Despite the fact that I hold diametrically opposed views to Mr. Baykal (to whom I briefly served as an advisor 15 years ago) on most issues, I agree with him on this point. A year before the presidential elections in 2007, I wrote the following: "If the National Security Council [MGK] is one of the key institutions that secure the political autonomy of the military in Turkey, which allows it power above and beyond democratically elected governments, the other is the office of the presidency, which, according to the 1982 Constitution, has extraordinary powers without being accountable to anyone. … The backdrop to the tensions building up in recent months, escalated by the murderous attack on the Council of State, may be the approaching presidential elections. … Prime Minister Tayyip [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan may be contributing to increasing tensions by giving the impression that he may be running for the office. Developments, however, indicate that the civilian-military bureaucracy does not want to see someone in the presidential office who does not share its authoritarian conception of secularism, and will do everything in its power to stop such an eventuality," (Zaman, May 20, 2006).
Approaching the presidential election last year, I insistently argued that, for the sake of continuing reforms, neither Erdoğan nor Gül should have left their seats in government, and I opposed first Erdoğan's and later Gül's candidacy. I advocated the election of a "low profile" AKP member to the presidency to avoid a crisis with the civilian-military bureaucracy, as well as for being preferable from the perspective of our parliamentary system of government.
Following the landslide election victory of the AKP in last year's parliamentary elections and the election of Gül to the presidency, it was clear to all that Parliament's choice had to be respected. The political events we have lived through since Gül's election, however, indicate the following: The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), not out of democratic principles, but in expectation of political gain to be made by leading the AKP into confrontation with the state elite, not only gave the green light to the election of Gül in August 2007, but also triggered and supported the constitutional amendments made in February 2008 to lift the headscarf ban for university students. After all is said and done, it appears that the AKP has fallen into a trap laid by the MHP and triggered by the CHP.
Mr. Baykal is, however, fundamentally and terribly mistaken in respect to his unwavering support for Kemalist secularism. Authoritarian, Kemalist secularism, established under a single-party regime nearly a century ago, no longer responds to the needs of a country that is economically much more developed and socially much more differentiated, has (despite frequent military interventions) nearly 60 years of experience in multi-party democracy and is currently negotiating accession to the EU.
The authoritarian form of secularism that aims at the imprisonment of religious beliefs in individuals' consciences is not sustainable in a democratic regime that respects human rights. It is highly questionable whether it can be sustained even by a military dictatorship. It needs to be understood by all that religious beliefs cannot be abolished by decree and that religion does not wither away because of modernization, but can adapt to modernity. It is therefore absolutely necessary that Turkish secularism be liberalized and that restrictions on the religious rights of Sunnis, Alevis, non-Muslims and non-believers alike be lifted one by one. Those who oppose this are causing great harm to Turkey by dangerously polarizing the country.
Islamists in Turkey have, for the most part, achieved post-Islamism and embraced both democracy and secularism. For Turkish democracy to be consolidated, it is absolutely necessary that secular fundamentalists, too, succeed in moving beyond an old-fashioned, outdated Kemalism and liberalizing their conceptions of secularism and nationalism and, thus, reconcile with democracy and bring down the walls that alienate them from the vast majority of Turkey's citizens.
