|
|
 |
|
28.2%ANMag Issue 21 Public Surveillance
Secular: The Story of Turkeys Gul
By Hanin Ababneh, Staff Writer
Amman, Jordan - Secularism has popularly been defined as the detachment of the church (as an embodiment of the institution of religion as a whole not only that of Christianity). However, with the new strokes occurring in Turkey, has Abdullah Gul been able to defy this definition or merely emphasize it further?
On August 28, 2007, a government veteran with roots once deeply situated within political Islam was elected as Turkey's President by a popular parliamentary voting system. Not only were the international VIP guests privy to the true movements of democracy in the twenty-first century, but were also concerned to the catchphrase 'secularism'. Gul's wife, rather than Gul himself, was the butt of questioning throughout his election campaign. Her choice to be veiled (wearing the hijab), was a full-size issue for the country's adamantly secular military. The military was largely concerned by Gul's wife's decision in dress and faith. They attacked her strongly throughout the campaign and were obstinate in making the point that due to this insignificant detail in a president's life, Gul, if elected, would eventually turn Turkey into an Islamic state. "Turkey is a secular democracy… These are basic values of our republic, and I will defend and strengthen these values," Gul proclaimed when taking his oath for presidency.
However, the military was still in denial of both this and his pledge for presidency and, thus, left with a brutal choice of an either extremely unpopular coup or an acceptance of this harsh Islamic state which was waiting for them in the shadows. Nevertheless, what the military failed to see was its inability to accept secularism. By definition, secularism is the separation of church and state, and thus, religion, faith or God becomes a private matter for the individual to decide upon within the privacy of his/her own household. Nowhere within the definition of secularism does it proclaim that the whole nation and its presidency must conform to atheism, which is obviously the army's stance. What the military institution is unable to see is that they are the ones standing in the face of secularism by their inability to accept the other, which is exactly what secularism promotes, acceptance. By religion being personalized, the nation learns to accept the other as being their brother through the land, and not through belief as while one is constant the other is varying. Through my own eyes, one of a strong believer and promoter of secularism, the military stands out to me as an opposing party to secularism rather than a supporter.
Gul and his wife had a chance to decide upon their religious outlook and have done that; yet, they have been challenged with the definition of secularism which in fact works with and not against them. It is the military that needs to accept and recognize this difference in opinion and not the other way around. And so coming back to the question at the start of this text, I strongly believe that Gul has shown us the reverse definition of the so-called one we have learned through our cosmopolitan, global village of a world. Nonetheless, what Turkey must understand is that through reverse we cannot mean contrary − rather, accentuation.