The thesis period consisted of the “single party” regime years, which started with the establishment of the republic and lasted until 1946. There was a regime that was determined to modernize the country, but this search for modernization was purely of an identity-related nature, i.e., without any correspondence to politics. Therefore, “democracy” was not perceived as a prerequisite for modernity, but defined as a technicality that could be experienced after being modern. For those who established the republic, modernity consisted of adopting a secular lifestyle and abandoning traditional attire and patterns of behavior. To do this, they thought, society must distance itself from religion because they assumed that religion prevented society from being changed. On the other hand, since religion was the factor that provided the legitimacy of the Ottoman system, distancing oneself from religion also meant an alienation from the Ottoman legacy. This, they reasoned, would secure the legitimacy of the new secular regime. The functions formerly performed by religion would now be performed by secularism, and as identity building was possible through reliance on religion in the past, now the new regime would base its identity on secularism. The founders of the regime already had secular identities, and therefore, they were automatically entitled to govern the country. When secularism was described as the core of modernity, it seemed rational to restrict the sphere of politics only to moderns, i.e., people with secular identities. As a system that translates the majority’s demands and preferences to social decision-making mechanisms, democracy was regarded as secondary and even dangerous to many because democracy implied that people who were not secular or modern might take office, and therefore, as democracy increased, modernity would wane.The multi-party regime served as the period of antithesis to the republican era. The ballot box came to be used as the symbol of new demands while democratic mechanisms tended to be perceived as a measure that they were required to implement. However, this made it possible for non-moderns, i.e., religious people, to “infiltrate” politics, which in turn produced demands that were outside the new tradition which the republican regime was trying to instill through coercion. There was still no change in the conception of modernity. Thus, the argument was that while the state was modern, the people still “lagged behind” modernity. But democracy would grant the right to rule even those who were not modern, and the number of people who were against modernity and who wanted to govern the country was increasing. Religious people who were defined as “pre-modern” had come to accept this definition because the single-party regime had taught them that being modern was not a “good” thing.
In sum, the thesis and anti-thesis periods tended to represent a conflict, not an interaction between these two groups, and not an in-depth ideological development. The definition of modernity as a sort of secularism remained valid all this time and was accepted as true not only by the regime, but also by pious people. Conflict emerged as a democratic struggle because democracy seemed the only way for identities not approved by the state to enter the political sphere. From this perspective, “democracy” was a suspicious term for religious people: it was a principle that they would adopt to the extent that it was an extension of modernity; however, it doubled as a tool that enabled them to stand against modernity. Given the fact that secular groups categorically disdain democracy, we can understand why traditions of democracy are so weak in this country.
For democracy to become the primary component of modernity as it deserved, the religious people who represented the majority had to sincerely want to become modern, which in turn required modernity to be redefined as going beyond secularism. This gradually became possible after 1990 and gave birth to the process that was finalized in the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). In order to understand the revolutionary nature of what happened, we need to realize that the fundamental paradigm of the republic was reversed. Today, the AK Party represents the synthesis, not the conflict, and is empowered by the fact that religious people adopt democracy not as a tool, but as a principle. To define democracy as having a value in principle helps modernity to be saved from the pangs of secularism, as modernity is perceived not as a question of identity, but as conformity to global norms and internalization of the ensuing mental clarity.
To the extent that it liberates modernity from secularism, Turkey is moving toward democracy, and ironically, in this process, religious people are becoming secular while the secular groups grow more and more religious.
