A "common language of negotiation" in the Alevi opening

An important step was taken last week on the opening related to Alevism that the AK Parti has promised since the day it came to power. This step was the result of the government's searches for where it could begin on this subject reaching a certain maturity. These searches accelerated months ago when Dr. Necdet Subaşı of Muğla University took on the role of coordinator for the openings that could be made.

Subaşı's selection for this job should be read as a sign sufficiently showing the government's seriousness on this matter, because Subaşı is someone with a personality high in empathy that inspires trust in Alevi circles as well, and with intellectual depth. His study on Alevi Modernization is a reference for people interested in the subject. Since he can represent the government's most sincere face in conducting relations with Alevis, he is very likely to find ways of overcoming the obstacles that make it difficult for the parties to understand one another.

Of the five workshops planned in Ankara to bring together people from different segments each seen as concerned with the Alevi question in one way or another, the first was held with Alevi notables. The following workshops are planned to be held with academics who do work on Alevism. As a result of all this, a sixth and final workshop will bring out the possible horizon for the government's opening.

Although the critical and distant attitude of some of the Alevis who attended the meeting has not entirely disappeared, it must be noted that a very positive atmosphere has formed compared with the contacts made so far. Even if the government's expectation from this opening is Alevi votes, this is not a fault; nothing is as legitimate as a political party taking certain steps in hope of votes. But, truly, it would be unjust to tie the Alevi opening only to an expectation of votes. In fact, the votes such an opening could bring are very limited, and perhaps no more than the votes that could flee because of discomfort with this opening.

Nevertheless, taking on this opening should be seen as related to harboring a certain concern for consistency on democratic standards. The AK Parti has to make such openings in order to maintain its consistency in the democratic ideals it believes in and claims.

On the other hand, the following words Subaşı said in expressing his expectations of the workshops should be underlined: "For Alevis and the state to be able to talk among themselves, a language of negotiation must be developed so that their mutual problems can be resolved."

A language of negotiation needs to be developed not only between the state and Alevis, but also so that Alevis and Sunnis, even different Alevi segments among themselves, can talk.

The expression "a common language of negotiation" is, in my opinion, a very apt goal that Subaşı hopes will emerge as a result of these workshops. Indeed, one of the problems that stands out most in all the meetings concerning Alevis is that a common language cannot be settled on. It is as if the parties come together not to understand one another but, as it were, not to understand, to express their reactions and feelings to one another. The state, for its part, has until now not recognized an identity, segment or party called Alevi at all.

On the other hand, when communities are on their own, their ways of expressing themselves remain stuck in an excessively narrow communitarian framework. Everyone of course has the right to express their own demands, but those who demand something for themselves may not even pay attention to whether this violates the spheres of freedom of others.

Meetings also help a very positive line of understanding develop on this matter. What Doğan Bermek said on Gürkan Zengin's program on ATV against those who put forward the abolition of the Diyanet or of religion classes as "the Alevis' demand" was a typical example of this:

"While saying let us overcome our own problem, let us take our own rights, we do not have the right to create problems for others or to demand that others' rights and freedoms be reduced. If Sunnis are happy with the Diyanet, let them continue with it."

Aren't these words a very beautiful example of the formation of a language of negotiation, don't you think? The Diyanet is of course not flawless. It can be criticized in many respects, from its existence within a secular structure to the way it actually functions, but it is impossible to understand why Alevis constantly stipulate its abolition as a starting point for the solution of their own problems.

Moreover, as Prof. İzzettin Doğan said on the same program, who could be the addressee of such a demand? Which politician could dare enter a subject like abolishing the Diyanet? What would become of the party that dared, in the political marketplace? And what does its abolition have to do with the solution of the Alevi question?

In my view, Doğan's questions are the questions that have so far seen this problem most accurately from the window of the Alevi question. These questions give birth to other questions, and their answers require other pieces.