According to this definition, the hundreds of thousands that converged on the square made it crystal clear that there were now two Turkeys with different lifestyles, political understandings and worldviews. That is, the Turkish nation was divided right down the middle due to the policies pursued by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), and those who felt that their secular and modern lifestyles were under threat took to the streets and expressed their reactions to the other Turkey, which they “otherized” at the top of their lungs. In news reports and analyses published or broadcast, a claim is being put forward that the current political team, whose roots are claimed by some to be based in Islam -- although they now have a different political understanding and agenda -- is threatening secularism, the “cement” of Turkey, and thus secularism is under threat. So how befitting is this definition and approach for the reality in Turkey?
I should note that the definition “Two Turkeys” is correct. And this situation is not only true for us today; it extends back to the first years of the republic. The only difference between today and the past is that the two Turkeys now are more closely knitted, only physically though, in their common living areas, and they are seen together more often. I should also note with great care that it would not be tantamount to separatism to call either this external division or this appearance “Two Turkeys,” since such a definition would only be a socio-political determination that is virtually impossible to deny. We should not be afraid of such a realistic determination.
In fact, the “Two Turkeys,” or possibly even more Turkeys, have always existed in Turkey. However, until recently there was only a certain segment of society that claimed all social, political, cultural and economic power and therefore occupied a far greater place in the notorious “public area” than it deserved, and as a result only that segment of the society was predominantly visible.
What was really misleading was the reflection of that appearance. And what was missing was the sight of the “other Turkey” on the stage. So what has really changed in the scene is that both Turkeys are now in plain sight.
I agree with the determination that there are “two Turkeys.” However, the naming of these two Turkeys is not at all befitting the reality in Turkey; this is obvious because these two Turkeys cannot be described as either secular versus anti-secular, modern versus Islamist or republican versus democrat. The best term to describe the pieces that make these two Turkeys is democrats versus anti-democrats.
At this point to which we have arrived, the Turkish nation doesn’t have any problems with secularism, modernism or republicanism. Turkey’s people favor a secularism that has universal qualities, a real modernism and a real republicanism. Furthermore, they vitally need these, as they don’t exist in Turkey within universal norms. And this demand is above all made by the morally conservative, politically progressive religious segments of society.
But, in addition, this repressed segment has been harboring grudges against efforts to empty these terms -- which is against democracy’s tenets and against a certain minority’s attempt to make them into a means to tyrannize the majority.
What is opposed is a skewed understanding of secularism that dauntlessly purports to possess the right to interfere in the religious preferences of individuals, to push everything religious out of the social sphere and to deprive hundreds of thousands of their most fundamental right to education only because of their religious preference, as a result of which they decide to dress in a certain way.
What is also opposed is the imposition of a monolithic modernism at a time when post-modernism, where individual preferences and differences are prioritized, is the dominant element and a despotic understanding of modernism that cannot stand lifestyles other than the one that could be categorized as that single type.
And moreover, what is opposed is the crooked elitist, Jacobin and oligarchic republicanism that overlooks people’s expectations and preferences and insults their will.
Briefly, the “two Turkeys” in Turkey are actually two camps: One camp has democrats who support secularism, modernism and republicanism, which is the soul of democracy; and the anti-democrats. The anti-democrats empty concepts like secularism and republicanism, which everyone needs like air and water to formulize the co-habitation and peaceful coexistence that preserves differences, and isolate them from democracy to exploit them as a means for repression and subversion. What is really opposed is this attempt to turn these vital concepts into a crooked means to perpetrate the above-mentioned atrocities.
The reality in Turkey today is not secularism and the republic being under threat. Just the opposite -- the thing whose existence is threatened by much paranoia is democracy itself, just as has befallen us four times during the brief history of our young democracy.
