The 5th Workshop in the Alevi Opening

The fifth of the workshops, within the framework of the program the government has undertaken to resolve the problems of Alevis, was held last Wednesday. In the workshop held this time with journalists thought to be concerned with the subject, the ways Alevism is represented in the media and the media-related dimensions of the problem were discussed.

It is a fact that journalists are by no means negligible actors of politics in contemporary democracies. It seems we will become more and more accustomed to these actors, whose influence as a force in contemporary democracies is indisputable, being invited to, or taking part in, the political decision-making process in this way.

Just before the last workshop, on 8 November, a rally was held in Bakırköy with the participation of various Alevi associations. At the rally, where the criticism was made that the government was stringing Alevis along through workshops, demands for "equal citizenship against discrimination" were voiced in harsh terms.

As the government's opening efforts concerning Alevism continue, the increasing radicalization of organized Alevi structures and their further raising of the dose of opposition are striking enough to create a need for explanation. Compared with the periods when there was no effort at understanding or intention of solving, what does this hasty expectation of an answer signify in an environment where the solution is moving increasingly toward concrete steps? Whereas the workshop activity is continuing in line with the timetable fixed from the beginning. As the workshops go on, it emerges that a very important part of the issues put forward as Alevi demands reflect the demands not of all Alevis but only of certain segments, so in fact some of the possible regulations to be made on this subject are more likely to create more problems than they solve.

Even so, it can be said that this haste rests on a problem of trust. The Alevi Report that the Strategic Thought Institute (SDE) prepared based on a survey and announced to the public on 9 November also contains interesting data reflecting this situation. About 60 percent of the Alevi respondents said that what has been done within the framework of the Alevi opening is an effort to Sunnify Alevis, and only about 22 percent said they found it positive. Evidently what has been done so far on the Alevi opening has not created trust toward the government in the Alevi segment.

According to the same report, only 10 percent of Alevis say that there is a political party that represents them, so that the proportion of those saying no party, including the ÇHP, represents them reaches the 90s, yet in terms of general voter behavior it is understood that almost 75 percent of them do not easily give up voting for the CHP. In this case, the AK Parti's embarking on the Alevi opening with an expectation of votes does not in fact look politically rational at all.

Even so, insisting on the Alevi opening has an importance that cannot be given up for raising the level of democratization. Because the Alevi issue is one of the most important issues that can be decisive in determining and drawing the limits of the quality of democracy and freedom of religion in Turkey. The opening Turkey needs lies essentially in politics being able to reach beyond merely answering its own base.

The visit of President Abdullah Gül to Tunceli shortly before the workshop, the messages he gave during this visit and especially his visit to a cemevi were perceived precisely in this context as an important gesture expressing a participation in the process as supra-political as the government's.

While we are at it, it is necessary to draw attention to the strangeness of some comments made because Gül took off his shoes during the visit. That the Alevi opinion leaders who interpreted this gesture of Gül as a sign that he had accepted the Cemevi as a house of worship and said they were positively affected by it did not themselves take off their shoes during the same visit also drew attention. Not the gesture of taking off shoes but, in my view, this comment itself was the most noteworthy detail of the visit. This comment in fact showed how symbolic an issue the concept of "house of worship" has become for Alevism and how vague its content is. The state is asked to regard cemevis as houses of worship, but as to what a house of worship is or what it requires, let alone a definition, there is not even a settled image yet.

The state of course cannot decide whether a place is a house of worship. Those who will decide this are those who attend it and who know the nature of the worship or ritual they perform there. However, one must see that the problem in demanding that the Cemevi be mentioned alongside the Mosque, the Church and the Synagogue is, as is often voiced, not that the Cemevi is being established as an alternative to the Mosque but, on the contrary, the risk of Alevism being perceived as a religion separate from Islam, which, it is also known, a great majority of Alevis do not share.

Although, as also recorded in the SDE's Alevi Report, the expectation that Alevis unite among themselves and contribute to the opening with a single voice is also misplaced; it is clearly seen that this expectation of "being united" is an injustice to Alevis, because there is no answer as to why this principle of unity, which is expected of no religious group or segment, should be expected of Alevis.