Tag: secularism

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1344] Of fret not of Abdullah Gul

Abdullah Gul is almost certain to be the next President of Turkey. Gul’s Islamist past however is causing great consternation among Turkish secularists. They had rallied impressive public dissent that ultimately failed in the face of democracy. The defeat has further caused the secularists distress. I however believe Turkish secularists are worrying too much and harping on ridiculous issues. They are several reasons why that is so.

First and foremost is Turkey’s eagerness to join the European Union. While there are opposition to Turkey’s accession into the regional grouping, there are those that would look forward to sit together with Turkey as equal in the EU. The fact that Turkey is a secular country is one of few factors that enable such support to exist. As long as Turkey aspires to become part of EU, there is a strong reason to believe that Gul, a firm EU supporter, will work to keep Turkey secular.

Gul himself has been instrumental in booting fundamentalists and attracting moderates, as mentioned by an article at The Economist:

Mr Gul says that, as president, he will reach out to all Turks and that he will remain loyal to the secular tenets of the constitution. His four years as foreign minister leave little room for doubt. He was the driving force behind the many reforms that persuaded European Union leaders to open long delayed membership talks with Turkey in 2005. And it was Mr Gul who engineered the defection of fellow moderates from the overtly Islamist Welfare Party which was bullied out of office by the generals in 1997. [Ready to take office. The Economist. August 21 2007]

This shows that Gul is flexible and accommodating. Furthermore, Gul has promised his critics that he will adhere to the tenets of Turkish secularism:

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has pledged to protect and strengthen the country’s secular principles if he succeeds in a fresh presidential bid. [Turkey’s Gul vows secular agenda. BBC News. August 14 2007]

While I do not subscribe to Turkish secularism due to its statism as well as illiberalness, that should be of some value and comfort to local secularists.

And then, there is issue surrounding the attire of Abdullah Gul’s wife. Turkish secularists are harping at the fact the she wears Islamic headscarf but surely, such issue is too silly to be a major reason why Gul should not be the President of Turkey. While Turkey does have a law against the wearing of such headscarf at civic spaces, it is not Gul himself that is wearing that headscarf. What the secularists are doing is really a logical fallacy: guilt by association. Most of all, I fail to see how his wife’s attire could affect his ability to function as the President of Turkey.

What the secularists should do now is to fully support Turkey’s accession into the EU. Through this, the secularists could hold AKP, the party which Gul is a member, at ransom.

And for many liberals like me, Turkish accession into EU is the ticket to liberalize Turkey away from its narrow nationalistic sentiment. AKP, despite being cited as an Islamist party, is already embarking into that direction. On top of that, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried hard to throw away its Islamist image, favoring a more centrist one instead. Under him, AKP has been concentrating on democratic and economic reform rather than on suffocating Islamist agenda.

In any case, AKP has marched forward farther towards liberalism than any secularist party in Turkey had. Therefore, if I were a Turk, I would be happy with AKP; that is especially so with a healthly economy.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1191] Of Turkish secularism

There are those that point Turkey as an example of secularism. While secular, Turkey is not my ideal secular state. Turkey, as well as France, has taken secularism beyond what is required, turning the state hostile to religion whereas it is sufficient to be neutral instead. Religion is matter of personal choice and individuals must be able profess their conviction as long as such activity does not prevent others from living freely. The state should not have a say in individual’s belief.

One of the most controversial issues that concern secularism in Turkey is the Islamic headscarf. Muslim women are prevented from wearing headscarf at public institutions such as schools and the parliament. Back in May 1999, there was a dispute between a Muslim woman MP that wore a headscarf and many secularists in the Turkish parliament:

The first session of the newly-elected Turkish parliament has broken up in turmoil after a woman MP arrived for the swearing-in ceremony wearing an Islamic-style headscarf.

The newly elected MP Merve Kavakci, of the pro-Islamist Virture Party, refused demands to leave the chamber. Caretaker prime minister Bulent Ecevit accused her of violating the basic principles of the secular Turkish Republic. [Headscarf row in Turkey parliament. BBC. May 3 1999]

I am unsure what exactly is the basic principle of secular Turkish Republic but I am sure that the MP was prevented from exercising her individual right. Her religious freedom was threatened and that, to me, is unacceptable.

Farther into the past, Islam as a religion was suppressed to an extent that it is difficult to believe that Turkey was once the center of the Islamic world. The call to prayer was forced by the state to be sung in Turkish instead of Arabic, as it has been traditionally done all around the world. Worse, religious properties were confiscated by the state; a violation of private property. Restriction placed on Islam in Turkey was almost very authoritarian and I find it repulsive. As time progressed fortunately, the Turkish state has found ways to respect religious freedom better though there are spaces for improvement still.

Perhaps, in Turkey, the meaning of secularism goes far beyond simple separation between religion and the state. As I take it, or rather, the secularism I have in my mind is the one that simply separates public policies and religion, instead of pushing religion rudely into an dark, empty box, infringing religious freedom.

Secularism in no way should infringe any individual liberty. Let me get this straight — individual freewill sit on higher plane to secularism. Secularism is a only tool — useful nonetheless — in promoting liberty.

