A distinguished professor of sociology who has been exploring Europe’s encounter with Islam has told Today’s Zaman for Monday Talk that Turkey is a more pluralistic society today than it has ever been in the past but there are still risks in its democracy.
“ Turkey became more and more pluralistic. Turkey today is far beyond the pluralism that we started to experience in the 1950s and then in the post 1990 period. Now we are really debating the Armenian issue, the Kurdish issue, every day. I don’t believe at all that we are in an Islamic republic where everything is under control,” she said answering our questions in İstanbul where she took part in seminars titled “Overcoming the Trap of Resentment,” May 19-24 at İstanbul Bilgi University.
According to Göle, Turkey’s current government did not stop the process that the society has been going through, but the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) looks more homogenous than the rest of Turkey.
“Turkey seems to me very heterogeneous, and Turkish people speak up about their differences. It’s amazing what Turkish society is capable of voicing today. But there is always that fragility that this will not continue. There is uncertainty,” she said adding that uncertainty is a must in democracies but without violence.
“Therefore, we are at a stage that we want to be reassured that these uncertainties will not lead us to violence nor to a kind of enforced power from above, like from the military or from dictatorship,” she said and pointed out the Kurdish issue which remains unsolved.
According to Göle, the AK Party deserves some of the credit for all that has been positive in Turkey’s development, but traditional tendencies of Turkey has played a role too.
“If the AKP is so important today in the Middle East as a model, it is also because of the secular tradition in Turkey and its accession process to the European Union. The AKP is a political party that has had its roots in the parliamentary system since the 1970s,” she said.
For Göle, it was predictable that the ruling party was going to change Muslim movements, while they have been changing Turkey, but it was not so predictable that the party was going to be seen a role model.
“This is not all dependant on the AKP, but the AKP knew how to give form to that — political form — through international relations. They voiced their politics through [Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoğlu who gave it a vision based upon those realities that Turkey represented,” she said.
For Monday Talk she elaborated on the issue as well as Europe’s encounters with Islam.
Talking about Muslims in Europe, you say that the closer you get to the “other,” there are more fears because you become a competitor. Are Muslims competitors for traditional citizens of Europe?
We should first talk about how we label them. We speak about Muslims, migrants, citizens. These are all labels showing that we have a problem. We don’t say “working class,” “migrant workers,” etc. When we think of Muslim migrants, there are a lot of ways of addressing them. We say “Turkish migrants” but among them there are different groups of people too; some of them are there for political reasons, for work, as a result of ethnic conflict, etc. Among Muslims there are Sufis, Shiites, Alevis; people from different ethnic backgrounds. Interestingly “Muslim” becomes a category that is transnational. It is not only Muslims in France or Germany but in all of Europe. We still have this stereotypic image of Europeans and Muslims despite differences within both groups.
Is that what Europe is struggling with?
That is what we are struggling with. If it were only about migrants, we would only be discussing their legal status, housing conditions, etc. Although these are important issues, too, this is not what we are debating. What we are debating is the way Muslims of faith live, pious Muslims following the Islamic prescriptions in Europe — for example, dietary prescriptions, whether ritual slaughtering is in conformity with the European understanding of animal rights. This becomes a general debate; this issue joins the debate for animal rights: What is better for animal rights? Ritual slaughtering or industrial slaughtering? Muslims also need to debate this issue, but I haven’t heard it being talked about in Turkey. Is ritual slaughtering possible in today’s industrial world? There are also economic interests and competition. For example, major chains like KFC and Burger King offer “halal hamburgers” on their menu. The animal rights aspect may not be an issue in Turkey – although it could have been because of the industrial conditions in ritual slaughtering — but when they are in Europe, Muslims face new issues. And they make European citizens also face new issues. This is something particular about being a Muslim in Europe.
You also refer to the “amorphous presence of Muslims” in Europe. What do you mean, could you elaborate?
