Secular Turkey and the Headscarfs...

[keeblercrumb]

I will admit to being both fascinated and confused by the current situation in Turkey.....

In almost all regards, Turkey is the most advanced, democratic, predominately Muslim nation on earth... and they are facing a curious conundrum..

Modern Turkey is the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk... who overthrew the ruling Muslim potentates following World War I..... He established the secular state that has been the bedrock of the nation ever since.

And in contrast to most nations, it is the Turkish Army who has maintained this secular tradition fearing a return to Islamic law and dictatorship. Occasionally they have staged coups to re-assert this by force.

But fairly recently, a conservative Muslim government has democratically come to power and now the country faces major internal strife (and potential overthrow by the Army, again) over what can only be described as a symbolic gesture by the current government.

The parliament has passed legislation that will once again permit the wearing of Muslim headscarves in the University system.

For Americans, such as myself, this is a tough issue.. Much as I strongly prefer a secular Turkey to a stridently Islamic one..... (the stuff of nightmares in the middle east)... it is hard to philosophically argue that Muslim women should NOT be allowed a headscarf in accordance with their cultural and religious beliefs.....

Imagine the hue and cry (I would certainly hope) were we to ban scarves here or in Europe..... We would, I trust, see it as an affront to individual liberty. Maybe not on a par with raising corporate taxes or anything, but an affront never the less.

So I am conflicted about this..... but curious... What do you think?

-KC

 

[Liar]

It's no more a "conservative Muslim government", than Hilary Clinton is a neo-con. They are probably the most moderate Islam affiliated political movement in the world.

Turkey is aiming for the EU, and this is actually on par with some of the human rights standards set up to be able to open membership negotiaions. You can't outlaw a religious expression, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people or affect the work (or in this case the academic) performance.

Allowing scarves in the Uni means that modern Muslim women are given the possibility of higher education. The few more conservative muslims in Turkey won't be affected, since thay wouldn't allow "their" women to be educated anyway.

 

[keeblercrumb]

It's no more a "conservative Muslim government", than Hilary Clinton is a neo-con. They are probably the most moderate Islam affiliated political movement in the world.

Turkey is aiming for the EU, and this is actually on par with some of the human rights standards set up to be able to open membership negotiaions. You can't outlaw a religious expression, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people or affect the work (or in this case the academic) performance.

Allowing scarves in the Uni means that modern Muslim women are given the possibility of higher education. The few more conservative muslims in Turkey won't be affected, since thay wouldn't allow "their" women to be educated anyway.

Interesting.... then why are the secularists so wound up about it? I would have thought they were very pro-EU....

 

[cantdog]

This same issue has been in Turkish news for decades.

The Army thing? That's actually in the Turkish constitution. The Army are supposed to watchdog the politics, and step in as needed if things get out of hand. It's a weird system.

The "Islamists " in Turkey are, as Liar says, quite moderate by comparison with al-ikhwan al-muslimun in Egypt, for instance. They hardly dare act at all, because plumping for Seriat law will get you banned. Parties and individual leaders of parties have been banned before for extended periods. Banned from political activity, not exiled or anything.

The force behind them, behind the Islamists, that is, is largely the tarikat orders, the Sufis. They have business round table organizations and such, and a parallel banking system, and an alternative school system, almost. One recognizes them, if one is in the know, by handshakes, the shape of the mustache, and so on.

Headscarves are about as raw as it gets.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think this is unfortunate. Attaturk's reforms showed the way for Islam to exit the dark ages. This is backsliding.

 

[Vermilion]

Secularists are scared, (from what I understand) especially women, because they are scared that the return of the headscarf signals a return to old ways and they are worried that it will start with the headscarf being 'allowed' and end with the headscarf being mandated.

The same way some people think one puff on a joint means you are definitely on the slippery slope towards crack cocaine and heroin I guess...

Personally I'm torn, because I can see both sides of the argument. People should be allowed to wear whatever the hell they like, so long as it's not overly offensive to others (buttock exposing trousers, for example, might cause some consternation). On the other hand... I can see why some of the less religious women in Turkey might be concerned over whether this is the start of the slippery slope back to more fundamental Muslimism... is that even a word? I shouldn;t type when tired, especially not in political threads.

x
V

 

[Vermilion]

I think this is unfortunate. Attaturk's reforms showed the way for Islam to exit the dark ages. This is backsliding.

Of course one could argue that mandating what one may or may not wear is more typical of the dark ages than allowing the freedom of religious expression...

