The Islam and secularism debate in the Arab Spring

Prime Minister Erdoğan's visit to the Arab Spring countries witnessed striking scenes and events at every stop. This trip made clearer how symbolic a meaning Turkey, in the person of Erdoğan, has in this spring climate.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the first move that triggered the inevitable departure of the old leaders in the revolutionary regions was Erdoğan's protest against Peres at Davos in January 2009, or, as Nuh Yılmaz put it (September 18, Star, Açık Görüş), that the Arab Spring began at Davos. The closeness between the language of the warm welcome Erdoğan received from the youths who made the revolution during his trip and the language of Tahrir Squares clearly showed this.

The panic displayed by Sarkozy and Cameron as they rushed to Libya in haste, one day apart, merely so as not to let Erdoğan snatch the title of the first leader to go to Libya, really only put them in comical situations. But the comical situation they fell into is also an indicator of the initiative Turkey has gained in these regions. That they were willing to risk falling into this comical situation in the face of this initiative can only be an expression of their helplessness.

The historical importance of Erdoğan's North Africa trip was not limited to the context of Turkey's integration and rapprochement with the region. Through the statement Erdoğan made in Egypt about secularism and the comments he made on it afterwards in Tunisia and Libya, he started a debate that will have historical effects in terms of Islamic political theory, Turkey's definition of secularism, or the region's quest for a system.

First of all, it is possible to regard this speech as a communication accident in Egypt, a country that was attentive to something called the "Turkish model" and where sympathy for Erdoğan's person is almost the country's only current point of consensus. Frankly, when I first heard the speech, I made assessments in this direction on TV programs I took part in. Because perhaps the only thing the Arab Spring countries interested in the Turkish model will not take from Turkey is secularism. Whether in its Western sense or in its application in Turkey, it has nothing to promise the Arab peoples. As far as freedom of religion, conscience and expression is concerned, they believe that Islamic law has guaranteed far more of this than any secular regime.

In Egypt at present, there is a complete consensus among nearly all the remaining parties against an initiative by liberal and Coptic circles to change the articles that have been in the constitution since 1923 stating that "the religion of the state is Islam, its language Arabic, and one of the sources of legislation the Qur'an."

Of the 32 parties that came together in early July (2011) to address this issue, 28 produced a text of complete consensus on not touching these articles. This attitude toward those who started this debate created, with one or two exceptions, a point of complete consensus among all parties that appear to oppose one another.

On an issue where society has this level of sensitivity, the Prime Minister's words on secularism may in a sense have created disappointment. Almost everyone who attached great importance to being seen with the Prime Minister did not hesitate to show their reaction when it came to this. The Brotherhood, for instance, made an official statement that went nearly as far as accusing the Prime Minister of interfering in Egypt's internal affairs.

It is not possible to think that Erdoğan did not know what kind of audience his words on secularism addressed. How and why might the Prime Minister have taken the risk of placing a trip that was proceeding extremely successfully, and that would make European leaders burst with envy at its efficiency, within the parentheses of these words?

A comment by the esteemed academic Dr. Levent Baştürk of Wisdom-net, which I came across somewhere, is an explanation worth considering regarding the Prime Minister's choice. Baştürk says:

"It is wrong to evaluate Erdoğan's thoughts on 'secularism' expressed in Egypt only by looking at the words spoken. In a country that is moving from a dictatorship to a government with free elections, and where some Islamist parties are openly inspired by the AK Parti, the Prime Minister's emphasis on secularism is an attempt to neutralize the 'Islamism and enmity to secularism' propaganda that has been warmed up in the Israeli press for several days and is being prepared for serving to the Western media as well.

Erdoğan's words on secularism should also be considered in parallel with the discourse he voiced in Egypt that Turkey is 'the biggest democracy in the region.' In fact this is a challenge to Israel not only in the political and military field but also at the discursive level, an attempt to take from its hands the privilege of being 'the only democracy in the region.'"

Baştürk's explanation is truly noteworthy, but on the other hand this debate has also started a serious "Islam and secularism" debate.

First of all, whatever he may have aimed at, it is quite clear that the secularism the Prime Minister pointed to is not the secularism Turkey has followed until now. On the other hand, as the Egyptian renowned thinker Fehmi Huveydi said in his piece published in yesterday's Star newspaper, Erdoğan himself is by no means a leader produced by a secularism of this kind or that, but rather a leader who emerged perhaps despite that secularism, but thanks to democracy.

The secularism the Prime Minister pointed to in his speech is a secularism defined by himself, but this secularism, too, does not yet have a successful application in Turkey that does not disturb religious people. A secularism formulated by the Prime Minister that every segment, Muslims included, can accept for Turkey is as yet only a project. A definition of secularism based on a Muslim's full freedom of religion and conscience and on the principle of neutrality in disputes among religions could be an original model of Turkey under Erdoğan's leadership and could go down in history as a contribution to the theory of secularism.

It is possible to regard and discuss this as a kind of initiative triggering ijtihad for Muslim political theory as well. When the Prime Minister says "If it is contrary to Islam, convince me," he also shows that he is aware of the historical and theoretical debate his words will start.

Since these words will have no effect in the Arab Spring countries, which can have no intention of accepting secularism in any form, the addressee of the secularism debate is evidently Turkish and Western public opinion.

That a speech addressing Turkish and Western public opinion was made not from Turkey or a Western country but, despite the risk and cost involved, from Cairo has a separate importance and effect. That is another calculation that will carry more debate.