LAİKLİK VE İSLAMCILIK

Although the harms of inconsistency are generally less severe than many other negative traits, it nonetheless constitutes an important measure for evaluating a person's character. The more inconsistent a person is, the weaker we judge their character to be. Traits such as saying one thing and doing the opposite, or doing something that we criticise in others or something similar, keep us at a distance from that person. We distance ourselves from such people because their unpredictable actions and words can jeopardise our standing and reputation in society. Yet are we aware that, in political terms, we are almost entirely inconsistent as a society?

Atatürk Paradoksu

Approximately three years ago, I investigated part of this inconsistency by discovering the Atatürk Paradox in political science. When opposing groups exist within a society, they construct part of their identity around not being like the other group. That is, if there is a right-wing current, its identity includes not only its own core ideas but also being non-left-wing. Since the same applies to the left, a competition for prestige develops between these two currents. To keep their intellectual structure alive, both currents strive to achieve normative superiority over their opposition. In this competition, both sides try to improve themselves. If one side begins to gain a clear advantage over the other, competitive pressure diminishes, because one group has acquired sufficient prestige within society compared to its opposing group. As competitive pressure decreases, both the development pace of that group slows and its commitment to its own normative core weakens. As a result, having achieved a certain social prestige in this ideological competition, the enthusiasm to widen the gap further gradually disappears. This time, the opposing group—which has moved away from its fundamental principles—is rapidly approached and eventually overtaken by the rival group, which clings more fiercely to its core principles. However much the opposition group lags in prestige, it becomes equally conservative towards its own identity and ideas. The Atatürk Paradox explains precisely this: as the social prestige gap between two groups widens, the stronger group deviates from and regresses in its fundamental principles, while simultaneously the weaker group clings more tightly to its core principles and strives to develop. Of course, here we took right-wing and left-wing currents as examples, but we can observe this in any competitive context: in sport, in the workplace, and of course in political parties. The name of the Atatürk Paradox itself stems from the inconsistency of the Republican People's Party and the Justice and Development Party, which increasingly fiercely defends its own interests against it.

Liberalizmin Rolü

Secularist thought and Anatolian culture have always formed the unshakeable foundation of our nation's political structure throughout the history of the Republic. However, in recent years, significant regressions have occurred under these principles. The clearest indicator of this is capitalism's growing importance in our daily lives and the resulting horrifying superficiality spreading through society. The legitimisation in the media of content contrary to the foundations of Turkish culture is a very clear part of this. Systems that negatively affect our understanding of family and friendship are being presented, and society, accepting the modernity label attached to them, is corrupting our culture. Similarly, there is a different trend spreading in our country. While physical transformation surgeries hold excessive importance in our society, we are spending our capacity for intellectual production on superficial goals instead of our nation's development. In addition, the same thing is happening economically. As businesspeople focused on production and innovation decline, the number of those seeking quick profit increases. This is negatively affecting society. Purchasing power is now applying consumption pressure rather than invention pressure, and our economic strength is being directed towards that.

All of this stems from the rootedness of unbounded capitalism in Turkish society, coupled with secular segments' normative approval of such developments. The idea that once separated religion and state affairs from each other, and the aims of joining the world community and establishing material and spiritual strength and peaceful balance, have now become superficial lifestyles. We became unable to distinguish good from evil. In other words, a political thought we applied to develop our society was reduced to unbounded hedonism. The explanation for this is that this approach was not merely a technical matter. Normative dimensions transcending the technical aspect were also added, and these increasingly tended towards liberalisation. In the meantime, our customary structures began to suffer blows. Rather than achieving certain political goals, hedonism began to be added to the idea of secularism, and a new normative framework was constructed around these values. Within this framework there is no place for restrictive or customary thought structures, and those advocating such ideas with this newly formed personality had begun to pursue unboundedness by othering other communities. The reason is explained in the Atatürk Paradox. The economic and social success of secularism and liberalism had secured the standing of those advocating such ideas in society to such a degree that keeping pace with the same rate of development no longer appealed to them, and this caused the decline of this segment. At the same time, existing thoughts departed from their core and were applied excessively and used to other communities.

