Alevi workshop coordinator Subaşı: Report will create a starting point

Noting that the decisions to be taken as part of the initiative and the report prepared after six workshops are separate processes, Associate Professor Subaşı told Sunday’s Zaman: “Our report is not an opportunity to take these steps. The report is after something much deeper. It isn’t evaluating Alevi demands by just giving them political precedence. Our report is much more permanent. It will create a starting point and perspective for the state, Alevis and all faith groups.”

Noting that steps can be taken on many issues that Alevis have mentioned in the past or haven’t mentioned, Subaşı said: “The package may reach Parliament at an unexpectedly early date as well. Steps can even be taken within the scope of the initiative without waiting for the report to be completed.”

Subaşı explained that the Alevi initiative has gone through a very good preparation process and said the political will recognizes the problem in the unprecedented sociological process. Noting that in this process it is very important to properly manage fields of stress by scrutinizing them carefully, Subaşı said: “I can’t give an exact date, but even I can be surprised at any moment. A discussion about the procedure is occurring in order to take a step. A sensitive evaluation is being conducted about what will happen if a particular step is taken and what tensions or problems that step will result in or include. This is very normal. The state cannot do this out in the open.”

Highlighting that the Alevi leaders have lent them strong support throughout the entire process, Subaşı said there was a high chance that the issue of Alevism would not have been brought to the table if it weren’t for the personal efforts of these leaders.

He explained that it was normal for those in authority to be worried about the initiative and said: “I must say as the coordinator, I respect Alevi leaders. If it weren’t for their personal attempts and efforts, this issue could have been postponed even longer. In fact, Alevis reached this point because they asked the question, ‘What’s happening?’ It must be accepted that until now the state always waited for victims to speak up. It would have been nice if it weren’t this way, if the state could have realized the unjust treatment of all faith groups much earlier and could have taken a step before a demand was made and before people had to speak out. But despite this, an important amount of distance has been covered. If the state is trying to understand you and if it is trying to take your temperature, then you have to help by making a seat available and using the thermometer.”

Alevi workshop coordinator Subaşı answered our questions:

Do the initiatives also mean confrontation?

Let me put it this way: There is an attitude in the public that there are national and international forces that want to take advantage of problems. We do not have enough information to measure and evaluate how true this is. We are not debating that the Alevi problem is a result of pressure from a particular power or authority. We are confronting our own mistakes and faults to be able to improve living standards even more in our country. We are looking at the Alevi problem and the Kurdish problem with the sensitivity this endeavor calls for. We are also looking at problems experienced by Sunnis.

The area of Alevism seems a bit challenging.

This is correct because there are major disappointments and uncertainties that include separatism within the scope of Alevism. This area needs to be rehabilitated and reorganized. The feelings Alevis have about themselves need to be changed, but it also needs to be taken care of, not by covering it up but by resolving and cracking down on the problem. This requires labor and effort, and the process is not functioning as easily as expected. There is diversity among Alevis, groups with different discourses and competition at the organizational level. Considering all of this, we are trying to evaluate and understand each group without debating their legitimacy. We are trying to find the best option out there. We discussed this during the workshops. We debated what is good for Alevis in six workshops. Certain trends stand out. At least, effective outlines are made. Of course, Alevis make many contributions during this process.

Have there been times when you felt bereft of hope?

No, there has never been an objection or attack that made the process slow down. Alevis see this as an opportunity and contribute to make sure that the process ends positively. I am saying this as the moderator. From time to time, they took steps that strengthened our position. But then there are problems that have come out over the years and the question of what to do after years of accumulated negligence that started in the Ottoman era. The question of which Alevism and what to do are out in the open.

Is it a kind of engineering?

No, we are not trying to engineer anything. We are not trying to impose a certain kind of Alevism or form as the best. We want Alevis to be able to candidly say what it is that is best for them. Alevis are more focused on practical targets because they are a complaining, troubled, grieving society. They do not have any essential demands other than the six, sometimes seven, items that public opinion knows well. Within all these items there is an emphasis on secularism that they base all their demands on.

Does this mean there is a search for a consensus among Alevis?

Demands are more regarding the concern and emphasis on identity, about investments made over an ethno-religious identity. The state can resolve these issues in one way or another and handle it in a way that will please them. But it is uncertain where Alevism will stand in that process. We are waiting for Alevis to speak out in order to consolidate Alevism. Policies that are designed and formulated in a way that fits the current political fashion is not for the benefit of Alevism. In answering the question of what Alevism is in the 21st century, we are waiting for a consensus among Alevis that will carry Alevism from the past to the future. It is impossible for us to do the thinking about this and to make a suggestion. We cannot decide on that. Alevis need to contemplate and talk about it.

We are confronting our mistakes, and you have prepared the environment for this. Have you tried to explain this to Alevis?

