CHP leader Deniz Baykal's act to put a party pin on women wearing chadors was very symbolic. Instead of starting a reasoned debate by proposing a comprehensive package, Baykal chose to start with a symbolic gesture. This seems to be the root of the controversy among his party followers.Almost without exception, all critical issues in Turkey are negotiated through symbols. The Kurdish issue appears to be insurmountable because the Kurdish language, among others, is seen as a symbol threatening the unity of the Turkish state. Religious symbols such as the headscarf are perceived to be existential threats to the secular nature of the state. Religious minorities are seen as symbols of European colonialism. Human rights activists are perceived to be agents of international powers. And the list goes on.
Baykal's move elicited several reactions. His critics called him a pragmatist and opportunist, saying his chador gesture was nothing more than an election investment. His party comrades chastised him for undermining the party's official line on the radical separation of religion and politics. Some hailed his move as a possible breakthrough in the religion-secularism debate in Turkey.
All three positions have some truth in them. The charge of opportunism is not without grounds because Baykal's past record on the headscarf issue makes such a gesture almost impossible. Given that the CHP under his leadership has never won an election, he might be eyeing the local elections in March as an opportunity to boost his party's image among the electorate.
The militant CHP ranks are angry with Baykal because this reaching out to the chador, a symbol of rural religiosity in Turkey, goes against everything the CHP stands for. If Baykal himself has sympathy and respect for those who wear this traditional religious dress, his party ranks and voters will never accept it as normal or something they can tolerate within the limits of a liberal democratic system. Their sense of secular progressivism is too strong to allow any rapprochement with traditional religious identities.
Finally, those who see a positive development in Baykal's move might be right in thinking that the headscarf issue, the most salient symbol of the religion-secularism debate in Turkey, will not be solved without some sort of a change in the CHP's stiff position. Baykal's gesture might be because of various reasons, both decent and pragmatist. But the point is that the religion-secularism debate needs a new jumpstart and a new direction. The current stalemate can only obfuscate the discussion and even ruin any plans for a new constitution in Turkey.
Besides this political debate, though, one has to ask: Why did Baykal make such a gesture on the chador, which is not very common in Turkey anyway, rather than the headscarf, which is the source of the current controversy? Wouldn't it make more sense to start a new debate by addressing the real issue instead of going around it?
While I myself wonder these questions, I am with those who think Baykal should be given the benefit of the doubt on the dress issue. His initiative may or may not pay off in the March elections. But it might soften up some rough edges and induce a new discussion on the limits of religion and secularism in Turkey. This is a much needed start for both secularists and religious conservatives.
Benzer Haberler 