İslamcılığın Rolü

Since the founding of our Republic, religious currents have attempted to gain a foothold in Turkish politics, yet they have consistently been suppressed. Although they represent only a limited constituency, the political approaches and objectives of these currents are highly circumscribed, and their sustainability must be regarded as insufficient within the context of the political role that Turkish society aspires to. First, religion conflicts with work conducted on international political scales. For example, it is impossible to reconcile warfare, tax collection, interest transactions, or punishment measures with many religious frameworks. Second, political structures oriented toward religion tend to be restrictive in education and scientific development. Religious frameworks that presume to have answered many questions requiring continuous investigation treat the re-examination of those questions as a violation. This applies to many natural phenomena, but it also encompasses philosophical questions. If we do not continually develop ourselves beyond such thinking, scientific progress becomes first impossible and second risks dragging us down as a society. Closing off certain lines of thought leads to societal decline. Similarly, imposing research bans on certain conscious subjects also produces this regression. Religious political structures are primarily preoccupied with preserving their own normative order. In doing so, they not only use material resources inefficiently, but moreover the society's scientific and economic power becomes focused in only one direction, and this negatively affects social development.

Kişisel açıdan ise dini düzenler çok sabit ve güvenli yapılar olarak değerlendirmek gerek. Hem toplumsal hayattaki yerimizi belirliyorlar ve bu düzende doğru olarak belirlenen davranışlarımız için yol gösteriyorlar. Ayrıca daha anlaşılır şekilde büyük bir kitleye bir hayat amacı belirleyerek günlük hayatta önemli ölçüde manevi değer katmaktadır. Bunu önemseyerek dini ve Müslüman ülkelerinde İslamcı kesimler kendileri tecrübe ettikleri dinin bu yararlı etkilerini öne sürerek bunları siyasette uygulamayı çalışmışlardır. Fakat üstte belirlediğimiz kısıtlayıcı ve frenleyici boyutlar dini siyasi yapıları her zaman geriye attığı için ve aynı zamanda daha dünyevi düzenler daha verimli oldukları için, dini siyasete getirmek isteyen kesimler cumhuriyet tarihimizde başarısız olmuşlardır. Şimdi bu kesimler diğer siyasi topluluklara karşı geride kaldıkları için toplumun içerisinde bir itibar farkı hissetmektedirler. Atatürk Paradoks'u ele alarak bu itibar farkı geride kalan toplulukta bir gelişme isteği ve belli hırsı tetikler. Yani diğer topluluklardan hem ötekileştirildiği için, hem de kendi manevi inançlarını dünyevi bağlamda ilerletmek gittikçe zorlaştığı için, bu topluluk bu farkı kapatmak için yollar aramaktadır. Türkiye'de bunu çok açık bir şekilde dini siyaseti savunan kesimin güçlenmesinde gözetleyebiliyoruz. Liberal, yani serbest siyasi düşünce yapısı, yaygınlaşmasıyla İslamcı akımların buna karşı daha yoğunlaşmasıyla karşı karşıyız. Bu tabi ki daha fazla ötekileştirilmemek için verilen doğal bir tepki, ama Atatürk Paradoks'un çerçevesinde de toplumda önemsizleşmemek için ortaya çıkan bir davranış. Ve bu itibar açıklığı gitgide kapandı son senelerde. Serbest düşünen kesimler kendilerini geliştirmeyi bıraktıkları gibi, İslamcı kesimler yapısal açıdan gelişip toplumdaki itibar farkını kapatmak üzereler. Bu elbette ilerde tekrardan liberal kesimlerin gelişimini tetikleyecektir, ama bu noktaya gelebilmek için önce dini kesimler çok daha güçlü olmaları gerekiyor.

Yes, this can be seen as a vicious cycle, and the only thing that makes it possible is a situation arising from Turkish society seeing itself between these two worlds. Although I try to remain impartial, and I have attempted to emphasise this through this work, the division we observe in our country causes us to perceive this work itself as an attack on our own thinking in every way. Yet the subject being investigated here is how our society develops only through the competition of these two divided communities. Our aim should be to overcome this division and see each other as one Turkish society. We can only achieve this by setting aside our own concerns about reputation and focusing on the development of our Turkey. We cannot bring about the state that we all wish for our Turkey through either unlimited hedonism or restrictive religiosity. Only and solely, by developing our own abilities unconditionally and doing this hand in hand, by learning from each other's ideas.