About time! Secularism, except for communism, tends to be very weak because in liberal democracies, it correlates with being a politically correct wuss.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13007801/site/newsweek/
Beginning of the End?
The murder of a respected judge touches off a secular, anti-Islamist backlash—and throws Turkey's government into crisis.
By Owen Matthews and Sami Kohen
Newsweek International
June 5, 2006 issue - The scene was sadly familiar, especially in the strife-torn Middle East. In the shadow of a great mosque, a crowd of 40,000 gathered to bury a victim of political violence—and vent their rage at the authorities. But this was not Iraq or the Palestinian territories. It was downtown Ankara. Nor were the demonstrators angry Islamist fanatics. They were judges, bureaucrats and businessmen, staunch secularists shouting out their loyalty to the state—and denouncing a government they say is taking Turkey down a dangerously Islamic path. "Turkey is secular and will remain secular," they chanted. "Turkey will not become an Iran."
The occasion was the funeral of Judge Mustafa Yucel Ozbilgin, killed by a 28-year-old lawyer who opened fire recently inside Turkey's High Court. The gunman's motives are not yet clear, but the presumption of most in the crowd was that he was a militant Islamist getting revenge for a court ruling last November that upheld restrictions on the wearing of headscarves in and around public schools. "This is an attack on the secular republic," declared President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who accused Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, of seeking to "destroy the regime" by undermining the country's strict division between mosque and state.
Sezer's attack—and the demonstrations following Ozbilgin's murder—were a direct challenge to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's mildly Islamist prime minister. AKP ministers who attended the funeral were booed and jeered by the crowd. But more worryingly for Erdogan were the sentiments expressed by Turkey's ultrasecular chief of the staff, Hilmi Ozkok, who called the protests "truly hope-giving and admirable" and said their example "should be followed by everyone all the time." When the Turkish Army speaks, elected leaders tend to listen. Necmettin Erbakan, Turkey's last Islamist prime minister and Erdogan's political mentor, was removed in 1997 in a bloodless coup orchestrated by the military. His crime? The same as Erdogan's, at least as Sezer sees it—undermining the secular state.
Turkey's P.M. isn't about to be ousted in a military coup, of course. Erdogan is much more moderate than Erbakan ever was, and more popular. Nonetheless, he now faces the most serious crisis of his career. Ever since he came to power in a landslide victory in 2002, Erdogan has been trying to roll back Turkey's brand of draconian secularism. His party has appointed religiously minded bureaucrats to senior positions in the Education Ministry; last year it tried (unsuccessfully) to criminalize adultery. The AKP has steadily campaigned to lift the ban on headscarves in schools, universities and government offices, though so far Turkish courts (and even the European Court of Human Rights) have rejected their plea. Most controversially, last month Bulent Arinc, the AKP speaker of Parliament, suggested the time had come to "reconsider the concept of secularism as it is practiced in Turkey"—triggering a storm of protest. Erdogan's Islamism may be mild by Middle Eastern standards, but this month's demonstrations are a clear sign that he may have gone too far. "The so-far silent secularists have now raised their voice," says Professor Nilufer Narli of Istanbul's Bahcesehir University. "This is a massive movement of people from all walks of life."
Rattled by the show of secularist strength, Erdogan and his party appear to be backpedaling. They rushed to join the secularists in their loud condemnation of the court attack. Ozbilgin's killer is an "enemy of the regime, of secularism and the rule of law," said Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. The government also tried to downplay the more overtly Islamist elements of its program. The headscarf issue is "a problem perhaps for only one and a half percent of the people," according to Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin, who insists that the government's priority is unemployment and the economy.
But Erdogan's real problems run deeper than Turkey's Islamic-versus-secular culture war. After all, he came to power promising to clean up official corruption and put Turkey's failing economy back on firm footing. His success in doing so over the past three years generated immense popular support for other reforms—chiefly new laws liberalizing the country's antiquated justice system and granting new rights of free speech and religious tolerance to Turkish minorities, including his own Islamist backers. But lately those economic underpinnings have suddenly turned wobbly, partly due to his government's mismanagement. Fiscal reforms put in force early in Erdogan's term tamed runaway inflation. But just last week the International Monetary Fund warned that Turkey's soaring budget deficits may stall the latest installment of a $20 billion aid package negotiated in 2001. The Istanbul stock market, one of the star emerging market performers of 2005, has dropped 19 percent and the lira 15 percent this month alone amid worries about the government's ability to finance its growing domestic debt.
All this has eroded a critical element in his political base—Turkey's largely Istanbul-based business community, which has never been totally comfortable with AKP's brand of Anatolian populism. Last year Erdogan clashed with Tusiad, a powerful group of industrialists and businessmen, over the appointment of a new Central Bank governor. In a clumsy attempt to put an AKP loyalist at the helm of one of Turkey's few independent institutions, Erdogan tried to appoint the former head of a Saudi-owned Islamic bank to the post. Eventually the job went to Durmus Yilmaz, an old hand at the Central Bank. But the affair shook businessmen's confidence, and the economy's recent troubles have eroded that trust even more. "The government is paying more attention to installing its own people and following its own religious agenda," complains Mehmet Ali Ince, an importer of copying equipment in Istanbul whose business has been hit by the falling lira.
