Take off my what? Headscarves, hats and history (2)
by
HERA HASHMI*

Secularism is the separation of religion and state and the neutrality of the state towards all religious beliefs. Many people do not realize that secularism originally developed in a religious context, for the sake of preserving peace among the Christians, and was not meant as a way of spreading atheism. It is no secret that Turkey’s form of secularism is based on the French model.

In France, secularism is the separation of church and state through the state’s protection of individuals from the claims of religion. Secularism is significant to France because it helped the French escape the Church’s control over many aspects of life, such as politics and education. Many religious wars were fought before secularism could be established. Turkey adopted this form of secularism because it wanted to be able to control the place of religion and make extreme changes to distance itself from its Ottoman past.

Turkish secularism does not have a strict separation of religion and state, but the state’s stance is active neutrality. The current Turkish Constitution does not recognize or promote any religion, including Islam, which 99.8 percent of Turks follow. In Turkey, the state actively controls religion through the Directorate of Religious Affairs. However, when the state is controlling religion, is this really secularism?

Problems with Turkey’s secularism

There are a few notable problems with Turkey’s form of secularism. First, if secularism is defined as the separation of the state from religion, then how can the state monitor and control religion the way the Directorate of Religious Affairs does? The state is organized to serve a particular religion and keep that religion under surveillance and supervision; this goes against the principles of a secular state. Additionally, the state teaches compulsory religious courses in elementary and high schools, which goes against what a secular state would do. The state-mandated religious education seems to be a bigger violation of secularism than a teacher wearing a headscarf out of personal belief. It is ironic that the controversy is about what students and teachers wear and the impact it might have on the observer, and not on whether they are directly teaching religion. A state that interferes in religion and religious activities to such a large extent cannot be called secular.

Second, the state is not neutral toward all religious sects and creeds, the second element of secularism. The state-organized Directorate of Religious Affairs imposes a particular form of Islam on its citizens. It is not neutral, but partisan. The Directorate of Religious Affairs does not serve or represent non-Islamic religions which are observed by Turkish citizens, and it does not even accept certain sects of Islam, practicing only Sunni-Hanafi Islam. Even though France’s headscarf ban was understood as primarily applying to the headscarf, it actually bans all “ostensibly religious symbols,” and technically does not officially discriminate against any one religion. The headscarf ban in Turkey only targets the Islamic headscarf worn by practicing Muslim women, violating religious neutrality. Ironically, the religious practice Turkey is targeting through the headscarf ban is that of the majority and not of the minority like in France.

While Turkey tries to be actively secular like France, religion in France is weak. In France, religion is only acceptable as a private matter and cannot be displayed “conspicuously” in public places. Turkey is trying to be actively secular like France by superseding France’s headscarf ban, but religion in Turkey is strongly established and important to the people, a majority of whom are practicing Muslims. This does not mean that Muslims need to overrun the government and implement Islamic law as some worry, but it means that their religious practice should not be impeded out of fear.

What does wearing a headscarf have to do with secularism anyway? The fact that every time the headscarf debate is mentioned, it quickly becomes a debate over the Republic of Turkey and the secular system versus Islam is only keeping this problem from being resolved by making it more complicated than it is. The facts are that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did not implement a headscarf ban, the Turkish Constitution does not state that the headscarf should be banned and there is no national law in Turkey banning the headscarf. It is the secular elite who make the headscarf ban about secularism. The secular elite can use the ban to play off of the fears of the public about Islamic fundamentalism, but where is the proof that allowing women to wear headscarves will result in a fundamentalist regime? If you doubt this, look outside. Women are wearing headscarves everywhere you go, and it is not hurting anyone. Isn’t it time to see this problem for what it is? It is about a woman’s right to freedom of expression and religion and her autonomy to choose for herself what to wear. Yes, there are certainly challenges to Turkey’s secularism, but the headscarf is not one of them.

When France passed the ban on the headscarf, the women who actually wore headscarves and would be impacted by the ban were not consulted. Only one covering woman testified in front of the Commission Stasi, and she was not taken seriously. In order to help these women “attain freedom,” no one even listened to what they wanted or why they wore the headscarf.

In Turkey, women continue to cry out against the headscarf ban, but to deaf ears. Everyone makes the decision for these women about what they should or should not wear, but does anyone stop and ask them, what do they want?

What do women want?

I went out and asked them. These women told me that they want to enjoy the freedom of covering their heads and fulfilling their religious duty without giving up their ability to gain an education or have jobs of their choice. They want the freedom to follow their dreams of being a lawyer, a teacher, a professor, a student, without having to compromise their religion. The headscarf does not limit a woman’s ability to think or her ability to participate in public life and benefit her community.

Their desire is not to contradict secularism and democracy, but rather they are asking to be able to enjoy the freedoms that democracy offers. Without freedom, what is democracy? The women are not challenging secularism, but rather are having an ideology imposed on them which is held by a small portion of society. If the secular elite do not want Islamists telling them how to dress and live, should they also not tell others how to dress and live?

No one wants to be told what to wear, and no one wants their autonomy taken away. The Turkish Constitution states that Turkey is a secular democratic republic that derives its sovereignty from the people, so what do the people of Turkey want?

The Turkish people support the freedom of women to wear headscarves not only in universities but also in civil society. The secular elite and women’s organizations instead of trying to integrate women, a majority of whom do wear headscarves, treat them with contempt and as if they are backwards and undeserving of participation in public life and benefiting from public goods. Are these women not also part of Turkish society? A backward society is not that which is dominated by Muslim ideology; it is one which prevents women from gaining their rights, education, freedom of choice and an opportunity to work, all of which the headscarf ban is currently doing in Turkey.

The Constitutional Court treats the solution to this problem as simply removing the headscarf, but when did this become the solution? What about the woman’s choice and the violation she feels by this act of removal? What if a woman chose not to take it off? Is she then to remain shunned from society? This view of the court ignores the complex act of covering and what it means to women.

There is a large detriment to Turkey from losing talented women who because of the headscarf ban are forced to go to other countries to complete their education while being able to practice their religion. The amount of intelligence and brainpower being kept out of the workforce and the public service because of the ban is disadvantageous. Excluding women from school and the workplace strengthens the patriarchal structure and prevents women who are wearing the headscarf from having any hope for future improvement to their situation. It is not the headscarf that is keeping women from public life, it is the unequal laws that see modernization and freedom in narrow terms -- and try to force this vision on everyone.

The headscarf ban is not freeing women but rather limiting them from the freedom to choose, to gain an education, to work in a career of their choice and the ability to control their own lives and bodies. As one woman I interviewed said, “We are out of words.” All arguments have been made and rebutted time and time again. It is time for Turkey to decide: What kind of secular democracy does it want to be?