For hours, Alevi representatives freely expressed their thoughts and demands. They engaged in debates. This highly colorful workshop was moderated by Turkey's distinguished philosophy professor, Necdet Subaşı. In the past, such conferences would generally prove to be unproductive. Alevis would view such initiatives from the AK Party with skepticism. As the level of participation was high this time, we can regard this as an indication of the fact that this lack of trust has been overcome and that relations have been normalized.It is obvious that Turkey has an Alevi issue. There is one criterion that we can resort to concerning the existence of such an issue: Alevis have problems related to their beliefs. They perceive that they are being discriminated against. They do not regard themselves as citizens having equal rights. They feel exasperated and face difficulties in observing their beliefs and they feel insecure. If any Alevis can say "We have problems stemming from our being Alevis," then it follows that Turkey has an Alevi issue. Then, it is a responsibility for everyone who advocates the principles of equal citizenship to solve this issue.
The Alevi issue is considerably taxed with emotionalism. As a matter of fact, this is an issue that feeds on a number of past tragedies. For centuries, Alevis have been repressed because of their beliefs. In a recent tragedy, Alevi intellectuals were killed in Sivas. For this reason, this lack of trust is perfectly understandable. In order to discharge emotionalism from this issue and bring it to a much more rational ground, the following question must be asked: "Is Alevism a political issue?"
Nature of social issue
There is no doubt that the Kurdish issue in Turkey is a political issue. This issue that is troubling us today did not exist within the multi-faith, multilingual and multi-nation Ottoman Empire. The efforts by the republic established a nation-state to create a single nation centered on assimilating Kurds and Turkifying them, on one hand, but Kurdish nationalists resisted this policy and started to pursue their own political ideals, on the other. And this created a Kurdish issue. Today, the Kurdish issue is still here as a "political" issue stuck between the state's ideal for creating a unitary nation-state and Kurdish politics. The description concerning the nature of the issue also signifies the road to settlement. If the Kurdish issue is political issue, then it will be settled completely through political means. The state will stop trying to Turkify Kurds, and this will minimize the fever of Kurdish nationalism. Kurds will become the parties to a new agreement based on their consent as "political" members, i.e., citizens of the state of the Turkish Republic. Today, our determined progress toward resolution of the Kurdish issue consists of nothing but search for such a political agreement.
On the other hand, given its nature and consequences, the Alevi issue is not a political issue. In the past, Alevism was never a political issue except for the rivalry between Yavuz and İsmail and the campaign to destroy the Bektaşi order after the abolishment of the Janissaries. Then, Alevism is a social issue. And it is religious issue only to the extent it is wrapped by this social character. What does that mean? It is not a theological problem. It is alive and part of a living social experience. It represents a form of social existence, a social polarization and a desire to live safely as a society.
Five problems for the Alevi workshop
Let us list the five biggest identifiable issues listed during the Alevi workshop led by Professor Subaşı: introducing legal status for cemevis (Alevi places of worship), abolishing the Religious Affairs Directorate, transforming the Madımak Hotel into a museum, a ban on building mosques in Alevi villages and abolishing compulsory religious courses. First: In a secular country, not only cemevis, but also all places of worship should have an esteemed status within the framework of the freedom of religion and conscience. Second: The demand to abolish the Religious Affairs Directorate is directly related to the relations between the state and religion, but not to Alevism. Supposing it was abolished, what would be the effect of this on Alevis? Will the Sunni faith create a much more secure environment for Alevis if it develops without the restraints of a central religious hierarchy? Or does the reverse hold true? Third: Transforming the Madımak Hotel into a museum can be solved with a civilian initiative. But if this is done by the state, it would be more elegant. Fourth: The state can neither build mosques in Alevi villages nor anywhere else out of coercion. Fifth: The matter of compulsory religious courses is nothing but an utterly nonsensical issue. No one in Turkey learns one's religion in these courses. If polarization over this matter can be eliminated, it will be fairly easily to solve it.
None of the issues formulated in "political" language have a political character. Actually, Alevis are not seeking a solution to their problems with the state, but what they do is communicate with the Sunni majority via the ruling AK Party. They do not regard the ruling AK Party as a political addressee that uses the state power, but as the representative of the Sunni majority. This is perfectly natural. Then, we should attach more social, less political, meanings to the gatherings between the government and Alevis in this workshop today and during the Muharram fast-breaking dinner in the past.
Which one is harder?
Of course, it is harder to solve a social issue. A social issue stems from social cleavages visible in daily social life. The Alevi-Sunni cleavage that is unique to Turkey represents one that runs deep.
Objectively, we have critical advantages in our two basic issues, i.e., the Kurdish and Alevi issues. While the Kurdish issue is an ethnic issue, religion is here as a strong glue. While the Alevi issue is a religious issue, the lack of ethnicity-based diversities does not complicate things. The Kurdish issue has never been a social issue despite all the bloodshed; it is still possible to settle it within political limits. On the other hand, the Alevi issue, which has deeply entrenched social implications, has never scaled up to become a political issue. Both stay where they are. It follows that we are lucky and we still have powerful tools for settlement.
The Alevi issue is much more complicated than the Kurdish issue. But it is basically a matter of mutual trust. The above-mentioned five solutions are nothing but formulas that are used to make this lack of trust more concrete. In the same way that the Kurdish issue is not a problem specific to Kurds, the Alevi issue is not an Alevi-only issue, but it is Turkey's problem. Using the concepts correctly in the technical sense, the Kurdish issue is a democratization problem while Alevism is completely a secularism problem. Secularism is a principle that affords protection to Alevis in the first place. When such protection cannot be afforded at the social level, or in other words, when the Alevis' lack of trust in the face of the Sunni majority cannot be solved, then we lose our reasonableness with respect to such issues as the headscarf ban. Secularism is overtaxed with the burdens we impose on it. This is crystal clear: Without settling the Alevi issue, we cannot solve the issues of religious freedom such as religious training, the headscarf ban, etc. Moreover, the secularist guardianship gripping democratic governments tight cannot be terminated.
Since the AK Party government is aware of this fact, it insists on establishing contact with Alevis. Reha Çamuroğlu, a Justice and Development Party (AK Party) deputy from İstanbul and a pioneer of the party's attempt to reach out to Turkey's Alevi community, has the vision and proficiency as well as boldness that can overcome the emotional buildup. Subaşı is a distinguished professor of philosophy, and no one can doubt his good will and experience. We all must have trust in the things done when these two people lead them.
The Alevi issue is a social one. We need to turn our eyes not the political sphere, but to the social one and examine the social psychology. We have a long road to travel for achieving any productive result. We need to take good-willed and confidence-building steps instead of becoming involved in unproductive political debates. Perhaps we should pay more attention to warmth in the faces instead of the remarks uttered.
The Alevi workshop was a step forward in the correct direction with highly representative participation as well as in the matters discussed and the manner in which they were discussed. Resolution of the Alevi issue is possible by talking with each other and looking directly into our eyes and tearing down the high and thick walls in between before we seek consensus on concrete results.
