Most of the debates on secularism in Turkey focus not on the concept itself, but on its symbolic weight. “Defending secularism” is a powerful political slogan. However, the most basic principle of political thought is this: The defense of a concept gains meaning when it actually exists as a concrete and institutionalized order. If there is no institutionally functioning secular order, it is not secularism that is defended, but a secular lifestyle that is often substituted for it.
This is precisely the tension in Turkey today. On the one hand, a secular culture that wants the individual sphere of life to remain free from religious references; on the other, an understanding that aims to increase the public visibility and political legitimacy of religion. However, this conflict is often not over the institutional content of secularism, but over cultural identities.
This leads us directly to the following question: Is secularism really being defended in Turkey, or is a cultural identity being protected under the name of secularism?
Historical Background: Audit, Not Separation
The historical development of secularism in Turkey is different from the classical example in Europe. In Europe, secularism emerged as a result of long struggles between the church and the state; the neutralization of the state vis-à-vis religion and limiting the influence of religious institutions on political power were the basic principles.
In Turkey, the process took shape in a different context.
On April 23, 1920, with the opening of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the understanding of sovereignty changed;
On November 1, 1922, the sultanate was abolished;
On October 29, 1923, the Republic was proclaimed;
On March 3, 1924, the caliphate was abolished and Tawhid-i Tedrisat was adopted.
The Ministry of Sharia and Awqaf was abolished and replaced by the Presidency of Religious Affairs.
The critical point here is this: The link between religion and the state has not been severed, but religion has been brought under the control of the state. The model that emerged is not classical separatist secularism, but statist secularism.
This historical structure forms the background of today's debates. Secularism in Turkey has never been a model of institutional neutrality in the Western sense. The state did not exclude religion, but managed it through a centralized bureaucracy.
From Secularism to Secular Identity: Narrowing the Concept
Today, when we talk about secularism, what is often defended is this: Protection of the individual lifestyle. However, secularism is not only a matter of lifestyle; it is a constitutional principle that guarantees the state's equal distance from all beliefs.
If this principle were really applied:
- The legal status of cemevis would not be a matter of debate.
- The religious institution of the state would not be in a privileged position.
- The education system would not have become a mechanism for promoting any particular faith practice.
The Alevi issue shows this boundary most clearly. The status of cemevis is still under debate. In a secular state, the status of places of worship cannot be the subject of political bargaining.
This contradiction is not only the responsibility of the government, but also of the opposition that embraces the discourse of secularism.
CHP's Dilemma: Between Legacy and Program
The Republican People's Party defines itself as “the founding party of the secular republic”. This narrative is historically powerful. However, the main issue today is the following: Has this historical legacy been transformed into a contemporary political program?
On the one hand, the CHP claims to defend secularism, but on the other, it does not put forward a bold and clear line of reform to redefine the relationship between the state and religion.
Is there a clear perspective on the constitutional status of the Diyanet?
Is there a draft constitutional reform that institutionally guarantees state neutrality vis-à-vis all faiths?
Is there a program that explicitly advocates and seeks to implement the principle of neutrality in education?
Without clear answers to these questions, secularism will remain a cultural symbol, not a political program.
This is precisely where the CHP's fundamental dilemma emerges: A cautious language to avoid scaring off conservative voters; a strong rhetoric to consolidate secular voters. This dual strategy does not produce clarity; it produces ambiguity.
Education Space: The Litmus Paper of Secularism
The Ministry of National Education's Ramadan circular has reignited the debate. Promoting a religious atmosphere in schools is directly related to the principle of neutrality of secularism.
The education system of a secular state cannot promote the practice of any faith. The educational institution produces citizens, not communities.
The principle of neutrality is eroded when the state takes a position that makes visible or promotes a particular religious practice.
This is not a technical arrangement. It is a matter of regime character.
Papers, Investigations and Breaking Point
“The declaration titled ”We Defend Secularism Together" expressed concerns about the erosion of secularism. However, the investigation launched after the declaration showed that the debate did not remain on a theoretical level.
The summoning of the signatories, including 91-year-old Prof. Dr. Korkut Boratav, to testify revealed that the issue of secularism has now moved into the realm of political risk.
The question is this:
Why is defending a constitutional principle subject to investigation?
If secularism is a constitutional norm, what does it mean that those who defend it face legal risks?
The opposition's inability to present a clear political line in the face of these developments further increases the distance between rhetoric and practice.
The defense of a principle makes sense in difficult times, not in easy times.
Secularism and Imperialism: Strategic Dimension
Secularism is not only a principle of law. It is also a precondition for national integrity.
One of the classic tools of imperialism is to divide societies on the basis of religion and sect. The secular order provides the framework that prevents this division. When the state imposes the interpretation of a particular sect, the ground for social conflict expands.
Secularism is a prerequisite for science, equality between men and women, law and free thought. Ignorance is the most fertile ground for authoritarian politics.
Secularism is therefore not only a cultural but also a strategic principle.
The real danger: Silent erosion, not outright rejection
In political history, concepts lose their impact not when they are explicitly rejected, but when they are eviscerated.
Secularism is not openly rejected today.
But it is being hollowed out.
This is the most dangerous moment.
When a principle claims to be defended by everyone but is eroding in practice, the crisis is invisible but deep.
Turkey is at a threshold today.
Secularism will become a cultural nostalgia,
or will it turn into a concrete political program that guarantees state neutrality?
This question will determine not only the debate on secularism but also the intellectual courage of the opposition.
Secularism is not a defense of a way of life.
It is a principle of order.
And the principles of order are protected not by slogans but by programs.
If there is no program, there are only memories.
And politics is not about memories, it is about institutions.