The concerns of secularism become more evident when we consider that the power elite at the time could misuse or abuse their power by tying it (secularism) to religious values and pressuring church groups. The experience of different societies brings different meanings to laicism. For example, there is a great difference between the French model of laicism and America’s secularism. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Attempts to install America’s political system in a European country would be an exercise in futility, as would imposing Europe’s concept of the state-religion relationship in America. To reduce laicism to a single particular model and expect everyone to implement it that way would lead to a form of laic dictatorship. Even if the state were to adopt such a concept, the public would not buy it. Pro-laicists would resist it if they were to see a form of laicism that is not in sync with their own principles and societal values. Such an objection is a right guaranteed in democracy.Laicism in Turkey was declared 70 years ago, but the debate over it is still on. There are many reasons for this, but the most important is based on the fact that some Turkish intellectuals insist on and even try to impose a French laicism model. At a conference I attended at Harvard University, former Foreign Affairs Minister and prominent leftist Mümtaz Soysal made an interesting confession. “We must be Jacobins,” he said. The participants later kicked around this disturbing statement and carried it to the newspaper headlines.
Mr. Soysal was actually confessing a well-known reality in Turkey. No Turkish intellectual could criticize this fascist approach. A majority of leftist parties has always interpreted laicism as such. Would it be possible to implement French-style laicism in Turkey? Of course not, because the Turkish public has based the principle of state-religion separation on a completely different experience. In Islam, there is no special status for clerics. Plus, there are no unfortunate incidents reminiscent of the Inquisition
Today, both Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal support the principle of laicism. But, obviously, they view it differently from each other. Leftist parties and some members of the press claim the AK Party is disguising their true agenda as well as the agenda of religious groups in Turkey. It is ludicrous to make such a claim and a baseless worry, especially since the AK Party, the laic and democratic attitude of which some doubt, and a large number of people who support this party are exerting extreme efforts for its European Union bid. It is certainly true that the most well-rooted political and judicial reforms for the EU bid and democratization process were implemented during the AK Party administration. So then why the doubt?
The oppressive Jacobin laicism’s state-religion relation is fundamentally very different from the laicism supported by Turkish population. If we have to choose a model, then it is the Anglo-Saxon style that most Turkish people want, while the Jacobins, who use Kemalism as a shield, are for the French style. People prefer the American/Anglo-Saxon model because they view it as a system that has a diverse society which is not governed according to religion, although still the state protects religion.
Extreme Kemalists operating under a militarist approach view any and every religious issue and activity as a threat against the state. For them, religious people must be banned from even establishing nonprofit organizations. That’s why extreme laics are close to anti-democratic stances.
Turkey will elect its new president in a few months. This election is sometimes viewed as a clash of laic understanding and leads to tension in politics. But there is nothing to be afraid of. Turkey has already managed to digest a form of laicism that separates state from religion. The question that complicates everything is which model of laicism? The public answered this question a long time ago. If a good intellectual were to step outside, he or she would see social peace and harmony. Unfortunately for some intellectuals, the extreme ambition and fear within them create imaginary enemies.
