We are not allowed to create our own combination out of the things in the package that is on sale. Can I take this but not the others? No, you have to buy the entire package. You have to use the same discourse. The nationalists also do the same. You cannot make them like you. Neither Turkish nor Kurdish nationalists will like you unless you totally agree with them. Virginia Woolf once said: “No passion is stronger in the breast of a man than the desire to make others believe as he believes. Nothing so cuts at the root of his happiness and fills him with rage as the sense that another rates low what he prizes high.” The women’s rights movement holds a strong desire to make you believe. But there is a famous Turkish proverb: “Minds are offered for sale in the market; everybody picks their own mind anyway.” In other words, unless they deliberately choose to transform, nobody likes the mindset and views of others.

The policy recommendations by the Turkish women’s rights movement over the past decades, which were not transformed into concrete practices due to poor governance, were taken into consideration by lawmakers and the government because of the EU membership bid. However, the Turkish women’s rights movement, known for its hard work and strong efforts towards the recognition of women’s rights, should also be criticized. The secular women’s rights movement has remained a state-controlled movement where a small group of elitist women held control without huge popular support. They do not want to see the differences between women.

Even though the movement entered into a new phase in the aftermath of the 1980 military coup, it offered preconditions to recognize women as women; for instance, it did not defend the rights of veiled women. For a long time, it has ignored the ethnic differences between women. The language in the statements released by the organizations within the movement is also problematic. We actually use essentialist language that we have been suffering from as women vis-à-vis men; it is like we are retaliating. And men realize, based on the language of the women’s rights movement, that spending further efforts is useless because there is nothing else to do due to their inherent identity as men by birth.

Turkey first country to ratify convention

Turkey, which is party to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, has become the first country to ratify it in Parliament. A law on preventing violence against women and protecting families came into force on March 20, 2012. However, during deliberations in Parliament, a heated discussion took place as to whether woman should be considered individuals or as part of a family.

The issue of woman is one of the most fertile areas to engage in politics as a sphere where a greater issue manifests itself. Things become even more complicated considering that some of the external supporters for this predominantly secular women’s coalition and alliance are anti-Muslim policymakers in global politics. The women’s organizations, which have become more visible thanks to the generous funds provided by the EU in the last decade, are criticized for being part of “project feminism,” and this raises accusations that they are influenced by external forces. The left, which we could safely call national socialist, raised such criticisms by accusing the women’s organizations of receiving funds from imperialist powers. This law was not an exception and it became part of such controversies. The discourse held by the women’s rights movement and the attitude of the appointed bureaucratic mechanisms vis-à-vis this discourse still continue on without any significant changes.

While nearly 250 women’s organizations in Turkey have held meetings and talks with the Ministry of Family and Social Policy over the last year as part of the preparatory works for the bill, a draft which these organizations had found inadequate was made into law as though these negotiations had never taken place. During this process, the draft was amended without informing the women’s organizations. The government and the ministry favored the implementation of the law because it would raise their prestige and improve their image in the international political arena and in the EU. The women’s organizations declared that they did not endorse this draft, which was far from meeting the demands and needs of women.

Criticism of the bill can be summarized as follows: Even though it was welcomed in principle, the bill bears some problems, including its title. The original title of the bill was the law on protecting women and family members against violence whereas it was changed to the law on preventing violence against women and protecting family. The bill was criticized because the focus became the protection of the family. In addition, the organizational structure and foundation of shelters for preventing and monitoring violence which would remain open 24/7 for those who are victimized by violence remained uncertain. The negotiations during the drafting of the bill suggested that these shelters would be opened in 14 cities and would function continuously. The women would receive help and support from these shelters and have all their problems, including childcare and job counseling, addressed. All their issues would be handled under one single administrative unit. However, the number of staff appointed to these shelters remained inadequate. The women’s organizations view the directing of women to different units, including the police station, the office of the district governor or the office of the prosecutor instead of creating a single office for women victimized by violence, as an operation that seeks to intimidate and discourage women within the system. In conclusion, it is estimated that serious problems will be experienced in the implementation of the law due to the uncertainties associated with the creation of shelters for preventing and monitoring violence.

More dissatisfactions with bill

There are other dissatisfactions. The women’s organizations asked for the creation of special units for violence against women within the office of the prosecutor and the police; however, these were not clearly inserted into the law. Likewise, the law did not specify the right of women’s organizations to take part in court. A huge problem will also be experienced in the implementation of the bill because a provision stating that there shall be no attempt for reconciliation and mediation from the start of the application through the conclusion of the process with respect to the applications on violence against women was not included in the bill. According to the women’s organizations, this will only maintain the status quo and discourage women from resorting to legal action through persuasion and reconciliation.

Another problem between the parties is the use of “shelter” instead of “asylum” in the bill. The term asylum refers to exclusive places allocated for fighting violence. Asylums were defined as centers where the victimized women could stay for up to six months and whose addresses are kept extremely confidential. Most importantly, it holds a political connotation. Under the current legal arrangement, an asylum could be a hotel, a guest house or an ordinary residential building.

In conclusion, the women’s rights movement holds that the uncertainties in the law and its implementation mean that the issue remains unresolved. Considering the recent policy changes in respect to abortion and C-sections which the women’s organizations see as a step back, it could be argued that the row between the women’s rights movement and the government will continue and that it will be influential in the polarization and alignment in domestic politics.

*Işık Ömür is a writer and sociologist based in İstanbul.