On the issue of secularism

Poverty and secularism—do these two phenomena and concepts complement each other, or do they conflict? The reason I am raising this question is to examine why, as we close the first century of the Republic with economic sorrow, we have fallen into the desire to create a conservative constitution as we enter the second century. Since the establishment of the Republic, we have transitioned to a secular system and secularism has been made a constitutional article; first, why is there an attempt to abandon the principle of secularism, and second, can this parliament make such a radical change? In this short article, I will try to seek answers to these two questions. 

If we start with the second, easier question, my answer from the perspectives of legal norms and technique is negative. Because such a fundamental change to the constitution is not within the jurisdiction of the established parliament, and a transition from a secular system to a Sharia-based system can only be realized through a deep-rooted social uprising. Well, despite these two difficult conditions, how is it that the issue of secularism can be discussed so openly? The first thing that comes to mind is that the structure of the current parliament, formed after the last elections, is the most conservative of the Republican era, and possesses the most reactionary parliamentary structure beyond mere conservatism. Under these negative conditions, since the constitutional amendment is at the preference of the head of state himself and the dominance of the parliament is also with the head of state, a reactionary constitution can be recklessly initiated in parliament. If a social mobilization is required to carry out a deep-rooted constitutional change, why shouldn't a scenario similar to the July 15 events be staged! Let us hope that neither such scenarios are experienced, nor the conditions for making a deep-rooted change in the constitution are realized. Let us hope it does not happen, but the 1950s, subsequent governments, and especially the Özal and Erbakan eras, provoked society a lot in this direction. We shall see! 

The fundamental question of why there is an attempt to abandon secularism through the creation of a new constitution cannot be perceived with a superficial view as merely the personal ambitions, or even the sincere desires and thoughts, of politicians. The issue has political, economic, and sociological dimensions based on its historical roots. As for the political dimension, there is no need to go back to the Ottoman period, as the issue does not originate exactly from there. On the contrary, the political reason for abandoning the principle of secularism in today's context is the dominant imperialist views of the present day. Specifically, it is known that after the War of Independence, imperialists, led by the British, thought that the most effective way to play games on the Islamic world and Turkey was through politics constructed over religion. Because the history of religious conflicts in the past of Christian history pushes imperialists to engage in politics over the Islamic religion, which has not yet undergone reform. So much so that in some writings, it is told that even though there is only one religion in the Islamic world, people slaughter each other for religious reasons.

Deep Sharia differences pit Muslims against each other, creating hostility and even conflict between communities. Since the Islamic religion has not undergone reform as it has in the West, it can drag societies into chaos in its most violent form and offer politicians the opportunity for politics tainted with religiousness. 

A second event from a political perspective is that if Turkey, which is designed as Islam in the hands of the imperialist world as an important trump card, abandons secularism, the possibility of entering the Western world will disappear. Thus, the Western world will be able to realize its own exploitation ambitions over Turkey without bearing the burden of Turkey. This situation means a one-sided relationship and exploitation. Indeed, the fact that Turkey's European Union membership has been left in such a state of limbo is far beyond the failure to comply with some treaty provisions; it is the idea of Westerners that Turkey has no place in the European Union, which is a Christian union. In this case, Turkey having a non-secular constitution will make it very easy for Europe and the entire West to exclude Turkey. 

The economic dimension of moving away from secularism is based on the view that Marx rightly latched onto: the political lies of religion or the feeding of exploitation to impoverished peoples with the opium of religiousness. The crisis experienced today may be partially temporary, but in general, both the world and, even faster than that, Turkey are drifting towards poverty. The relationship between poverty and religiousness is that religion creates a narcotic effect on the impoverished people as an opiate. For one thing, the laborer will perceive the low wage as the fate granted to him by the Almighty Creator and will not rebel.

Even today, the fact that politicians ask people to show patience and resignation in the face of poverty is a sign of future project goals. Thus, laborers who can be pushed below the minimum subsistence level in an impoverished society will not cause social problems, and therefore neither the bosses nor the political power will be disturbed. Secondly, the impoverished labor force will see the boss, whom they perceive as religious, as well as the politicians, as one of their own, similar to a family bond relationship, will submit to their oppression, and will act in unity and solidarity with resignation. 

From the state's perspective, religiousness will pave the way for social state expenditures to be offloaded onto religious sects at a much higher rate than today. This channel, which works even today, can be created through sect shelters fed by the alms and donations of wealthy citizens, and the state's financial burden can be lightened. The state, which weakens in terms of social services, will be able to receive mass votes at a minimum cost from people fed by sects. Since the poor who receive economic support from sects will not have received the aid as a citizen's right, but rather with the rule of loyalty to the sect or religiousness, the poor will not be able to change their political preference under any circumstances.

Under conditions of poverty, economic support will take precedence over political independence, and the impoverished groups will have been helplessly turned into loyal supporters, or rather slaves, of the government. This situation means distancing the individual from being a modern citizen and putting them into a state of complete slavery. Especially in conditions where poverty is rising, the sect-politics relationship can keep the political leader in the leadership seat for life.

The reflection of these relationships in the sociological field is that individuals harbor a sense of belonging to the exploitative system and its political representatives through the sect channel. The aid provided through sect channels can play the role of a political balancing element in social upheavals by ensuring that the people, who are increasingly impoverished and enslaved, are tied to the religious system with a bond of belonging. The state, which tries to provide belonging to the individual through religiousness, moves away from being a modern state and turns into a feudal lord system; in this system, citizens cease to be free citizens and are relegated to the position of serfs.