 

[cantdog]

A liberal reader of the news always sees the other side. But the Army can't be cavalier, if you'll pardon the pun. You have to remember where this country is and what's taking place all around it. They went along for about ten years per cycle, before the Army stepped in and suspended political parties, through the latter half of the last century.

They take the headscarf issue to be what it actually is, in that context. The thin edge of the wedge.

 

[Liar]

Interesting.... then why are the secularists so wound up about it? I would have thought they were very pro-EU....

Same reason swastikas are not protected under freedom of speech in Germany, I guess. A poignant history in close proximity.

At the time, Ataturk's way was kinda nessecary. The region was a mess, with cults and separatist ethicities threatening to turn the place into, well, Balkan in the 90's. But it was an ironfist tactic that isn't compatible with modern standards of political freedom and human rights. And eventually, it's time to build on the positive parts of it, and start eroding the negative, like infringing on religious freedom and cultural diversity.

And in that regard, Turkey has a much bigger problem than headscarves. In their treatment of the Kurdish minority, the only thing that makes them better than Saddam, is that they haven't stooped to genocide. (They did that with the Armenians though. But that was, if I'm not mistaken, during the Ottoman days, pre Attaturk.) They don't have the PKK raising hell for no reason. This oppression, by the way, is also an Attaturk legacy. But not of the more rose colored kind that we usually hear about.

 

[cantdog]

I agree. For that reason, the first priority is the pogrom against the Kurds. That has to stop. Freedom of expression is all very well, but they're killing people, burning them out. It's run hot and cold, but it's not very cold right now, and they are no respecters of the border.

 

[champagne1982]

I read this thread title and immediately thought Grunge-Food-Rap(Wrap?) Band... their opening act on tour is the Greek Salad.

 

[cantdog]

I can't be as categorical as Roxanne A seems to be. For one thing, there was no dark ages, and neither is Islam in one. Mustapha Kemal carved Turkey out with an army. Much of it had been given away to French, Greeks, and so on. He moved in and kicked them out, and made it stick with military force.

He made a set of decisions once the dust cleared. 99% of Turkey was muslim, but being muslim was not going to be the defining characteristic that said what a Turk was. A Turk was a person born in Turkey, within the borders. Ethnic Turks lay to north and east, muslims could be found in almost any direction, and he didn't want to sow trouble. It was not going to be part of the national identity to seek new territory because Turks lived there, nor muslims.

He had experts develop a school curriculum and a standard Turkish, alphabet and all. Turks were going to be taught Turkish in the schools. The schools were going to be secular schools. The alphabet would be based on the Roman one.

He was pretty arbitrary and rather immovable about these ideas, and ruthlessly pressed from the cities out to the countryside the systems to establish those ideas. At the time, he was not the only such nationalist leader with a plan, but his sort of government, the kind that prevailed while he was alive, is not characteristic of an EU state of today. There was a period of several years before parliamentary forms began to be allowed to be practiced, and the Army was the guardian that the political process would never be allowed to transform Turkey into something else than what he had in mind.

He banned headscarfs, fezzes and all that stuff. Beards. Veils. The word was no. You can't do that so easily now, not if you like the idea of joining the EU, and the Army really does like that idea.

It's a different place than just 'ideas to remedy a dark ages.' The more you know about it, the less dogmatic you can be.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Of course one could argue that mandating what one may or may not wear is more typical of the dark ages than allowing the freedom of religious expression...

Context is everything. I believe that make such an argument would be to ignore context, and so totally misread the situation.

 

[colddiesel]

Realpolitik for Democratic liberals?

Turkey is a lesson in Realpolitik for us. Facts:-

1. Long borders with Russia, Iraq, Syria and Iran.
2. They have the biggest army in Europe (by far)
3. Arabs are terrified of a resurgent Turkey(Historical reasons)
4. They have been good allies to the west since 1945.
5. They are very upset with GWB's adventures in Iraq because it has encouraged the PKK.
6 The West needs a stable Turkey to protect its entire Eastern flank.
7 They control access to the Black Sea.

Therefore if the Turkish army decides to boot the government out over head scaves or kill a few thousand Kurds who are getting stroppy, we in the west will do nothing but wring our hands and say 'how terrible' - because it is in our national interests to support the Turks even when they get very nasty with either their neighbours or their own people. Liberal principles will not apply whoever is in power in the west.

The last Armenian Massacres were in 1915 with others in the 1880's