“The statement which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made in Spain shows that there has been no change, but that existing thoughts have been expressed openly. Probably Erdogan never found it problematic that the headscarf is a political symbol, and now he is saying so openly.”
Prof. Dr. Serpil Sancar thus evaluated the Prime Minister’s statements for bianet. Erdogan had said, “They say the headscarf is a political symbol, can you forbid symbols?”
State has monopoly on religion
According to Sancar, the headscarf problem is a result of the government’s monopoly on religion:
“You want to be statist, and want to discuss freedoms, and want to defend laicism...this is a difficult problem to solve and a chaotic situation. You cannot work as a state and with liberal freedoms at the same time. In addition, the debate is conducted at the doors of the universities, based on women. The contradiction is here. As long as the monopoly of interpreting Islam is with the state, there can be no talk of freedom.”
At the press briefing in Madrid, Erdogan had said for the first time that the headscarf could be worn as a political symbol. He had added: “We are aware of our responsibilities. I believe in a solution in terms of freedoms. We will solve this as soon as possible.”
Are religious statements compatible with laicism?
Sancar emphasised that the discussion was being conducted in the wrong arena. The real question should be whether the statements of religious leaders, saying “it is sinful for women to uncover their heads”, were compatible with laicism:
“In Turkey the state organises relgion; there is a statist monopoly. The Department of Religious Affairs defines a life style through religious authorities who say what Islam commands. The headscarf problem is being created by the state. If religious authorities said, 'Those who want to cover, should do so, those that do not, should not', then covering or uncovering would be an issue of freedom."
Sancar pointed out that the headscarf was first of all a religious symbol, although “it can also be a political symbol. The fact that it is a political or religious symbol does not mean that it needs to be forbidden.” (GG/AG)
