is part of the democratic game, and is not a sufficient excuse for not permitting Turkey to join the EU. The secular, Christian and Muslim extremists have formed a stern and unprecedented alliance to prevent Turkey from smoothing the way to modernity for the Muslim world. The European Union may well fall into their trap.

Translation by Francesca Simmons