Muslims make themselves visible, for example, on university campuses these days — those who are Muslims are always women; we don’t see men with big beards or wearing special attire tailored for Muslim men. Pious Muslims define the way they live in reference to prescriptions and ethical guidance. They self-discipline themselves. It’s a continuous supervision of their faith. They try to draw a circle — private and not private — and try to live within that circle. They find some forms according to their faith. Halal food is a form, it is a dietary form, and you need it on the market if you’re in Europe. You also need praying space, mosques, which are another form, to be with your congregation. I’d like to point out that we tend to think in terms of ideas, not in terms of forms. Today’s Muslims have not yet found the exact form, they are searching for forms; they are playing with it. If something is given traditionally, it is easy, you continue with the tradition. Aesthetics forms are very important, especially for pious people because they look for spirituality.
‘Sharia discussed in Canada and Britain but not in Turkey’
What is the debate on the form?
There is a big debate on the form, the architectural form, of mosques. There has always been. We have Ottoman mosques in Turkey. But in recent decades, we always say that mosques in Turkey have come to be carelessly built; the proportion between the dome and the minaret is not well planned, the calls for prayer are not as nice as they used to be. So form is very important, be it a way a parliament or a house is built, or ways of dressing. At this time, I say that Muslims have an ambivalent or amorphous presence. Is there a European mosque? They haven’t yet found the creativity to surpass those tensions. Even Ottoman mosques are a combination of many cultures, but it is an Ottoman mosque even though it has Roman and Byzantine influences. There is this capacity of culture to open, to borrow and translate between different codes to excel.
What do you think of schools in that regard? Do Muslims mix with non-migrant European citizens?
Because of the ban on the headscarf, Muslim communities created their own schools. Sometimes they send their children to Catholic schools. I am for gender mixing in education. Muslim migrants are suffering from not mixing with non-migrant European citizens. It is not good because if you create a ghetto, a little community, without having the capacity to interact with each other, it creates resentment for all sides.
In a panel discussion you referred to the debate in Canada and Britain about adaptability of Shariah and asked a panelist his thoughts on the issue that this type of debate can take place in Canada and Britain but not in Turkey. May I ask your thoughts on the same issue?
It’s an unsettling issue. In Turkey, the debate about whether or not “Shariah is coming” is quite intimidating. When I first heard about it in a panel in another country that what rules from Shariah can be adopted, what can or cannot be accepted about it, I was shaken because for me it was no longer negotiable, and Turkey had turned that page and adopted a civil code. I never thought that this was going to be an issue around me and be debated by intellectuals. The issue has been raised in Canada and Britain, whether or not it can be accommodated into British law. This can be evaluated, like Islamic banking, which is everywhere; it’s not an issue, not a problem. But all those issues that are related to marriage, family code, etc., they are big issues. For instance, Islamic divorce may help Muslim women since their acceptance into their community will be easier if they are divorced by religious law in addition to British law. So the issue is not simple, it is complex. Turkish historian Cemal Kafadar, who has been working on the Ottoman courts, found that many non-Muslims preferred Islamic courts for concerns related to inheritance. Turkish writer Ali Bulaç at one point argued for a pluralistic law. Can each community have their own courts and legal systems? These issues are there when you speak about multiculturalism. What about multi-jurisprudence, multi-legal systems? And remember, in Turkey, women who have religious marriages ask for an official marriage license because it is better for them. This is a debate we are facing more and more.
‘Democracy is the possibility for uncertainty but without violence’
During the Refahyol coalition in the 1990s, there was a fearful atmosphere that was partly due to perceptions that “Shariah was coming” as you also referred to it. At the time, did you believe that Shariah was really coming?
I never did. Before, during the Iranian Revolution, it was really the moment we could have feared, but there was [former Prime Minister Turgut] Özal. We saw the Özal government liberalize society. If we live in a more pluralistic society today, he really contributed to that a lot. He was against implementation of laws against personal freedom of choice. When you have Shariah, you have no individual choice, and you have to be in conformity with Islamic principles. That is, of course, fearsome because then you cannot have plurality and question Islam at all. There were fundamentalists at the time, but I was not afraid because Özal was there, and society had endorsed him.