As one may be overzealous in pursuing religious goals, one may be overzealous in pursuing secular goals; so overzealous that one forgets that secularism is the absence of religion in the workings of the state and the absence of the state in religious matter. Turkish secularism, only fulfills the former rule but fails to satisfy the second requirement. The state has no business in regulating religion, be it in favor or against. It is worth reiterating that secular state is merely neutral of religion.

Repeat what I have written again, Turkish secularism fails to respect liberty. This is a reason why whenever somebody cites Turkey as a secular state, I am rather reluctant to accept such example. A better example would be something like Canada, United Kingdom or the United States when all individuals are free to practice their faith in public, while the state is free from religious influence and religions from the state.

But, when I read the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, a candidate for the next President of the Turkish Republic made the following statements…:

Mr Gul insisted that “the president must be loyal to secular principles”, adding: “If I am elected I will act accordingly”.

Both Mr Erdogan and Mr Gul have wives who wear the Islamic headscarf – a highly divisive issue in Turkey.

Mr Gul defended the headscarf choice on Tuesday, saying “these are individual preferences and everybody should respect them”. [Turkey ‘must have secular leader’. BBC. April 24 2007]

…I cannot help but nod in approval.

I seek a secular state that respect individual liberty; a liberal state above anything else. Notwithstanding that, that particular statement by Mr. Gul, Turkish secularism, in its current and past forms, does not my profile and thus, I cannot give it full support. What I can give is mere sympathy for the lesser devil for I do not believe an Islamist state would respect liberty more than the status quo.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1165] Of tale of two courts: common denominator

I am in the opinion that the trend of the strengthening role of religion in Malaysia reaches a new level after the civil court directed a Hindu to seek redress in the sharia court. For the past several months, the civil court has delegated many cases to the sharia court whereas the civil court should have deliberated on it instead. From a layperson’s point of view, this action increasingly widens the scope and the power of the sharia court over all Malaysians. This creates great controversies and indeed, it is another in a series of cases which test the boundary of the civil and sharia law.

This is a very worrying trend. Having the executive branch of the government enforcing religious rule in one thing, having the judiciary trading off civil liberties for religious conservative value is quite another. The judiciary is supposed to be the bulwark against the religious conservatives. When the bulwark starts to fail, the perfect analogy would be when the dykes of the Netherlands start to leak. The consequence of the leak needs no explanation.

In Malaysia right now, more than ever, we need a little boy to plug his little finger into a tiny hole, stopping the leak. This is because we as Malaysians have achieved so much since we last formed a federation in 1963. If the dyke fails, we have too much to lose.

As a libertarian, the legitimacy of the sharia court is only possible through the consent of individuals being judged by such court. I for instance only accept any sharia court ruling on me if I assent to be judged by the court — indeed by the sharia law — in the first place.

For certain reasons in this country, Muslims have two courts in this country; those courts are civil and sharia. While I have issues of being judged in the sharia court, the bigger issue is when there is an overlap between civil and sharia laws. In particular, this occurs when Muslims and non-Muslims’ interests collide.

When such event happens, in order to resolve the dispute as civil as possible, all sides will have to agree upon on whom should be the arbitrator. When there are more than one kind of courts and each side preferring one court or the other with such preference never coincides, there must be a common denominator that everybody could or must fall back to settle the original dispute. In the case of two courts, the common denominator is the civil court.

Why the civil court is the common denominator?

I like think the reason is the obvious. While the sharia law in Malaysia in theory governs certain aspects over Muslims (regardless of what I think), the civil law governs all. It is through this reasoning why the civil court is the common denominator. Again as a libertarian, this common denominator argument is valid to all, regardless of religious belief.

If we refuse to have a common denominator, to accept the civil law as the common denominator, perhaps it is better for us to quit trying to embrace each other, to live and let live, to live separately, peacefully.

Categories
Education Society

[1006] Of a suggestion to increase the appeal of national schools

The Malaysian government is committed towards the national school system. From time to time, the current government reminds us of that; today, the Prime Minister reiterates his support for the system:

KUALA LUMPUR: National schools will become the schools of choice again, according to the Prime Minister.

Lamenting their decline yesterday, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said: “Everything is being done to make the schools attractive to all the races.”

Abdullah said the government had realised that national schools played an important role in nation building and bringing the various races together.

I have a suggestion, out of few, on how to make it a system of choice of many Malaysians.

Bring religion, in most cases Islam as far as national schools are concerned, to where to belong — as equal among many other courses.

When I was a students within the national school system, I loathe the very idea that religion was being forced upon me. I dislike that fact that because I’m a Muslim, I had to do things that are deemed as Islamic by my religious teachers. I’m sure some girls disagree to being forced to wear headscarf at school, just because they’re Muslims.

For me personally, the reason I attend school is to learn arts, humanities and sciences, not to have my personal life and belief dictated upon by strangers.

Further, I believe all the stress on Islam makes believers of other religions, atheists, agnostics and even Muslims that are uninterested in religious conservatives’ wet dream alike feel alienated. Surely, that doesn’t increase the appeal of national schools to many.