The context in which this statement was made or where it was stated does not matter. What matters is that it has been said and that it refers to an important mentality.
Dissolution of historical synthesis
Those who staged the 1980 military coup, in their attempts to reshape society, identified two interrelated agendas. One was to create a green belt in an effort to address the Soviet influence stretching from Afghanistan to Syria, the Nasserist policies in Egypt, the Baath influence in Iraq and the socialist tendencies of Gaddafi in Libya. Secondly, unlike the 1970s, nationalism was no longer able to serve as a balancing ideology vis-à-vis rising leftism. The most important reason for this was the inability of the nation-state to offer the dignity, welfare and freedom that it promised to bring. Where the nation-state model proved to be unsuccessful, there was no success for nationalism either. In response, the rulers decided to add religiosity to the ideology of nationalism, holding that this would appeal to the people. Religious people were obedient to the state; and they also promoted solidarity. The primary goal was to create a new synthesis and blend of Turkishness and religiosity.
This project was called the “Turkish-Islam synthesis.” However, after they converted to Islam, the Turks had already created a synthesis. The goal was to change the content and increase the contribution and share of Islam in the ideology of national unity. Nationalism was not able to prevent young people from leaning towards leftist ideologies. The Turkish-Islam synthesis attempt worked out. Nationalism, which had become the dominant ideology in the rest of the world by undermining religion, was transformed into a supporting element to religion. The emergence of parties focusing on religious elements in their political teachings and ideologies and their assertiveness in the elections should be attributed to this project. Subsequent to this preference, nationalism has remained a marginal tendency and ideology; and it has been able to survive only through state support. However, religiosity, relying on the support of the people, has become more dominant and prevalent and come to power. In other words, secular nationalism was defeated by the religiosity it called for in an attempt to preserve its rule.
Politicization of religion
In secular nationalism, mainly based on Kemalism, religion was made the ideological tool of authoritarian politics; and its administration and content has always been determined by the state (secular and nationalist administration). In other words, religion was never left to the discretion of the people in the cultural sphere throughout the republican era. It was politicized. The freedom of the people was ignored; religion was detached from social development; and measures were taken to ensure that it does not offer modern interpretations.
In response, religious people inevitably opposed the politicization of religion. And this has been the case. You should all remember the discourse of victimization when the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power. A political party that came to power by reference to this discourse this time offers a similar type of social engineering. I hope that they will soon understand this is a contradiction.
The problem is this: 1. Religion is one of the sources of ethics. But it is not the only source. In a modern society, there is a more complicated structure of ethics which, among others, relies on religion; and it is legally protected. 2. Large and pluralistic societies have more than one dominant religious order. They are practiced and interpreted differently. A single religious interpretation is possible only if it is imposed by the state. In this case, religion becomes a tool of politics. This leads to political clashes and disagreements. Besides, the political administration may also change. 3. A religion exists through its rituals (practices and ceremonies), literature (sacred texts) and clerics. Plurality has always been visible in these, displaying some changes depending on time, society and administrations. In other words, faith, as an abstract phenomenon, turned into a practice under concrete conditions. This means that there has never been one single type of faith. Now, if you are eager to raise a religious generation, which tradition, practice and approach will be adopted? How will the rest of the society, particularly those who do not hold the same faith or sectarian beliefs, react to this? If their reaction is to be ignored, will this be democratic? How will this be reconcilable with the principle of secularism that was praised in Egypt and Tunisia?
If we want a society of ethics and morality, we have to think about whether imposition of certain preferences for the sake of morality is justifiable in moral terms. Maybe then we could agree on the common rights and freedoms of humanity.