Then came the AK Party government with a lot of references to the Özal period. Do you think Turkish society has become more pluralistic since then?
Turkey has become more and more pluralistic. Turkey today is far beyond the pluralism that we started to experience in the 1950s, and then in the post-1990 period. Now we are really debating the Armenian issue, the Kurdish issue, every day. I don’t believe at all that we are in an Islamic republic where everything is controlled. Turkey seems to me very heterogeneous, and Turkish people speak up about their differences. It’s amazing what Turkish society is capable of voicing today. But there is always that fragile possibility that this will not continue. There is uncertainty. But as I always say, democracy is the possibility for uncertainty, but without violence. Therefore, we are at a stage that we want to be reassured that these uncertainties will not lead us to violence nor to a kind of enforced power from above, like from the military or from dictatorship. So the Kurdish issue is still there to be solved.
‘Turkey’s success in Middle East remarkable’
Are you saying that the AK Party has been successful in some areas and not in some other areas?
I’m not giving any scores to the party. Apparently it’s very successful. I’ve predicted that they were going to change Muslim movements, while they are changing Turkey, and this prediction came out to be true. The unpredictable thing is that they’ve become a kind of example for the Arab world changing the whole conversation between Islam and the West. This is not only about the AKP [AK Party] but what Turkey achieved. If the AKP is so important today in the Middle East as a model, it is also because of the secular tradition in Turkey that remains in place and its accession process to the European Union. The AKP is a political party that has had its roots in the parliamentary system since the 1970s. And if they are in the Middle East, it is also because of the liberal economics of the 1980 period that Özal triggered. There have been entrepreneurial investments in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. Turkey’s soft culture is in the Middle East too through its soap operas. This is not all dependant on the AKP, but the AKP knew how to give form to that, political form, through international relations. They voiced their politics through [Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoğlu who gave it a vision based upon those realities that Turkey represented. And in that sense, they have been very successful. They did not say no to the IMF [International Monetary Fund] when there was this transition from Kemal Derviş; they continued with Turkey’s EU accession process; they were for a liberal market economy, so they continued Turkey’s important relationships [with international blocs and institutions].
But for some, they are still the “enemy” as a result of the power struggle between the supporters of the status quo and supporters of democracy.
In democracy, there is never 100 percent consensus, if there is, there is no democracy. Democracy is the possibility of disagreement. This may be the vulnerability of the government. They want to be liked by everyone. This realization requires maturation. When we go back to your question more seriously, this symbolic change of power has not yet come to an end. There is still that problem of legitimacy, but this question of legitimacy should come to an end. The government should also reassure people more that there is no problem of legitimacy and things will continue in a pluralistic and democratic system. There is a deeper battle that goes beyond the AKP and that’s why we feel all concerned with the removal of the heavy-handed, what we call deep state. And Hrant Dink’s assassination was the tuning point in that regard.
How do you think the opposition is evolving — especially on the eve of the general elections on June 12?
For those who cannot relate to the AKP and their politics, there is an alternative, [opposition Republican People’s Party] the CHP’s Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. We needed an alternative. That may not mean that they will come to power, but we need this checking mechanism. We also need other opposition parties in Parliament. If we have more parties in Parliament, then a process will start to make a constitution based on increased consensus.
PROFILE: Nilüfer Göle
Currently teaching at L’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales (EHESS) in Paris, she is the author of “The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling” (1997), which has been published in several languages. She works on Islamic visibility in European public spaces and the debate it evokes regarding the topics of religious and cultural differences. Her sociological approach focuses on opening up a new reading of modernity from a non-western perspective and a broader critique of Eurocentrism in the definitions of secular modernity. She is the author of “Islam in Europe: The Lure of Fundamentalism and the Allure of Cosmopolitanism” (2010).