FINANCIAL TIMES Op-Ed by Fethullah Gulen: Turkey needs a new constitution to save its democracy

Turkey needs a new constitution to save its democracy

By Fethullah Gulen

Financial Times – March 10, 2014

A small group in the executive is holding the country to ransom, says Fethullah Gulen

Trust and stability are fundamental to a nation’s development and to how the world perceives it. There is inherent trust in a democratic and accountable government that respects the rule of law. Turkey painstakingly built this trust over the past decade. Until recently it was seen as an example of a country that prospered while maintaining a democratic government run by observant Muslim leaders.

No longer. A small group within the government’s executive branch is holding to ransom the entire country’s progress. The support of a broad segment of the Turkish public is now being squandered, along with the opportunity to join the EU.

Several recent actions of the Turkish government have drawn strong criticism from the EU and other western countries – among them, a law that gives the justice minister powers to appoint and discipline judges and prosecutors; a bill to curb internet freedoms; and a draft law that would give Turkey’s intelligence agency powers akin to those claimed by dictatorial regimes.

After decades of coups and political dysfunction, the ruling AK party’s attempt to end military interference in domestic politics was necessary. Democratic reforms towards that end were praised by the EU and supported by a majority of Turks, as evidenced in the 2010 constitutional referendum.

But the dominance in politics that was once enjoyed by the military now appears to have been replaced by a hegemony of the executive. A dark shadow has been cast over achievements of the past decade – the result of insidious profiling of certain groups of Turkish citizens for their views, constant shuffling of civil servants for political convenience, and an unprecedented subjugation of the media, the judiciary and civil society.

The only way for the Turkish government to restore trust at home and regain respect abroad is by renewing its commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law and accountable governance.

This commitment must include a new, democratic constitution, drafted by civilians. Democracy does not conflict with Islamic principles of governance. Indeed, the ethical goals of Islam, such as protection of life and religious freedom, are best served in a democracy where citizens participate in government.

We also need to embrace certain values that form the fabric of a thriving nation. One such value is respect for diversity of all kinds – religious, cultural, social and political. This does not mean compromising on our beliefs. On the contrary, accepting every person – regardless of colour or creed – as a dignified creature of God demonstrates respect for the free will God has given all human beings.

The reductionist view of seeking political power in the name of a religion contradicts the spirit of Islam

Freedom of thought and expression are indispensable ingredients of democracy. Turkey’s poor showing in rankings of transparency and media freedom is disappointing. Mature people welcome criticism – which, if true, helps us improve. But we should criticise misguided ideas and actions, rather than individuals, to avoid creating unnecessary tensions.

The reductionist view of seeking political power in the name of a religion contradicts the spirit of Islam. When religion and politics are mixed, both suffer – religion most of all. Every segment of Turkish society has a right to be represented in government. But the Turkish state has long discriminated against citizens and public servants on the basis of their views. Democratic inclusion will encourage people to disclose personal beliefs without fear of persecution.

Since the 1970s, participants in the Hizmet movement, who come from all walks of life, have worked to provide equal opportunity for all, through educational institutions, relief organisations and other civil society projects. Their primary motivations are intrinsic, as they seek to find happiness in the happiness of others.

Hizmet participants – and I consider myself one of them – are not political players and have no interest in the privileges of power. This is evident from their personal and financial commitment to humanitarian aid, education and dialogue, as well as their purposeful absence from political office.

Apart from encouraging citizens to vote, I have never endorsed or opposed a political party or candidate, and will refrain from doing so in future. I trust the wisdom of Turkish people and believe they will preserve democracy and hold the interests of the nation above partisan political concerns.

I have spent the past 15 years in spiritual retreat and, irrespective of what happens in Turkey, I intend to continue to do so. I pray that Turkey sees its current troubles as an opportunity to advance democracy, freedom and the rule of law. And I believe that by renewing our commitment to fundamental democratic principles, we can re-establish trust and stability and revive the Turkish example that had become an inspiration for the region and the world


The writer is a Muslim scholar and honorary chairman of the Journalists and Writers Foundation in Istanbul

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31966a74-a623-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html#axzz3EQq00Rti

Today's Zaman: Halal Secularism - IHSAN YILMAZ

Halal secularism

MADISON -- I am in the US to chair a panel and also present a paper at the Third International Conference on Islam at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This year’s theme is Islam and democracy.

My paper reflects my recent studies on Islam-secularism-democracy issues that I have also touched upon in this column from time to time. I have been trying to analyze if and to what extent an Islamic secularism or “halal secularism,” as it were, is possible. The issue does not, of course, concern Turkey, and given the fact that the Middle Eastern Islamic nations are hopefully entering a phase of democracy, it is crucial to understand how Islam will accommodate different ethnicities and, more importantly, religions. Older versions of Islamic “multiculturalist, multireligious” political schemes cannot obviously be applied in a similar fashion in the 21st century where religious minorities will not be content with the status of dhimmi or politico-legal arrangement of a legally pluralist millet system. They will not settle for less than being equal citizens. It is crystal clear that a new ijtihad (independent decision making with regard to Islamic law) is needed on this issue. Then, the vital question is how Muslim democrats will conceptualize new Islamic political theories that will enable very citizen -- regardless of faith -- to be equal citizens, without making any ethnic or religious group superior to or privileged over the others. With regards to ethnicity and race, Islam does not have a problem. Nevertheless, as I said, a new ijtihad is needed on how to accommodate different faiths and religions constitutionally equal in the public sphere and also in legislative activity. I argue in my paper that Fethullah Gülen’s new ijtihad on state-religion issues could be beneficial to study. The Turkish case may be unique in several aspects, so it may not be a model for the Muslim world. However, it is obvious that ijtihads that are normative politico-philosophical formulations could easily be transplanted and applied in different localities and contexts. I try to show that in Gülen’s thinking one can find a convergence of Habermasian and Shatibian ideas with regards to human rights, primarily freedom of conscience and religion. John Rawls argued that “reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time, provided that in due course proper political reasons -- and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines -- are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support.” In response, Habermas puts that this epistemic burden -- that each time religious communities and movements have to “find an equivalent in a universally accessible language for every religious statement they pronounce” as part of the duty of civility -- results in a sort of self-censorship. Instead, Habermas argues that this strict demand can only be laid at the door of politicians, who within state institutions are subject to the obligation to remain neutral in the face of competing worldviews. Thus, religious citizens and actors can express and justify their convictions in a religious language if they cannot find secular “translations” for them. It is the legislators’ duty to translate these demands into a secular language. Gülen’s conception of Islam-friendly democracy is key to understanding his approach to sacred and secular relations. Gülen does not see a contradiction between Islam and democracy. With regards to state-society-religion issues, he has argued, unlike the Islamists, that passive Anglo-Saxon secularism -- which guarantees human rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion -- could provide a wider framework for Muslims to practice their religion comfortably and for other religious minorities to also benefit from human rights. In his view, the faithful can comfortably live in secular environments if secularism is religion-friendly and understood as the state not being founded on religion, and hence not interfering with religion or religious life, as well as remaining equidistant to all religions in a neutral manner. It can be argued that Gülen’s approach to sacred-secular relations is similar to the First Amendment of the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” since he has highlighted that Islam does not need a state to survive and that civil society or a civilian realm in liberal-democratic settings is sufficient for its individual and social practice. SOURCE: http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-277370-halal-secularism.html