This is one of the major problems that this country needs to resolve. Like many others, this problem may only be resolved through a method that we can call “politics of negotiation.” However, as far as laicism is concerned, democratic participation or politics of negotiation is simply set aside. Moreover, this issue comes to the forefront in times of military coup, anti-democratic intervention or the eruption of tensions. Unless the issue of laicism is clarified, it will take a long time for Turkey to become a real state.The visible characteristic of Turkish laicism is that it still remains undefined. There is no generally accepted definition for this term in the Constitution or other relevant legislation. This is one of the issues that we need to focus on. If something is undefined, it is used by anybody from their perspective. However, because of inequality between the strength and power of the relevant actors, the privileged circles will have the right to impose their own definition. If there is no generally acceptable definition, the terms may become subject to exploitation and abuse.
From this perspective, we may argue that laicism does not have a legal, philosophical or cultural framework in Turkey. Because of this problem, the term laicism is assessed as a functional value subject to change depending on the circumstances and conditions. In other words, laicism may take different forms and definitions depending on the conjecture, the initiatives intervening with the process and the elites sensitive to their advantages, positions and status and the core in the center.
Secondly, laicism does not assume a concrete and historical model as a reference point in Turkey. This refers to a lack of criterion. Ernest Gellner relates this to Turkish modernization, adding that this is a unique case and example. It should be noted that this is an important point.
Foreign scholars working on Turkish-style laicism fail to make a comparison between this version and secularism as followed in European countries by considering the historical ground and cultural and religious dichotomy during its emergence in the continent. They do not run a critical approach vis-à-vis the existing state-religion relations. What they are mostly doing is defining the state position as a value that should be inherently proper by neglecting many democratic values.
A number of scholars attempting to explain the crisis stemming from the application of laicism and social tension caused by this crisis view this as some sort of disharmony problem. They hold that the state’s attitude has been the most proper one since the beginning. The Muslim people fail to adapt to conditions created by the secular order. In short, the subject itself is troublesome and problematic, and this problem points to a pathological case. If a patient who needs treatment is taken to you, you make your own assessment based on your knowledge and expertise; in such a case, you do not have to hear his complaints. This is the basic point of departure held by the intellectual despotism relying on 19th century philosophy. Constitutionally, laicism is not a matter of discussion or negotiation; it is a top norm in the legal hierarchy that cannot be amended. The fact that it still remains undefined facilitates the job of the effective actors in the system to use the term in accordance with their wishes and needs. This is the primary reason for the controversy over the term.
This makes European institutions indifferent to the complaints and violations of rights of the people eager to observe their religious duties freely; in such cases, these institutions adopt a double-standard approach. In consideration of this indifference and lack of a generally acceptable definition, the state elite and holders of power claim a right to intervene in religion and religious precepts.
Benzer Haberler 
