On Alevism: "Opening the doors: a solution on the basis of friendship"

In the first days of the month of Ramazan we were in Tunceli on the occasion of a panel organized for the screening of the Alevism and Bektashism documentary at Munzur University. The producer and director of the project of the Boğaziçi Global Relations Association is Baran Mayda, the energetic organizer of the International Siirt and Bingöl Short Film Festivals. The documentary deals with the transformations that the state discourse and policies on Alevism in Turkey have gone through in the last 20 years and the situation we have arrived at. The documentary, which presents this history and sociology, was in effect being offered for the witness of those who know the matter, the academics and students of Munzur University in Tunceli.

I had last visited Tunceli 8 years ago. In the 8 years that have passed, it is immediately possible to see the distance Munzur University has covered. The university, which has covered considerable distance since the day it was founded, continues its development today as a full-fledged university with its beautiful campus, which houses 8 faculties, 3 vocational schools, the Institute of Educational Sciences and 6 departments directly attached to the rectorate. Of course, besides all this physical development, the university's connections and contributions to the national and international university network show a parallel development. Like all Anatolian universities, it is a matter of their transferring to the universal pool of knowledge the data they obtain through the scientific excavations they make into the history, culture, folklore and cultural and material heritage of the city in which they are located. This must be one of the places that those curious about what is being done on Alevism neglect to look at. Besides the studies on Alevism at all the other universities, Munzur and, for example, Hacıbektaş Universities have the possibility of advancing toward being specialized universities in this field.

We took part in the panel, held under the moderation of the Rector of Bingöl University Prof. Dr. İbrahim Çapak, together with Munzur University's Prof. Dr. Kenan Peker and the Chairman of the Board of the Boğaziçi Global Relations Association, Ceyhan Aksoy. The title of the panel had been set as "Opening the doors: A solution on the basis of friendship." In fact this was a very good summary of the policies pursued in Turkey on Alevism in the last 20 years.

As was also touched upon in the documentary, in the last 20 years there has for the first time been a recognition of Alevism by state discourse in Turkey. Before that, the Alevis were not neglected and denied by the "Sunni State" as is supposed. The state that neglected and denied Alevism had neither Sunnism nor Alevism in question. The target of the closure of the tekkes and zaviyes and of the style of secularism adopted was every kind of religiosity. The society that was wished to be reached in the direction of this target was likewise, as positivism envisaged, a fictitious "religion of science" in which religion was entirely regarded as innovation and superstition. This very target itself is now called an ignorant positivist superstition. But the destruction it caused continued for a long time. The greatest destruction it did was to Alevism. A long story.

In the situation we have reached, it was seen and understood that the matter that most disturbs the Alevis is being "defined" by others. Upon this, as of 2007, serial Alevi Workshops were organized by State Minister Faruk Çelik under the moderation of Dr. Necdet Subaşı, one of the most competent sociologists of religion in our country. The most important principle observed in these workshops was not to define the Alevis from outside, but to have them understood, accepted and recorded by the state exactly as the Alevis define themselves. Thanks to these workshops it was seen that the Alevis do not have a monolithic definition of Alevism. Despite this, no attempt was made by the state especially to dictate a definition to them. The problems stemming from having remained bound to a purely oral culture for a hundred years in reaching a unity of definition were appreciated. It could not have been possible for so large a mass to develop or preserve an integrative doctrinal-religious framework with an oral culture. Moreover, the Alevis were also exposed to the wrath of the socialist movement with which they engaged especially in the fifties. For the socialist movement showed no approach to Alevism different from the approach it showed to all religions. Alevism, as a religious belief, belonged to the superstructure institution like all other religions, that is, it was an empty belief. The paradox this has caused is still a rather confusing factor in Alevi discourses.

The style of politics expressing itself with the workshops had made it a principle to accept Alevism, without intervention from the Sunni side, as they define themselves. This was an extremely friendly approach. It was opening the doors, to the very end. In fact it was a perfect example of the politics of friendship that we need as a country, even in the world of our age. The politics of friendship is being able to accept people as they are, without sticking our own definitions, categories and labels on them.

The sensitivities reflected here were preserved to the end, but in the end one of the differences of view coming from the Alevis also had to be left unpreferred. There were Alevis who said that Alevis are not Muslims, and they were a very small minority. When the view of one of the sides was accepted, an injustice would be done to the others. In the end, precisely because these sensitivities were observed, at the end of a long process in 2022 the Presidency of Alevi-Bektashi Culture and Cemevi was established, affiliated with the Ministry of Culture.

In recent days, however, the ECtHR decided a case previously filed by the Federation of Alevi Unions in Austria to the effect that Alevism is a faith separate from Islam. Whose decision is this? Which Alevis are a religion separate from Islam? On whose behalf and for what purpose can this decision, which all, even the overwhelming majority, of the Alevis we know can never accept, be taken? Will such a decision itself not have an effect and an interventionism that defines all Alevis from outside? Let us look at this a little more.