Turkey split over a piece of cloth
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Feb 6, 2008, 00:18
Once again the simple headscarf is proving to be the most
controversial item of clothing in history. This time Turkey is embroiled in a
storm over the square of material, worn by women who believe its wearing is
essential to their adherence to the Islamic faith. Later this week, the Turkish
Parliament is expected to pass an amendment to the constitution that will allow
university students to cover their hair, but it won't be without a fight from
secularists who believe the scarf threatens their national identity.
This situation is a mirror image of France's ban on female
students wearing headscarves, which was just as controversial and led to many
young Muslim women dropping out from mainstream education. In Turkey, less well
off girls feel they are discriminated against in terms of educational
opportunities because their wealthier sisters are able to circumvent the
problem by studying abroad. So for them, the lifting of this restriction is
welcome even though female teachers, civil servants and pilots will still be
prohibited from wearing the scarf.
Last weekend up to 100,000 secular Turks rallied against the
proposal, saying the lifting of the headscarf ban was the thin end of the
wedge; a precursor to Turkey becoming an Islamic state with Sharia law. They
waved banners reading, "This is Turkey, not Iran" and "Turkey is
secular and will remain so." They also fear that once the wearing of
scarves is no longer prohibited all female students will face peer pressure to
don them.
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) led by Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan, whose own wife wears a scarf, says the move isn't
meant to pave the way to a future Islamic state but signifies greater religious
and personal freedom.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, whose wife is also a
lady of cover, says his government wants Turkey to be a "first-class
democracy where freedoms in all fields are fully enjoyed." Others in the
government have implied such personal freedoms are a prerequisite to Turkey's
EU membership aspirations. In principle that is probably true but in reality
most EU members would prefer Turkey stuck to the status quo.
In the meantime, the government faces massive opposition
from the judiciary, women's groups, the business community and university deans
and professors; many of whom are threatening to bar hijab-wearing girls from
their classrooms. Thus far, the powerful military has maintained its silence
but is said to be watching developments carefully.
It's also likely the government is feeling the army's pulse,
too, in light of a military coup in 1980 -- allegedly backed by the CIA --
which triggered the headscarf ban in the first place. At the time, the generals
reinforced the secularist message of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and stressed the
importance of national unity. The US denied any involvement but, in any event,
the coup was a relief to then US President Jimmy Carter, who later commented
"the movement for stabilization in Turkey came as a relief to us." It
was pressure from European countries concerned about human rights abuses that
hastened a Democratic transition three years later.
Today, the military still views itself as the guardian of
Kemalist ideology wherein religious extremism is seen as a threat to the
Western model upon which post-Ataturk Turkey was built.
Indeed, Ataturk, known as the father of modern Turkey, is
still widely beloved for dragging his country kicking and screaming into a
comparatively prosperous future. Part of his reforms involved banning the
wearing of the traditional fez, turban and the veil, while Western-style hats
became compulsory for male civil servants.
However, women's dress wasn't mandated under Ataturk's new
laws, and photographs show his wife was covered while his adopted daughters
were not. In "Ataturkism" Volume 1, Ataturk is quoted as saying
"The religious covering of women will not cause difficulty . . . This
simple style is not in conflict with the manners and morals of our
society."
In truth, though, it was Ataturk's hope that women would
naturally gravitate toward Western dress as his new liberal society took shape.
For today's Turkish government and its people, the lifting
of the scarf ban goes deeper than arguments over a piece of cloth and threatens
to erupt into an all out struggle between secularists and Islamists within all
walks of life, such as that which has occurred in Algeria, leaving in its wake
a trail of bloodshed.
My own view, for what it's worth, is this: Democracy goes
hand-in-hand with certain inalienable personal freedoms, one of which is the
right to choose one's own dress code, provided it isn't offensive to others on
the basis of immorality or vulgarity. This is why I was vehemently against
France's decision to ban Islamic headscarves in schools and Britain's attempts
to forbid young people from wearing hooded garments citing security issues.
The more fear that such items elicit from some sectors of
the community, the more they will be worn by opposing sectors, and they will
consequently attract more power to sway emotions.
"This simple style is not in conflict with the manners
and morals of our society," said Ataturk referring to the scarf. Perhaps
secularists would do well to remember that and adopt a live and let live
outlook, which is a democratic staple. Far better that than internal conflict
based on competing ideologies that in the end will benefit no one at all and
may have detrimental political, social and economic consequences for everyone.
Linda
S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes
feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor