Hegemony of minority and colonial secularism

Barroso spent the final day of his visit in İstanbul and left our country after making strong remarks such as the concept of "democratic secularism," a concept on which he had placed great emphasis prior to his visit. We should note that he -- as an implicit answer to the criticism directed at the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in regard to the "imposition of the majority" -- underscored, "democracy is the administration of the majority; however, the pressure placed by the majority and the one placed on the majority are both against democracy also."

In fact, the willpower of the majority in Turkey has so far been subjugated with the rhetoric of modernism and through the unsubstantiated claim that "secularism is under threat." Those who say that the "majority is not everything" don't even feel obliged to hide their intentions by which they want to make minority rule prevail over the country despite the majority. That this reality is now more clearly seen and appreciated by Western intellectuals, media and politicians is an opportunity for the Turkish democratization process.

When we get down to basics, it will be seen that all the troubles Turkey has ever had in the fields of democracy, secularism and human rights and freedoms since its foundation actually relate to the concepts expressed in the three paragraphs above.

The clear stance adopted by Barroso on account of a question put to him in regard to the AK Party closure case diagnoses the malaise afflicting Turkey: "Democracy is, of course, not the hegemony of the majority, but it is not rule despite the majority either. I'm perplexed because of that. There is no example of this in Europe. If the majority violates human rights, that's against democracy, but pressuring the majority is not democracy either. If you impose secularism by force, you cease to be a democracy. This is a difficult test for Turkey; however, I'm optimistic that Turkey will get over this. We are not saying that the Constitutional Court should make a decision in this and that direction. What we are saying is that the ruling to be made should be in compliance with EU standards. And we have a right to say this because Turkey is a country going through the EU accession process."

The core of the problems we are having in our country is the twisted secular understanding that forced Barroso into placing emphasis on "democratic secularism." We should note that scientific research has confirmed many times that with the exception of a 7 percent marginal segment of the society, the overwhelming majority of the Turkish population has no problem with universal secularism and that the real problem stems not from people's problem with secularism, but from the anti-democratic attitudes of those who abuse secularism as a veil hiding their ideological and elitist interests.

These words of Barroso should be a lesson to the unrestrained secularists and those who resort to anti-democratic means: "If you impose religion or secularism forcibly, you cease to be a democracy. That's why I insist on democratic secularism. The majority of the Turkish population is Muslim; we should accept this."

When it is a repressive and distorted secular understanding that is afraid of freedoms, his words take on a stronger meaning. It is, on the other hand, possible to see the real character of secularism in Turkey in the words of Pierre-Jean Luizard, the Turkey and Middle East expert of the French National Scientific Research Center (CNRS), an interview with whom was published by Today's Zaman on March 14. Luizard says that secularism in Turkey -- contrary to what is generally thought about it -- does not actually take after the one in France, but rather that it is a copy of the secularism applied in Algeria. He also says that Turkish secularism is "conflict-oriented," adding that it is based on the Algerian type of secularism developed by France for its colonies. He says that this type of secularism envisages a strict state control of religion.