Struggle for power between religion and state

Prof. Dr. Serpil Sancar of Ankara University's Political Science Faculty agrees with Erdogan that "not people, but states are laicist". However, she immediately adds that Erdogan's recent comment, "laicism should not be exploited for politics", is a distortion. According to Sancar, laicism is a political concept, and "in politics you talk about laicism, but not about religion". This means that someone elected into decision-making office has to be democratic and laicist.

Turkey is currently experiencing a tense political climate. There are the early elections scheduled for 22 July, the thinly veiled warning to the government recently posted on the website of the army's General Staff, and the series of "Republican rallies" in major Turkish cities protesting against the perceived threat of political Islam. In this climate, Erdogan has put forward a controversial definition of laicism: "In the sense that I support a laicist state, I am laicist. However, I am not laicist as far as Islam is concerned. States are laicist, not people."

What is laicism?

According to Prof. Sancar, a laicist regime is required to maintain equal distance to all religious groups. "It is the state's duty to create the conditions for freedom of religious beliefs, but it must not become involved any further". She argues however, that the state in Turkey is biased towards one religion, indeed, one sect, and that this "contradicts the separation of religion and state".

Sancar adds that Turkey has a peculiar definition of laicisim that is unjustifiable.

Struggle for Power

Sancar comments on the attempts of the army to "protect laicism", arguing that the army should not be concerned with laicism. "The army is a security institution. When the army talks about laicism, a courageous political will could prosecute the speakers".

She goes on to say that she sees the conflict between the government and the army not as a debate on laicism, but a struggle for power between those representing religion and those representing the state.

Republican rallies

Prof. Sancar interprets the recent "Republican rallies" as symbolic, adding that people took part with very different expectations. This variety was not reflected on the tribune, however, as the people who made speeches were not representative of the demonstrators. She adds that most demonstrators believed in laicism and democracy going hand-in-hand, while the format of the protests was anti-democratic.

In Sancar's opinion, those joining the demonstrations might have done so because they were scared of sharia law, of the Kurdish-Turkish civil war, of losing national independence, or of the loss of city culture through continuing rural migration.

Sancar also dismisses the claim that the "Republican rallies", in which many women took part, have been a show of female strength. She doubts whether women could really speak up whenever they want; rather, the tribunes' "real owners" choose the women and let them speak. (NZ/EK/AG)