Abolishing National Security classes on the road to the democratic opening

While the decision reached in the Hrant Dink case after the Uludere tragedy had for about a month fed the impression that nothing in Turkey had changed, two decisions that came one after the other and quietly (the abolition of the National Security courses in high schools and the new regulation on how the 19 May ceremonies are held) have probably created serious confusion in some people.

Moreover, there are developments that disprove these impressions both in the course of the Dink case and in the investigation of the Uludere incident. Even the fact that the two have been put in the same basket shows that the Uludere incident has been accepted as a much more complicated "assassination" than assumed. Indeed, the attempts of those who plan and stage such a complicated assassination to divert attention by directing everyone toward the "suspects" that first come to mind are not being ignored in any way either. After such a sensational experience of unsolved murders, we must by now have learned to view with suspicion the campaigns that, in the first moments of such assassinations, point out that both the perpetrators and all the dimensions are very obvious and insistently direct attention toward the usual suspects.

Seen from this angle, the assessment that nothing has changed on account of both incidents is a hasty decision. True, one must appreciate that such assessments often function as an encouraging or mobilizing pressure on the government. But it must also be appreciated that, if the government had no intention toward democratization or establishing the rule of law, as we have seen in earlier examples of governments, such criticisms would not have much effect. That is why one must not overlook that having come to a stage where criticism produces results today is the result not only of a success of the criticisms but also of the present political will's choice in this direction.

Truthfully, until now there was no demand, criticism or opposition voiced loudly with regard to either the 19 May ceremonies or the National Security courses. As for the first, let us not deny the movement "Rescuing 19 May from the Stadiums" that Genç Siviller (Young Civilians) have launched for quite some time; they brought the subject to the agenda with very nice, stylish actions, but it never turned into a demand that could create pressure on the government. As for the second, we can cite the report titled "The Education System in the Grip of the Official Ideology" by Öğretmen-Sen General Chairman Yusuf Tanrıverdi, about 6 years ago. Because of this report, which also touched on the National Security courses and our oath, Tanrıverdi was tried for a long time and his association came to the brink of closure. Yet again no widespread opposition to the National Security courses developed. However, when these courses were abolished, even all democratic circles suddenly agreed on how important, even overdue, a decision this was in terms of removing the effects of militarism.

Yet opposition to religion courses has a much greater prevalence, and there is serious pressure from influential circles for the abolition of religion courses. But not only is the government in no hurry about this, it is not even clear yet what it will do about it.

This is the government's attitude. It of course deserves separate analyses and criticisms. However, should one not ask here why such radical criticisms directed at religion courses have until now been withheld from the National Security courses, the history of the revolution, and indeed all history courses in general? In fact, almost all National Education courses have an extremely ideological content. Our children are given an extremely surreal perception of history. This surrealism is accompanied by our mythological narratives of "our superiority" over other nations. In addition, plenty of discourse of "self-admiration" and "belittling others," about how "bad," "treacherous," "inferior" other nations are, has been poured into the courses.

Do you not also find it significant that, although all these courses are so "compulsory" that it would not even occur to anyone to debate them and have not until now been the subject of serious criticism, all the arrows of criticism have been directed at religious culture courses?

Let it not be misunderstood, I have not given up my view that a course given as "compulsory" cannot be a course that Muslims can accept anyway. Islam cannot be imposed on anyone or on anyone's child against their will. That is why, in the face of the possibility of religious culture courses having turned into this, it is unthinkable for someone with Islamic sensitivities to accept this with peace of mind, let alone defend it. With such a course system, Islamic ethics cannot be instilled in anyone either. Even the manner in which the course is given violates from the outset the most fundamental principle of Islamic ethics: There is no compulsion in religion. Compulsion is the greatest immorality. There is no doubt about that. It is clear that the present situation deserves criticism, but it should be examined why the other courses, though no less deserving of criticism or opposition because of the personality degeneration and chauvinism they cause, have until now remained exempt from this opposition.

Moreover, does the sudden tackling of this subject when it was not on the agenda indicate that the government does not much need the pressure of intellectuals or public opinion in the process of democratization and civilianization? If so, is that a good thing?

At the very least it is promising in terms of seeing that the democratization process is advancing. Have no doubt, these decisions are great, beneficial steps that could easily be written into the democratic opening program.