The number of those who once had very strong common sense but who started to suffer an “eclipse of the mind” after joining the CHP or after starting to write for Cumhuriyet, an increasingly radical paper, is quite large. I cannot list them here one by one, so I will be content with giving the latest example of such transformed people: Şükrü Elekdağ. First of all, I should note that I can no longer recognize Şükrü Elekdağ, despite the fact that throughout my professional life, so far spent on closely following the world of diplomacy and politics, I have known him to be a broad-minded, liberal and democratic man who is at peace with the world and whose works, ideas and articles I closely followed. I should also note that my acquaintance with Elekdağ is unilateral; I have no friendship or closeness with him.
Looking at the latest article -- titled “Secularism lies at the heart of democracy” (Cumhuriyet, April 16) -- from Elekdağ, who until recently strove to serve his country as a successful diplomat and an honest politician and who earned wide admiration with his respect for different ideas and approaches, would be enough to prove my point. Elekdağ directed harsh criticism at European Union Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s visit to Turkey last week and at the ideas he expressed during this visit. Elekdağ thereby shows how far he has drifted from his former intellectual stance.
According to Elekdağ, Barroso committed many major sins during his visit to Turkey. Barroso made a display of ignorance about the key role secularism played in the development of Turkish modernism and democracy. He fell into serious error by regarding the headscarf issue as a matter of freedom in light of EU criteria and within the context of “fighting against social pressure.” Finally, Elekdağ accused him of trying to influence the Constitutional Court with regard to the closure case against the Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
It is also apparent that Elekdağ deeply resented Barroso’s emphasis on “democratic secularism.” He stepped up his criticism of Barroso to the point of accusing him of “aiming to legitimize the AK Party theses,” as if the AK Party was an illegal organization that seized power through illegal means.
Elekdağ foams at Barroso’s statement “When we mention democratic secularism, we cannot act as if there is no religion. … Everybody’s faith should be respected. Secularism cannot be imposed on people like a religion. Secularism cannot replace the religion.” This is clear evidence that his frame of mind has changed. Elekdağ must, then, be defending exactly this -- if we are to reverse Barroso’s statement: “When we mention secularism, we cannot act as if there was any religion. Nobody’s faith will be respected. Secularism will be imposed on people like a religion. Secularism will replace the religion.”
Because of this statement from Barroso, Elekdağ accuses him of “failing to grasp that the fundamental condition of perpetuating democracy in Turkey is secularism.” He adds, “Secularism lies at the heart of Turkish modernism and democracy,” and thus tries to hide the fact that the ongoing process in Turkey is an effort to eliminate democracy in the name of an elitist-fascist secularism that is the enemy of anything religious. Secularism, according to Elekdağ, is the guarantee of democracy! What sort of guarantee are you talking about, Mr. Elekdağ? The entire world knows perfectly well that what is actually happening in Turkey at the moment is an attempt to suspend democracy under the pretext of protecting secularism and that it is based on a minority provoked through virtual fears. I assure you that Barroso knows this dark reality as well as everybody else knows it.
Elekdağ also heaps implicit insults on Turkish women and implies that they are incapable of making decisions of their own free will. He attacks Barroso’s words “We cannot adopt a certain attitude toward the headscarf or impose any standards. Any woman, regardless of her faith and views, being able to make her own choice regarding the headscarf is a fundamental EU principle.” Most likely, what Elekdağ actually believes is “Elitists such as myself should make decisions on behalf of Turkish women, and they should comply with those decisions.”
Elekdağ doesn’t simply leave it there. He lashes out at another remark from Barroso on the closure case: “I hope the verdict of the Constitutional Court will be compatible with the principle of the rule of law and European standards and in accordance with the principles of the European Court of Human Rights and the Venice Commission.” I suggest that my dear readers read these sentences, criticized by Elekdağ, in negated form in order to understand his own understanding.
He also doesn’t fail to give his own advice to EU authorities, writing, “The EU should be able to see that what makes Turkey the only modern and democratic country in the Islamic world is secularism and desist from making the grave mistake of endeavoring to corrupt the gains, values and lifestyle of the Republic of Turkey.” Whereas, everyone must by now have come to see that what the Islamic world sorely needs is not just secularism, but also democracy. Now we must ask Elekdağ: What was the lacking element in Saddam’s Iraq, Nasser’s Egypt and today’s Syria; secularism or democracy?
It should not be thought that I am downplaying the importance of secularism. It goes without saying that I’m much more devoted than Elekdağ to the real secularism, which guarantees freedom of belief and thought. However, I don’t believe that setting secularism against democracy would benefit anyone. The Turkish nation has no problem with secularism, either. Don’t you really know this fact, Mr. Elekdağ? You know it very well, just as the overwhelming majority of the Turkish nation knows very well that you have abandoned your democratic identity and that your newly adopted fascist mindset fears the people’s free will like a ghost.
