A discussion about such a country would present different aspects. One would say that such a country is democratic and respectful towards every one’s beliefs and fundamental liberties after all, as it allows different communities to have their houses of worship. Others would say that it is an interventionist country as it imposes limits on these communities’ symbols, rituals, religious art and architecture. Still others would say that the very fact of allowing the construction of different places of worship is quite sufficient to be a democratic country and that this level of tolerance even justifies some anti-democratic restrictions.Another aspect of the debate could cover urbanism and city planning issues. In such a debate, people could say that they don’t reject Buddha statues per se, but rather a particular Buddha statue because, for example, it casts a shadow over a street renowned for its florist shops. They would claim that church bells create noise pollution and that’s why churches with church bells must not be allowed around hospitals, schools, public libraries or rest homes. Or they would protest the height of a synagogue, arguing that it violates a regulation stipulating that all buildings in a particular area of the city must have the same height and the same architectural specificities.
Another aspect of the debate would be about the decision-makers. It would be interesting to know the procedure with which a country decides about the construction and architectural style of different places of worship. In a country where the president, the national leader or the government makes a decision about houses of worship and sends it by notification to diverse communities, no one would talk about democracy, anyway; we would say that it is an authoritarian state. If such decisions were made by parliament, following a parliamentary debate, some would say it is a democratic decision that should be respected, while others would say that there is a lack of democracy because such a procedure is nothing but the tyranny of the majority. And if this decision was made through a referendum, then it would be possible to claim that this is what the people want, and continue to defend that there is a marvelous democratic system in this country.
If you organize a referendum in a Buddhist country about Buddha statues, this referendum’s outcome will not be a surprise. If one organizes a referendum about a minority religion in a country where everyone is aware that the majority is reticent towards minorities’ belief systems, this referendum’s aim can be nothing but an attempt to transfer the responsibility from the government to the ordinary people. Anyway, it is not too hard to orient the people’s opinion, in order to prevent them from making the “wrong” decision. A period for propagandizing is unavoidable before referendums, and it is perfectly democratic.
Is democracy a regime in which decisions are made solely by the majority’s choices, or a system which guarantees that minorities’ demands, rights and liberties are respected, despite the majority’s views? Is Switzerland, which seems to be too worried about minarets, still perceived as a model for democracies? If it is, then our efforts in Turkey for minority rights are in vain.
