It should be acknowledged that only two years after its establishment, the Republic of Turkey turned into an authoritarian and ideological state. Atatürk desired an integrated society that was free of class discrimination and privileges. The state tried to achieve this goal by denying social and cultural diversities. It tried to assimilate these diversities either by dictating overtly or through education.What is hiding behind almost all of our current problems, which have evolved into deadlock over time, is the denial of past policies.It is not an easy task to obliterate the traces of a long period in which the state dictated that Kurds turn into Turks, Alevis into Sunnis, and Turks into Westerners. That is why no social sections trust each other completely, and more importantly none of them trust the state.However, what we call democracy means trusting the incumbent state, by confirming a mutual reconciliation.Everyone knows that during its 12-year rule, the AK Party valorously addressed the basic socio-cultural points of conflict and sought a reasonable solution for them. It gave voice to religionist Sunni Turks and Kurds. It took unmitigated steps regarding the PKK question, which was previously far beyond imagination.The AK Party, however, lingered on recovering ties with the Alevis. In return, the Alevis held themselves at a distance with the government and most of the time strictly opposed it. This is the point that brought stalemate to the idea of the "new Turkey." At this point, the country cannot go beyond the "old."Moreover, the uncomfortable and distrustful outlook of Sunni conservatives and Alevis against each other tantalizes enemies of Turkey. This cannot continue. We do not have enough time to mess around on the matter of reconciliation with the Alevis.Is there anyone who cannot see the dramatic developments we have gone through since the Gezi incidents are provoking Alevis in particular?Here is the unanswered question:How on earth do the Alevis remain faithful to the Kemalist structure and the status quo that applied the strictest policies over them? We cannot understand this by resorting to such morbid definitions as "Stockholm syndrome" in a derogatory manner. We should be aware that we face a serious question that pushes historical and social dynamics.Our focal point should be to look at the secularism policy of the Republican regime. This policy is based on the "Sunni threat," i.e. "the danger of Shariah." In this way, the state dominated over the Alevis, whose historical memory is already full of pain. It also pretended to protect the Alevis against this Sunni Shariah threat. Moreover, it made Alevis forget the disgraceful experiences of the past including the Dersim Massacre in 1938.Well, what should be done now?First of all, the state has to turn over a new leaf on the Alevi question. It should realize that reiterating the ongoing clichés is not a remedy; just as hovering continuously in a lecturing manner is nothing more than a waste of time.Secondly, there is no point in postponing moves to satisfy the demands of Alevis more on the issues of Alevi identity and Cemevis.The statement by the Presidency of Religious Affairs that "we cannot accept Cemevis as a temple and the temple in Islam is the mosque" hampers the reconciliation. Is it acceptable that the Presidency of Religious Affairs decides where one can worship?For now, I regret to say that both the Presidency of Religious Affairs and some of the political figures seem to insist on the argument that "Cemevis cannot be a place of worship." Hopefully, I will be disappointed.The third one is that any resolution or reconciliation process cannot be carried out bilaterally. This question cannot be handled though the government's democratization packages alone. Alevis too should shoulder their share of the responsibility. The first step is to get rid of the secularism that maintains a tight grip on them.