BY HASAN BULENT KAHRAMAN
SABAH- Last weekend Turkey discussed the Kurdish issue and saw other developments. Alevis held a large demonstration in Ankara to voice their demands. Meanwhile, a declaration signed by many people was published. Addressing Turkey's Council of State and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the declaration calls for the elimination of obligatory religion courses from school curriculums. Such demands recently made by Alevis in terms of their cultural identities show that we'll see more discussion of such issues in the months to come. This January, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) met with Alevis as part of the Fast of Muharram, but later the Alevis said the AKP didn't have what they wanted.
Both the longstanding Kurdish issue and the developing Alevi issue have built their cases on the concept of democratic rights. Here democratic rights clearly means accepting the right of cultural identity. In other words, as the cultural positions defined by the nation-state when state policies were first formulated seem to fall short in the era of the 'soft' nation-state, various sectors are now looking for ways to express their own characteristics related to identity. The abstract expression of their characteristics satisfies no one, and so naturally they want the ways and areas needed for that expression laid down. For example, the Alevis focus on a few key points.
In sum, the Alevis want to worship in line with their beliefs and for their children to be exempted from religion courses dominated by Sunni beliefs. Both of these should have been done long ago. Despite the failure to do this and national and international rulings on the issue of obligatory religion courses, the government has inexplicably dragged its feet on this. The government should have long ago removed obligatory religion courses from the curriculum. But it didn't. In addition, it shouldn't have limited itself to the obligatory courses. As I've been arguing, religion, and religious education and practices, should be left to communities.
We know how people might argue against this. They cite a basic principle of the republic, namely, the state's control over religion. Some people think that if the practice of religion is left to communities, our future would be anti-secular. At this point, we should look at France, where there are no obligatory religion courses, and religious education is out of the school's hands. The same system could be applied in Turkey without any harm. In addition, this would contribute to the recognition of cultural identities and expanding democratic rights. The practice of religion should be completely left up to communities, with the state confined to basic regulations. Arguing the opposite means the bureaucracy seeking to keep control of everything in Turkey, which is exactly what we're experiencing. A subtle and meaningful detail here is that religion suits all the ruling parties, though everybody complains about the bureaucracy dealing with religion. Then shouldn't we ask: Who are we really ruled by?