A consummate pol, known for trimming his sails to the political wind, Erdogan may now be looking for a way out. Some analysts speculate that next May he might use his party's two-thirds majority in Parliament to be appointed president, ousting Sezer, an arch-secularist who acts as a counterbalance to Erdogan. Critics of the ruling party fear that if Erdogan were indeed to take the job, the AKP would be emboldened to push through exactly the Islamic policies they're shying away from today—such as scrapping the headscarf ban and ending government control over religious appointments and even the content of sermons. Opposition deputies have even threatened to resign en masse to force early parliamentary elections to dilute Erdogan's majority and block his presidential bid. Meanwhile, tensions are likely to continue to build. This spring brought a new eruption of violence in Turkey's southeastern Kurdish-inhabited provinces, heightening mainstream society's concerns about the country's stability. Polls show that support for nationalist parties is rising fast, especially among the young—further eroding the AKP's supremacy.
Erdogan's greatest political project—membership in the European Union—may also soon turn into a serious political liability at home. Europe's obvious reluctance to admit Turkey, even on an extended time-table, has alienated many Turks. Yet Ankara has little choice but to push ahead, adopting in the coming months a series of tough Brussels-mandated reforms of agricultural subsidies, banking and labor regulations that is destined to generate even more economic hardship, and thus more resentment for the government. With the secularists emboldened, Erdogan will likely try to avoid further controversy by muting his religious agenda and focusing instead on the economy. And there, the markets, not God, will decide.
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
About time! Secularism, except for communism, tends to be very weak because in liberal democracies, it correlates with being a politically correct wuss.
more like secularism does not really need to be actively expressed in liberal democracies because it's a cornerstone of the state...it's just there, like the sky![]()
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."Originally Posted by astralis
Even under secular states, secularism, like anything else, has to be backed up with a constant intellectual and moral offensive. Anything less is just arrogant.
It's this weakness which helps defend things like the religious hatred laws in the UK, for example.
Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 28 May 06, at 21:11.
So I am not the only one who hates it then.Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Meat cutting classification NAMP 1174; the porterhouse is NAMP 1173.
I don't really see any widespread and concrete support or disdain for them. I may be wrong, though.
Just as in India.Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Not religious Liberty but religious Licence!![]()
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
There religious hatred laws are the best thing to hit Britain since wayne Rooney.
the rights of something sacred to people should be protected.
But anybody can arbitrarily find something sacred, it doesn't mean they have the right to demand that the state use force to protect the oversensitive. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Last edited by ZFBoxcar; 29 May 06, at 03:51.
Freedom of expression and the right to criticise anything I choose is sacred to me.Originally Posted by platinum786
Gonna fight for MY rights?
Religious Laws divide society and muzzle protest against some odd forms of religious practices that may offend the neighbourhood and society in general.
Perchance the descendant of Incas could state that human sacrifices is a very sacred religious rite as far as they are concerned. Now, would that be acceptable?
Therefore, all this protection of religion laws are all bogus stupidity and basically aimed to garner votes.
The more I observe the antics of political Britain, I find that they are jumping into the cesspool of India's political vote garnering pressures that does the national aims no good!
Last edited by Ray; 29 May 06, at 06:46.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Much food for thought.Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar
However depends on what constitutes the states use of force.
If it is restricted to banning the public showing of offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed or banning the Da Vinci Code or offensive paintings of Hindu Goddesses, that is a curb on my freedom of expression that I am willing to pay.
If on the other hand it involves handing down life imprisonment sentences or executing the Author/Actor/Director/Painter, as the case may be, absolutely no way.
If it means a fatwa on my head for writing what I want or having the requirement of having four pious gentlemen (not ladies mind you) to be my witness in a trial and that too from a particular religion, if it means that women face a bleak chance to prove rape, if it means that anything I say against a Prophet is blasphemous and it is punishable by death, then I rather not have religion "protected".
I rather have religion protected on the merits of its sayings and a religion that is not insecure that it requires protection by law. If religion is so super a thing that can move men, then it should have no flaws that require protection!
I want the world to be so!
Natural pohenomenon cannot be refuted. Man made sayings that is construed as the Creator's own words can be.
So, religion will always be open to critical analysis and one should not fear the same!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
As religion has demonstrated time and time again it is more than capable of withstanding criticism and attack and has not withered like some misbegotten branch but has continued throughout the millenia.
Strange then, that it should now require such protection from mere drawings and words. It is of course not the religion itself that requires such protection, it is people who use it's name that seek that protection.
Parihaka,
Brilliantly said!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: