The victory of the conservative AKP (Justice and Development Party) in November, 2002 elections has brought the issue of turban1 back on the agenda, so much so that the tension between Islamists and Kemalists has again increased. This controversial debate has divided the Turkish society into different camps. Secularists claim that the turban is a political symbol and has nothing to do with basic individual rights. Islamists, on the other hand, treat it mainly as an issue of religious freedom. The basic goal of this paper is to answer the question of whether deliberative democracy can contribute to creating a healthy dialogue between Islamists and Kemalists in Turkey. Special emphasis has been given to deliberative concepts such as social learning and mutual understanding, because they may enhance the possibility that an adequate atmosphere of dialogue can be created.
First, the theoretical framework will be discussed: After handling the general considerations of deliberative democracy, a more specific model of John Dryzek will be dealt with which analyses the decision making and social learning levels of deliberation separately. Then, Seyla Benhabibs work “Claims of Culture” (2002) will be examined. Benhabib focuses on the less restricted, informal phases of deliberation in her book. By focusing on Dryzek and Benhabib, this paper aims to establish an analytical framework that shows deliberation as an opinion formation process oriented to learning alongside the decision making process. The third chapter focuses on the headscarf debate in Turkey by considering its historical roots and legal framework. In the fourth chapter, a survey conducted in 2007 by the Konda Research Institute regarding the perceptions and practices of people in Turkey regarding religion, the headscarf and secularism will be presented. Next, some of the findings of the “Q survey” conducted by Bora Kanra will be discussed. It will be argued that the findings of these two studies will bolster the hopes for establishing a more healthy democratic culture in Turkey.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Preliminary Remarks on Deliberative Democracy
2.2 Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: John Dryzek
2.3 Social Learning Perspective: Seyla Benhabib
3. The Headscarf Debate in Turkey
3.1 Secularism and Political Islam- Historical Remarks
3.2 Legal Framework
4. Analysing the Headscarf Debate from a Deliberative Perspective: Is Social Learning Possible?
4.1 Survey of Konda Research Institute: The Headscarf in Turkey
4.2 Q Study on Islam, Secularism and Democracy
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper investigates whether the framework of deliberative democracy can facilitate a constructive dialogue between the opposing Kemalist and Islamist factions in Turkey regarding the controversial headscarf issue. By focusing on concepts like social learning and mutual understanding, the study evaluates how these deliberative approaches can help transcend deep-seated societal polarizations.
- Analysis of deliberative democracy theories, specifically those of John Dryzek and Seyla Benhabib.
- Examination of the historical and legal roots of the headscarf debate within Turkish secularism.
- Evaluation of empirical data from the Konda Research Institute regarding public perceptions.
- Application of Q-methodology to analyze discourse dynamics between conflicting social groups.
- Exploration of social learning as a pathway for reconciliation in divided societies.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 SECULARISM AND POLITICAL ISLAM: HISTORICAL REMARKS
The principle of laicism is one of the most important principles of the state and is closely linked with the modernization goal of Turkish Republic after its foundation by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The former type of the relationship of the state and religion in the Ottoman Empire was considered as backward, and in the wake of secularization the Caliphate, was abolished in 1924, and the education system was modernized and unified under the control of the state. The legal system has been modernized taking the Swiss legal code as model based on gender equality. Furthermore, Islam was not accepted as a state religion, and the article was removed in 1928 from the first Turkish constitution of 1921. In 1937, the principle of laicism was adopted as a guiding principle in the constitution. The radical legal, cultural, social, economic and political reforms introduced in the 1920s and 1930s had the aim to transform Turkey into a secular, modern and democratic nation-state.
Since the establishment of the multi-party system in Turkey in 1945, religious claims for the public sphere have questioned the legitimacy of laicism. These Islamists organised themselves in political parties under the leadership of Necmettin Erbakan in the 1970s. The rise of political Islam hasn’t been able to be stopped since 1970’s. The Islamist parties of Erbakan were in coalition governments with both social democratic and right-wing conservative parties. The National Order Party (Milli Nizam Partisi), the National Salvation Party (Milli Selamet Partisi), the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), and the Virtue Party (Fazilet Partisi) have all successively represented Islamic ideology at the party politics level.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the tension between Islamists and Kemalists and sets the objective of exploring deliberative democracy as a medium for dialogue.
2. Theoretical Framework: Reviews deliberative theory, focusing on Dryzek’s model for divided societies and Benhabib’s social learning perspective.
3. The Headscarf Debate in Turkey: Provides historical context on laicism and the legal framework surrounding the headscarf in the Turkish Republic.
4. Analysing the Headscarf Debate from a Deliberative Perspective: Is Social Learning Possible?: Examines Konda survey data and Q-study findings to assess the potential for discursive reconciliation.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes that while rational agreement may be elusive, social learning through deliberation is vital for managing cultural identity conflicts.
6. Bibliography: Lists the academic literature and primary research sources consulted for the study.
Keywords
Deliberative Democracy, Headscarf Debate, Turkey, Secularism, Political Islam, Social Learning, Kemalists, Islamists, Q Methodology, Konda Survey, Public Sphere, Civil Society, Mutual Understanding, Political Identity, Democratic Culture
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the headscarf debate in Turkey through the lens of deliberative democracy to determine if a healthy dialogue between secularist and Islamist camps is achievable.
Which theoretical models are central to this analysis?
The research relies heavily on John Dryzek's model of deliberation in divided societies and Seyla Benhabib’s concept of social learning within the public sphere.
What is the core research question?
The central question is whether deliberative democracy and social learning can contribute to creating a constructive dialogue in a society as polarized as Turkey.
What methodology does the author utilize?
The author combines theoretical analysis with empirical research, specifically utilizing data from the Konda Research Institute and a Q-study conducted by Bora Kanra.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers the theoretical foundations of deliberative democracy, the historical context of Turkish secularism, and an analysis of current public opinion data and political discourse types.
How would you summarize the work’s key concepts?
The work is characterized by terms like deliberative democracy, social learning, political polarization, and the reconcilement of religious and secular identities.
Why is the concept of "metaconsensus" important in this study?
Metaconsensus, as proposed by Dryzek and Niemeyer, allows for the recognition of the legitimacy of disputed values without requiring a complete substantive consensus on all beliefs, which is crucial for the Turkish context.
What role does the Konda Research Institute survey play?
The survey provides empirical evidence that the Turkish public is not as radically polarized as often perceived, suggesting potential common ground for deliberation.
How does the author characterize the role of the headscarf in Turkish politics?
The headscarf is identified as a potent political symbol representing the struggle between the desire for religious expression and the protection of the secular Kemalist state order.
- Quote paper
- Can Büyükbay (Author), 2009, Analysing the Headscarf Debate in Turkey from a Deliberative Perspective: Is Social Learning Possible? , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/143453
