Just before the month of Ramadan, a "secularism declaration" was published. The published text contained every form of expression oriented toward othering, hostilization and polarization, a continuation of the "reactionary secularist" mentality. There is no obstacle preventing those who published this declaration from doing whatever they wish in their social and individual lives in the public sphere. Nor is there any "religious pressure" threatening the lifestyles of those who signed the declaration.
Secularism has not regressed in Türkiye. But the exclusionary, Jacobin understanding of secularism has receded. The end of uniformist practices in the public sphere, the lifting of restrictions on the headscarf, and the normalization of religious education do not constitute a regression of secularism, as some would have it. This is the democratization of a genuine understanding of secularism.
What truly troubles those who initiated the secularism debate is not so much defending secularism, but rather the dismantling of the oppressive hegemony they had established over religious and conservative segments of society. In truth, they cannot tolerate the lifting of pressure on the broad conservative masses. They are furiously angry at the end of their privileges and at being equalized with conservative religious segments. They cannot get over this trauma of equalization. These circles long for the days when secularism was used as a tool of oppression and when they themselves were privileged. This is what underlies all their delirious nostalgia for the 1990s.
The circles supporting this declaration advocate concepts like freedom, justice and respect for lifestyles only for themselves. They have no appetite for the democratization of the political sphere, pluralism or the narrowing of the privileged classes' domains of privilege.
While on the one hand claiming that their lifestyles are under threat, they readily advocate the restriction of others' freedoms. For instance, while expressing concern that restrictions might be imposed on their own lifestyles, they oppose working in government with a headscarf, even in this era.
These circles had no tolerance not just for working in government, but even for receiving an education while wearing a headscarf. They still don't. Consequently, they love prohibitionism. If it is prohibitionist in practice, that is what "real secularism" means to them.
The purpose behind their launching of the secularism debate is political. They have never, from the past to the present, liked it when parties supported by nationalist, conservative and religious segments come to power. This is the best learned method of fighting against them. The regime and secularism debate is functional for them in this sense. In past Ramadan months as well, they always expressed these reactions with similar perspectives and hate speech. Therefore, there has been continuity for a very long time. There is nothing new. They find a way to display their anger toward conservative circles.
For example, their analysis regarding the Democrat Party (DP) government in the second half of the 1950s and former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, and his supporters goes like this: "Radio was used as the primary instrument of this exploitation. For 30 days, a program featuring the Quran, the call to prayer, and the reed flute was broadcast on the microphone. Mawlid ceremonies were transmitted from mosques. Some of these were mawlids organized by one or another branch of the DP. Naturally, once the state itself adopted this path and the radio loudspeaker was turned into a minaret loudspeaker, every bigot there went wild."
In other words, the aim is not to defend genuine secularism.
