An Operational Study

How should we view the study titled "Being Different in Turkey," undertaken with the sponsorship of the Open Society Institute of George Soros and Boğaziçi University?

I have carefully read the research, which is based on various interviews conducted throughout Anatolia and which examines the concept of "neighborhood pressure."

The method employed in the study is problematic, its conceptual framework is defective and its political orientation is biased. In short, what we see is an "operational" report.

"Purposive sampling" is by nature "problematic." (a) The selected samples are biased, they are loyal to a certain ideology and they are prejudiced toward their rival groups. (b) Rather than thinking analytically, they distort facts and sometimes offer false statements with a view toward lending support to their political claims. The locations used in the study are characterized by these two conditions: "Provincial organizations of the main opposition Republican People's Party [CHP], the Atatürkist Thought Association (ADD), the Pir Sultan Abdal Associations, the Haci Bektaş Veli Associations, the Cem Foundations, and similar organizations … pharmacies, architecture offices, physician offices and workplaces which are known to oppose the ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party] and religious people."

The samples have portrayed only one side of the story from their own perspective. For a bigger picture, researchers must go to the Independent Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (MÜSİAD), the Felicity Party (SP), the Association of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed Peoples (MAZLUM-DER), the Turkish Foundation for Volunteer Organizations (TGTV), the Free Thought and Educational Rights Society (Özgür-Der), the Labor Confederation (Hak-İş), and imam-hatip associations. The picture portrayed by these organizations, too, should be taken into consideration. Actually, the fact that "the Islamic groups' claim to be oppressed is categorically excluded from the scope of the study" is sufficiently explanatory.

In a Muslim country, it is perfectly natural that people perform their religious duties. Strangely, the study lists "the increase in the number of people attending Friday prayers or making pilgrimage or inviting people to fast-breaking dinners or greeting people in the Islamic manner" and other daily religious practices as "the widespread examples of the neighborhood pressure exerted by religious groups on secular groups throughout Turkey."

Sociological concepts of the 19th century are no longer useful. Treating the religious communities, which are the dynamics of social change, as archaic structures is nothing but academic anachronism. In my book, "Din, Kent ve Cemaat" (Religion, City and Community), I showed the flaws in this thesis. Still, no sociological study has been undertaken to study the Fethullah Gülen movement with emphasis on the dynamics of historical and social change. Here is the famous "ideology of sociology." Concerning the Gülen movement, the report says: "It is hard to say that the community which is popular among education and business circles in many cities in Anatolia openly exerts pressures. Many people interviewed noted that joining in the community or attending the community's activities or leaving it is not coercive."

Isn't this sufficient to conclude that modern religious communities are voluntary? Nevertheless, they are still included in the list of "alarming threats." The report notes the following about a girls' dormitory in Kayseri: "You will be at home at 6 o'clock, give lessons to high school students until 10 o'clock. You are still novice in the second grade and can be an elder sister in the third grade and start to give lessons to first and second graders. When you become a fourth grader, your place will be taken by new third graders." Yes, but is there anything offensive about this?

The dominant character of the study is operational. The theme is this: "The rate of those who perceive that religious people are under pressures has decreased from 42 percent in 1999 to 17 percent in 2006. With the AK Party assuming office, the complaints by Islamic groups diminished while those by secular groups increased." In other words, "secularism is weakening while reactionary forces are gaining power"; secularism and the republic are under threat, and we are perfectly justified to take action.

Giving advice to every Turkish citizen determined to protect the nation's secular republic, retired Gen. Doğu Silahçioğlu explained how this could be done: "By ensuring that the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals applies to the Constitutional Court demanding the closure of the AK Party, which has become the focal point of anti-secular activities; by securing the support of constitutional institutions and bodies and uniting democratic organizations, trade unions, professional organizations and leftist opposition that support the secular republic; by mobilizing greater numbers of people and by strengthening the leftist opposition" (Cumhuriyet, Feb. 3, 2008).

Unfortunately, the study in question seems to be part of this project. The democratic civil society organizations, trade unions, professional organizations selected by the purposive sampling and the provocative, biased and false statements by the leftist opposition seem to be identical to the players that Silahçioğlu seeks to mobilize.