Abdullah Gül Approves Constitutional Amendments
Turkey’s President Abdullah Gül has approved the constitutional amendment package that, among other things, makes it legal for female student to wear a headscarf in universities and high schools. It is a controversial, yet unsurprising, move. Turkey’s strict secularists strongly oppose the amendment and have protested against it for weeks.
Women who wear the türban have, at the same time, protested against it as well in so far that they say that the türban should be allowed everywhere. The türban is a headscarf that covers more. The first image below is of a woman wearing a headscarf, the second image is of a woman wearing a türban (which is considered to be a political sign of fundamentalists):
The last one worn en masse:
The former party of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the CHP, has decided to go to court. They want the Supreme Court to strike the law down, because it’s in breach with Kemalist ideology and, more precisely, laicism. Kemalists, meanwhile, aren’t quite willing to accept the changes either, fearing that it’s the first step in a long awaited (and feared) Islamization process. They’ll protest against it but, as of yet, the main bulwark of secularism, the army, isn’t willing to go further than that. I realize that many people think that whenever something like this happens, Kemalists want the army to act, but the reality of the matter is that most Kemalists I know, all of them actually, don’t want the army to stop the AKP; they want the people to stop Erdogan and co.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I wonder if the new law requires part of the hair to be uncovered (as shown in your article’s first picture). From what I have read so far, it does not. The only "limitations" seems to be that it has to be knotted under the chin, and veiling the face is also excluded. So what the türban wearers want is the ban to be removed also for schools, public servants etc.
The problem is that those türban women have been brainwashed into dogma ("wear türban or you go to hell") so much that they do not see the obviously solution anymore: fight their hubands/fathers/borthers to allow them to uncover. Instead, they blame the evil state who is apparently excluding them. I wish they would understand that they are not excluded as persons, but that they exclude themselves through their dress. That is quite a difference. But these women identify with the türban so much that they think of it as part of their personality. As for the first picture, a traditional headscarf like that seems to be worn mostly by older and rural women.
As for Kemalists, I think they would prefer to stop reislamization through mass protests, and if that is not enough, through court orders. I do not think a military putsch is a popular option, but many Kemalists would rather have one than an "Islamic Republic".
The AKP has had permitting the headscarf in government buildings and schools as part of its platform for the past two elections. Nobody can say that the Turkish people didn’t know that when they voted. (At most, you might be able to say that they regarded it as a price worth paying for the economic results that they have seen.)
So arguing that people should rise up in protest at this point seems a bit like saying "The voters were too blind to understand what they were voting for. And so they should ask for a re-run of the last election on the grounds that the party in power is moving to do exactly what they advocated in their platform." Kind of hard to justify. At this point, the most that might, might be argued is for a referendum on the specific issue. I don’t know if Turkey has a provision for referendums, but I don’t really see any other option that makes sense for the Kemalists. Unless they think that they would lose such a referendum.
Note that this is entirely separate from arguing that the headscarf should be permitted or banned. It’s entirely about what a government should be allowed to do if they have a popular mandate.
Wj, constitutional amendments may be –and may have to be– taken to referendum under certain conditions. You’re right about AKP’s straight pre-election position on the issue. Where we are today is a sign of our continued division.
Also, before a referendum, there is a possibility that the constitutional court will speak on the substance of the amendment. The court is normally constrained to examine amendments on procedural grounds only. But recently, I understand, they signalled that they may be inclined to look at the substance of this one. The underlying argument (which is not spelled out by the court) seems to be that the court has to do that for amendments that relate to the leading articles of the constitution which are fundamental, and cannot themselves be amended or otherwise altered. So, if an amendment proposal is brought to court for being in contradiction with these leading articles, then the court might examine and rule on the substance of the matter.