×
Theocratic democracy (III)
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
While a reference in a national charter stating the religion of a people might not be a stringent violation of the secularism principle, though it does not conform well with it, the inclusion of a "No law can compromise the principles of Islam" article in the national charter of a country, would not make a country a "theocratic democracy," but would definitely convert it into something much different than a democracy.
I believe secularism is the backbone of democracy in any Muslim society. I think there is no viable alternative to secularism in Turkey, if you take into consideration the composition of this society. Turkish society is unlike that in Iran, Iraq or any other Muslim nation.
Of course, there is a place in Turkish society for wider religious support and rights. I personally do not like the way the Islamists are now living, dressing, the way they are thinking, but in democracies people are not obliged to conform to my expectations. And in their private lives they can do whatever they like. I firmly believe that in addition to many other factors, how a state and its people approach issues of "religious freedoms" demonstrates the level of democratic understanding in a country. It is an intellectual duty to reject outright any discrimination based on religion, race, color or any other category, and over the years I have been trying to remain vigilant against such primitive attitudes. I believe religion is a private matter, one of personal choice for any individual to believe and worship Ğ or not Ğ as he/she chooses, in whatever fashion, following any religion that the individual finds most appropriate. It is none of the business of the state or an individual to advise anyone to choose any religion or to be an atheist or deist. Unfortunately, no infant in any part of the world enjoys the right to decide his/her religion. It's a universal practice to assume that the infant automatically acquires the religion of the father or the mother. Religion has to be an individual affair of all individuals.
Though sui generis, and needed to be improved, the state is secular, the system is secular, and this system guarantees freedom of religion. Without secularism it would be impossible for Turkey to be a democracy. Secularism is the key element for the successful coexistence of democracy and religion. Otherwise, we would not be able to sustain democracy. That's why secularism and democracy are interrelated in the Turkish example.
This may be less so in Europe because they have lived through the enlightenment age and lived through the separation of church and state Ğ so hundreds of years ago they completed the cycle. However, in Islam there weren't any reforms, there was no renaissance and, in essence, Islam remains a religion regulating every aspect of life. If you let it dominate the state, then how will you have a national will when you already have a will that is superior, and divine? So, this contradicts with the norm itself.
Secularism is the essence, the key, the magic wand, if you want; without it, you cannot have democracy. What is democracy? People ruling themselves by themselves is the basic definition. What is the fundamental element here? Sovereignty, the right to decide and to make errors: If you have a base in the Constitution and the book of the believers as the supreme book of the country, and if that book says that the only sovereign is God, and if that book defines everything in that society, then how are you going to have civil law? How are you going to have sovereignty? Or, how are you going to have democracy without people being sovereign? This is the key.
Branding secularism as an "official ideology of the state" and supporting the thesis that the will of the people should not be obscured with such impositions if the country wants to advance toward a "liberal democracy" is nothing less than a disguised effort aimed at getting rid of secularism and replacing it with a theocratic doctrine in a salami style.
I am not someone obsessed with secularism, and I am not an Islamist either; I am a social democrat, committed to democracy, to freedom and values in all aspects of life. To me, accepting a divine will over a popular will is the end of the game. We may have elections and an elected government. In Iran they have elections and an elected president and government, but can we describe the regime in Iran as a democracy? Elections are not sufficient enough on their own to demonstrate existence of democracy in any country. The worst governments can come to power through elections. It is the mentality that makes the difference. Democracy is a culture and it takes time to nourish it.
Of course, there is a place in Turkish society for wider religious support and rights. I personally do not like the way the Islamists are now living, dressing, the way they are thinking, but in democracies people are not obliged to conform to my expectations. And in their private lives they can do whatever they like. I firmly believe that in addition to many other factors, how a state and its people approach issues of "religious freedoms" demonstrates the level of democratic understanding in a country. It is an intellectual duty to reject outright any discrimination based on religion, race, color or any other category, and over the years I have been trying to remain vigilant against such primitive attitudes. I believe religion is a private matter, one of personal choice for any individual to believe and worship Ğ or not Ğ as he/she chooses, in whatever fashion, following any religion that the individual finds most appropriate. It is none of the business of the state or an individual to advise anyone to choose any religion or to be an atheist or deist. Unfortunately, no infant in any part of the world enjoys the right to decide his/her religion. It's a universal practice to assume that the infant automatically acquires the religion of the father or the mother. Religion has to be an individual affair of all individuals.
Though sui generis, and needed to be improved, the state is secular, the system is secular, and this system guarantees freedom of religion. Without secularism it would be impossible for Turkey to be a democracy. Secularism is the key element for the successful coexistence of democracy and religion. Otherwise, we would not be able to sustain democracy. That's why secularism and democracy are interrelated in the Turkish example.
This may be less so in Europe because they have lived through the enlightenment age and lived through the separation of church and state Ğ so hundreds of years ago they completed the cycle. However, in Islam there weren't any reforms, there was no renaissance and, in essence, Islam remains a religion regulating every aspect of life. If you let it dominate the state, then how will you have a national will when you already have a will that is superior, and divine? So, this contradicts with the norm itself.
Secularism is the essence, the key, the magic wand, if you want; without it, you cannot have democracy. What is democracy? People ruling themselves by themselves is the basic definition. What is the fundamental element here? Sovereignty, the right to decide and to make errors: If you have a base in the Constitution and the book of the believers as the supreme book of the country, and if that book says that the only sovereign is God, and if that book defines everything in that society, then how are you going to have civil law? How are you going to have sovereignty? Or, how are you going to have democracy without people being sovereign? This is the key.
Branding secularism as an "official ideology of the state" and supporting the thesis that the will of the people should not be obscured with such impositions if the country wants to advance toward a "liberal democracy" is nothing less than a disguised effort aimed at getting rid of secularism and replacing it with a theocratic doctrine in a salami style.
I am not someone obsessed with secularism, and I am not an Islamist either; I am a social democrat, committed to democracy, to freedom and values in all aspects of life. To me, accepting a divine will over a popular will is the end of the game. We may have elections and an elected government. In Iran they have elections and an elected president and government, but can we describe the regime in Iran as a democracy? Elections are not sufficient enough on their own to demonstrate existence of democracy in any country. The worst governments can come to power through elections. It is the mentality that makes the difference. Democracy is a culture and it takes time to nourish it.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