We see the results very clearly. The state’s responsibility is to end the unfair treatment that a portion of citizens experience. It must first understand the causes of this unfair treatment. As we eliminate victimization, we are not sides that are negotiating around a table after a war. We are people who live within common cultural codes and share a loaf of bread with each other. After this negotiation, we do not want a society that will disintegrate. We are negotiating within the family. What we are doing is sharing our grief with each other. We are not the Treaty of Sèvres or Lausanne. We are talking about matters within the family and inside the home. We want to solve the problems of our Alevi citizens and other fellow citizens. We are making progress, and we want Alevis to make progress as well. When we fulfill the highlighted demands of the Alevis, we are not going to say, “Take what you need, and everyone move on with their own story.” We are in the midst of a common story. We must solve problems within that story. We do not want anything that incites separation, division, conspiracies or tension. There are people who criticize the workshops and create their own definition of Alevism. The workshop is not an application that has been tried many times. Dealing with Alevism within the workshop format is not something we have experience in. Neither does the state have experience in dealing with the problems of citizens with a tone of negotiation. Like with any first, there are mutual expectations and reservations in this case as well. We see this as natural. We haven’t received any criticism from those who have participated in the workshop. There are no negative stances from people who are aware of the workshops’ activities. We get criticism from people who don’t have enough knowledge, but that is just nonsense.

What do you think is the cause of the different perceptions of Alevism?

We can attribute the Alevis’ many broken links in its traditional chain to several reasons. For example, you can connect it to modernization, urbanization, republican policies, Sunni biases against Alevis and Alevis’ desire to stay away from Sunnis. There is a fast-moving tendency that sees its own existence as Alevism’s main criteria and that sees a self-appointed Alevism as the bar for all of Alevism. When the state demands a part in the process, the issue is diversity. Of course, the state is going to look for a part that looks out for a particular boundary. Alevis are at the beginning of that process.

Within this diversity, there are people who look at the process with suspicion. Where is the initiative headed?

The Alevi initiative is a project. We wanted to carry out this initiative to recognize and understand the current breakage between the state and Alevis. Why are Alevis not at peace with the state? What is the reason for undue tension that can lead to a rift between the two? We started these workshops to learn about these issues. Our goal is to identify the Alevi problem in its latest form by bringing together Alevi actors and negotiating with the stakeholders of the problem and to understand how the Alevis perceive the problem, how the general public sees it, what scholars understand about it and what politicians have done until now and what they plan to do from this point on. When we were planning this, we did not know what the process would bring. We did our job thinking that the process would facilitate our task. We have an incredible amount of information on this subject. Much of the information that the state and civil society have acquired on Alevis needs to be revisited. We realized that there was an analysis that condemned, embarrassed and deprived the sides. But then, on the other hand, we find access to a ton of unaccounted information. You see other obstacles that will inhibit solving the problem. These obstacles can be from politics, stereotypes, civil society or from international circles. Aside from making demands, Alevis need to help us out by making suggestions and starting debates on what needs to be done to meet the interests of Alevi society. Instead of just being a group that sits around waiting for results, Alevis need to exert efforts to develop themselves. They need to do this in order for the process to be completed.

What kind of problems are there in sitting around and waiting?

We are not working over a corpse. We are working over a dynamic group, and you cannot make plans for a dynamic group. The other side involved in the process is people and a group comprising people. If you were working over a dead body, you could drag it from one to another. There can always be developments that frustrate your plans and imagination. We are talking about a conversation within the home. We need to talk by incorporating elements from traditional cultural codes. The state makes an outfit for us, but they say, “No, we will take turns wearing the same outfit.” Let’s not prepare the outfit together; they need to provide the measurements for this outfit.

An Alevism that responds to needs and ensures institutional unity 

What will be put forward when the workshops are completed?

A lot. As someone working behind the scenes, I think this situation is on a good path owing to the workshops. In the end there could be an Alevism that ensures institutional unity and responds to social needs and demands. The problem with Alevis is that for a very long time there was nobody from the inside who thought about Alevism. There are Alevi groups that have become isolated from religion. There are historical breakage points. Problems that arise from this can be solved. For example, Sunnis occasionally engaged in a moderate level of opposition, but they always maintained their institutional sustainability. Alevis haven’t been able to maintain their institutional sustainability.

Isn’t it a systematic process?

Yes, within the republic’s standardization policies, the resistance level of the oral culture is weaker than the written culture. This culture was mainly shaped around the dede. As a result of this operation, it cut off a large part of its connection and contact with the social fabric of Alevi society. After a long hiatus, Alevis started to return home asking the question “Who are we?” After Alevis experienced a loss of identity when they started to demand a history and identity in relation to themselves, they were deprived of a mediator who would complete them and make them involved in the process. The gap between the modern Alevi actor and the modern Alevi dede was indescribable. The knowledge of the dede could only be understood within the dede’s cultural codes. The dede needs to update his discourse.

Why do you think the dede has not been able to modernize his discourse?

In order to update, technically there is a need for a school, a curriculum and protection from the state. The new Alevi generation expected this from the dede and could not carry the dede on their back. The gap between the dede and the modern Alevi pushed the modern Alevi to abandon the dede and solve the problem with their own resources. Since it excluded the sine qua non dede, crippled and secular new Alevi styles emerged, but nothing consistent.