PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

The other question relates to the compatibility betvveen islam's rolein society and state as seen by the secularists and the principle of secularismitself. This is essentially a debate betvveen secularists, and more specificallybetvveen those who are prepared to give islam a greater role insociety and those who consider themselves the devout guardians of secularism.The mere view of Turkey as Müslim country has been one issueof debate. Referring to the above quoted statement by Özal on islam as afactor making for cohesiveness in Turkish society, one commentator,Coşkun Kırca, for example, raised his objection saying that Özal's wordswere contradictory to the nationalist conception. "Defıning the foundationof society as religion", he said, "would, in addition to dividing citizensaccording to religious and philosophical beliefs and practices, alsoproduce the result of splintering society by ethnic group. That is whysecularism and nationalism are a whole"'°. The issue featured strongly inthe late 1960's when Turkey decided to join the Islamic Conference.Some writers and commentators raised the question vvhether this was inaccordance with secularism, and government leaders sounded somevvhathesitant at first about the move and opted for a kind of gradual affiliationwith reservations put on resolutions. In answer to criticism, they wouldrefer to the fact that Turkey's population was, after ali, Müslim, that itshared a heritage with other Müslim countries and that the organizationwas political, not religious. With time, challenges and criticisms of thissort have largely subsided.More important, presumably, have been the debates regarding theright relationship betvveen state and religion in Turkey. The mostcommon definition of secularism has been the one which stands on theseparation between state and religion. Secularist leaders have ali beenunited in ruling out any interference by religion in state affairs, but theproblem was whether the state was allowed, on its part, to involve itselfin religious matters. Ironically, perhaps, it was often the Islamiststhemselves who argued that by regulating women's garb, or religiouseducation, for example, the state vvas acting in a vvay vvhich wasinconsistent with the total seperation betvveen the two domains prescribedby strict secularism. That the issue vvas problematic vvas admitted byDemirel vvhen he said, "We have one problem vvhen the governmentwithdraws its hand from religion. We have another type of problem vvhenits does not. The secularism of the government is a debatable issue" 11 . Butmost secularist leaders seem to have accepted the right of the state toinvolve itself in religious affairs, if only because the traditional"guardians" of religion could not be trusted to disseminate and promotethe right kind of islam. If the state vvants islam to be progressive, andfulfil its proper role in society, it simply had to interfere. Many vveresurprised vvhen the secularist offıcers vvho instigated the 1980 takeover in10. Milliyet, 30 January 1989.11. Nokta, 13 October 1991.201