Islamic Political Identity in Turkey

the securitization of islam and the triumph of the akp 245to generate support from the secular sector of society, the military presentedthe Islamic presence in public spaces as a threat to the Kemalist lifestyle, whichit claimed was the only legitimate one. The military also tried to mobilizewomen’s associations, trade unions, and business organizations to oppose thesharing of public spaces with the emerging Islamic identity and lifestyle.Since Islamic groups were criminalized and excluded in the name of nationalsecurity, it is important to examine the way this concept of national securityis constructed and utilized against the society. The political arena inTurkey has been designed in accordance with the Kemalist precepts of secularismand nationalism and closely guarded by the military. Four times in thepast 50 years, in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997, the military intervened to “guard”the Kemalist system. The primary task of the military, according to article 35of the Internal Service Act (1961), is to “safeguard and defend Turkish territoryand the Republic of Turkey as designated by the constitution.” 21 SinceKemalist doctrine in general, and secularism in particular, is enshrined in theconstitution, the military’s duty is to “look after” the Kemalist ideology as theguiding public philosophy within Turkey. Secularism, for the military oYcers,is the backbone of the regime, and if it collapses, the whole system fails.Moreover, article 85 of the Internal Service Regulation says that the “Turkishmilitary shall defend the county against internal as well as external threats, ifnecessary by force.” Thus the military has authority to deWne threats thatpresent existential danger to the existence of the state and its founding ideology.Any issue can be securitized if it is regarded as “antisecular.” In theworldview of the military oYcers, the connection between secularism andsecurity is causal, that is, secularism creates security, and all antisecular actsare regarded as sources of insecurity. This military conception of secularismas the foundation of the “national unity” and “unitary state” structure wouldinform the decisions of the judiciary.The failure of the ideologically rigid Kemalist state to cope with these newidentity claims prompted the military-dominated state elite to deWne the identityclaims of ethnic and religious groups as existential threats to the core valuesof the state ideology. These perceived threats have led the state to reducemajor social, political, and economic problems to security issues. 22 This militaryviewpoint/policy position has resulted in the criminalization of identitygroups. Thus, by framing Islamic and Kurdish identity challenges as securityissues, the military believes it has the sole responsibility to deal with these threatswith extraordinary means outside normal political norms.In April 1997, the military changed its National Military Strategic Concept(MASK: Milli Askeri Strateji Konsepti) from targeting the Kurdish separatistand external threats of interstate war to “reactionary Islam” as the numberone enemy to the country’s founding ideology and unity. In order to focus onthe new “enemy,” the OYce of the Chief of the General StaV established theWest Working Group to monitor the activities of suspected Muslim organizationsand businesses in all sectors of society. 23 This group also was used toinform academics, judges, and bureaucrats about the dangers of Islamism and