×
Veiled democracy!
PaylaÅŸ
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
In history, headgear was a "tradition" enforced by other monotheistic religions as well as Islamic culture, although in our time covering the head with a piece of cloth, its shape, type and form may vary, in Jewish and Christian cultures has become rather exceptional.
Discussing through symbols is definitely part of the culture of this geography, as it is for most other cultures elsewhere. Even though the meaning and implications of them differ from person to person, group to group, semantics do matter; symbols do matter! Something which might be a fertility symbol to one, could become the symbol of "pure race" for another. While a group of people suffer as a consequence of that "pure race" obsession, the same symbol could become the symbol of genocidal crimes against humanity.  Â
Sometimes, an outfit symbolizing fidelity and virtuous life in a society from a particular period, becomes the symbol of oppression, backwardness, deprivation of individual rights and liberties and indeed of radicalism. What is also strange, these two contradicting perceptions of a symbol may even exist in the same society in the same period, producing polarization and social tension. Similarly, a certain outfit which might be a symbol of wealth and social status at one time in society, may indeed become a symbol of backwardness, peasantry and even ethnic separatist manifestation, at another period of time, in the same society. We have lots of examples in today’s Turkey.
The veil, for example, as an element of an outfit predates the spread of Islamic culture. At a certain time in history, headgear was a "tradition" enforced by other monotheistic religions as well, although in our time covering the head with a piece of cloth, its shape, type and form may vary, in Jewish and Christian cultures has become rather exceptional.
Is the covering of heads by women a divine order? Or, to go even further, is it a divine order to hide women from head to toe in black, white, blue, whatever the color might be, chadors? Is there any meaning in engaging in such a discussion as there are people who believe that covering is the order of their religion? If that is what they believe and if they believe seeing the world behind a curtain is what their religion expects from them, why should others who do not believe so be bothered with that!
That being said, however, sometimes symbols acquire political meanings and indeed become some sort of "flag" for a political ideology. What if so, one may say. However, if after decades of revanchist campaigning and the exploitation of religion and through developing a certain type of headgear, the turban, a piece of cloth becomes a manifestation of belonging to political Islam trying to take a revenge from the "secularist republic" everyone must concede that there is a serious problem in that country.
A residue of the 1980 coup
That has indeed been the situation in Turkey since the early 1980s when with a rather shortsighted ban on the headscarf by the then military junta and through systematic exploitation of the headscarf by political Islam the head-cover of some pious women gradually became the flag of political Islam and landed the country in a deadlock. Put aside the demands of those who believe it is the requirement of their religion to cover their heads; a demand which cannot be ignored by anyone with some awareness of individual freedoms, how can anyone who considers himself a democrat turn a deaf ear to such appeals? On the other hand, how could a secular democracy allow manifestation of political Islam that aims to destroy it?
The only way out of this quagmire might be in de-politicizing headgear and re-instituting it as a religious attire rather than being the flag of political Islam. That was why when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan at a news conference in Madrid at the beginning of this year said, "What if the turban is a symbol (of political Islam)," the statement that triggered the latest turban controversy and brought the ruling party at the verge of closure. Many people thought "Ha ha... If he is accepting that the turban has become a political symbol, perhaps he will work to liberate the turban from that political connotation and thus from the ban as well."
Things did not progress as hoped and instead of ending the political connotation of turban, the premier preferred to further consolidate it as a symbol of political Islam and preferred to try to "liberate" it through imposition by forging an overwhelming parliamentary majority in cooperation with the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP.
That exercise proved as well that the turban nightmare of Turkey could only be solved by the secularists, that is by the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, as any offer from that block would not be perceived as a covert legitimization effort for the symbol of political Islam, but liberalization of the turban from political Islam.
Some members of the CHP might not be happy with the current efforts of the CHP leadership to enlist head-covered women, and even women in black chadors, as members and perhaps the CHP effort is just a local election ploy, still this is an effort in Turkey’s best interest and which may help as well to remove the veil from Turkish democracy...
Sometimes, an outfit symbolizing fidelity and virtuous life in a society from a particular period, becomes the symbol of oppression, backwardness, deprivation of individual rights and liberties and indeed of radicalism. What is also strange, these two contradicting perceptions of a symbol may even exist in the same society in the same period, producing polarization and social tension. Similarly, a certain outfit which might be a symbol of wealth and social status at one time in society, may indeed become a symbol of backwardness, peasantry and even ethnic separatist manifestation, at another period of time, in the same society. We have lots of examples in today’s Turkey.
The veil, for example, as an element of an outfit predates the spread of Islamic culture. At a certain time in history, headgear was a "tradition" enforced by other monotheistic religions as well, although in our time covering the head with a piece of cloth, its shape, type and form may vary, in Jewish and Christian cultures has become rather exceptional.
Is the covering of heads by women a divine order? Or, to go even further, is it a divine order to hide women from head to toe in black, white, blue, whatever the color might be, chadors? Is there any meaning in engaging in such a discussion as there are people who believe that covering is the order of their religion? If that is what they believe and if they believe seeing the world behind a curtain is what their religion expects from them, why should others who do not believe so be bothered with that!
That being said, however, sometimes symbols acquire political meanings and indeed become some sort of "flag" for a political ideology. What if so, one may say. However, if after decades of revanchist campaigning and the exploitation of religion and through developing a certain type of headgear, the turban, a piece of cloth becomes a manifestation of belonging to political Islam trying to take a revenge from the "secularist republic" everyone must concede that there is a serious problem in that country.
A residue of the 1980 coup
That has indeed been the situation in Turkey since the early 1980s when with a rather shortsighted ban on the headscarf by the then military junta and through systematic exploitation of the headscarf by political Islam the head-cover of some pious women gradually became the flag of political Islam and landed the country in a deadlock. Put aside the demands of those who believe it is the requirement of their religion to cover their heads; a demand which cannot be ignored by anyone with some awareness of individual freedoms, how can anyone who considers himself a democrat turn a deaf ear to such appeals? On the other hand, how could a secular democracy allow manifestation of political Islam that aims to destroy it?
The only way out of this quagmire might be in de-politicizing headgear and re-instituting it as a religious attire rather than being the flag of political Islam. That was why when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan at a news conference in Madrid at the beginning of this year said, "What if the turban is a symbol (of political Islam)," the statement that triggered the latest turban controversy and brought the ruling party at the verge of closure. Many people thought "Ha ha... If he is accepting that the turban has become a political symbol, perhaps he will work to liberate the turban from that political connotation and thus from the ban as well."
Things did not progress as hoped and instead of ending the political connotation of turban, the premier preferred to further consolidate it as a symbol of political Islam and preferred to try to "liberate" it through imposition by forging an overwhelming parliamentary majority in cooperation with the Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP.
That exercise proved as well that the turban nightmare of Turkey could only be solved by the secularists, that is by the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, as any offer from that block would not be perceived as a covert legitimization effort for the symbol of political Islam, but liberalization of the turban from political Islam.
Some members of the CHP might not be happy with the current efforts of the CHP leadership to enlist head-covered women, and even women in black chadors, as members and perhaps the CHP effort is just a local election ploy, still this is an effort in Turkey’s best interest and which may help as well to remove the veil from Turkish democracy...
PaylaÅŸ
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
