An interview with Merve Kavaçki
Zaid Al-Rawni
In April 1999, Merve Kavaçki was prevented from taking the parliamentary seat she had been elected to because she violated the Turkish government’s ban on Islamic dress in state offices.
Kavaçki arrived to take her parliamentary oath wearing an Islamically mandated headscarf amid jeers and criticism by the parliament’s deputies. Shortly thereafter, President Suleyman Demirel revoked Kavaçki’s citizenship, justifying his move by revealing that Kavaçki held dual citizenship. Ironically, however, at least nine high ranking Turkish officials also hold dual citizenship, including current Prime Minister Bluent Ecevit.
The headscarf is seen by Turkey’s government as a symbol of political Islam and is banned from all public buildings, including universities, in accordance with a government regulation passed on November 27th 1934, forbidding the wearing of religious garb, except during religious services.
Merve Kavaçki and her family, who are very religious, have faced persecution at the hands of the Turkish establishment for their religious activism. While in college, Kavaçki was forced to leave Ankara University Medical School because she was not allowed in class with her headscarf. Similarly, her mother was fired from her teaching position for wearing the headscarf. Her father, a noted religious scholar, was forced to resign his deanship of Islamic studies at Ankara University for publicly supporting the women’s right to wear the headscarf, which is in violation of an article of Turkey’s constitution (Article 25, "No one shall be compelled to reveal his thoughts and opinions for any reason or purpose, nor shall anyone be blamed or accused on account of his thought and opinions").
Open gambling, alcohol and pornography sales; not a scene you expect to see half a mile from the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. But this is Turkey, a country that for 75 years has been desperate to distance itself from Islam, and endorse western values and belief.
Arriving in Istanbul it is not long before one becomes aware of the issue of the day, namely the storm that has been reaging over Merve Kavaçki. A lady who, until she won an election and refused to take off her scarf in parliament was relatively unknown has now become an international celebrity. Upon visiting her house (which was besieged by the Turkish press) to conduct an interview with Merve Kavaçki, I found myself in the presence of a lady feeling betrayed and deceived. Since Kemalism, no woman had worn a headscarf in parliament, so was Merve Kavaçki really surprised at the reaction she had faced upon entering parliament with her scarf on? "I knew that some people wouldn’t be pleased but I wasn’t expecting such an anti-democratic, uncivilised reaction, especially from people who are regarded as politically experienced."
In view of the establishment’s dealings with the Hizb-ul-Rafah party following their victory in democratic elections, some have accused her of naivety, but Kavaçki maintains that it was a group within the government who, as she put it "…can't bear to see a woman drive a car, walk in the street or lecture in university", that were responsible for the campaign currently being waged against her.
This is an issue that has polarised a nation with those who passionately believe that it is a basic human right to be able to participate in politics regardless of dress, and others who are desperate to complete the work of Kemal Atarturk and distance any form of religious practice far away from politics as possible.
When asked how she thought her case affected the future of democracy in Turkey, she replied "The way I look at the situation that has evolved since the 2nd of May is this; Turkey is a country that has a target of full democracy. If we want a full democracy with no double standards, which means democracy for everyone, in an equal manner and hence in parliament, the representation has to be fair. We need to consider the fact that I applied to the higher elections council, like any other candidate for candidacy membership of the parliament, and I was approved, by the state, by this government following which my candidacy became official. I campaigned and won like any other of the 549 MPs. On the 2nd of May, like any other MP, I entered parliament with the authority and duty given to me by my nation to represent the nation in the nation’s parliament. The parliament is not a state office. It is the parliament of the nation and consists of people who represent the nation. On the door of the parliament, they have some writing of Atarturk’s which says ‘the leadership and control unconditionally belong to the nation’. I wonder at how they can scream and shout ‘Get out! Get out!’ at me for one hour after I have been elected through the democratic process and emerged as the nation’s choice. These people and all Turkish people know that the scarf is my personal choice and that I am a religious person in my life. I have not been wearing the scarf merely for campaigning purposes, I have been wearing it for years, this is my life style. People have chosen me with my scarf!"
Human Rights was a phrase mentioned many times through the course of our conversation. A noble phrase it is too, which denotes ideas such as freedom of speech, religious, expression and to wear what one desires. All of these have been denied to anyone working for an Islamic cause or even mildly representing Islam all over the Muslim world. I pointed this out to Merve Kavaçki sighting examples such as Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia and even Saudi Arabia and asked her why she thought Turkey would be any different? She maintained that Turkey was unique in many ways and that it should not and cannot be compared with other countries due to its staunch position as a secular country; secularism is protected under the constitution. It is under this guise, she claims, that the government has waged its crusade against the basic human right of freedom of religion; "Turkey is a country of double standards. There is one law for them (the government) and another for those that oppose them. On the 2nd May I was in there as a fighter as a struggler of democracy because I feel that I am a Muslim woman and a full democrat. 64% of the people of Turkey are women, and according to the official statistics we see that 70% of these women wear a scarf,… so it is natural that at least one of them forms a part of a representative parliament."
Having seen her face in most of the daily papers accompanied by generally uncomplimentary headlines, it seems that the journalistic tactics of Judith Miller and Steven Emerson have found favour in Turkey. In response to being asked what she thought this indicated about the role of the media in the future, Kavaçki replied; "In Turkey, there are state officials, high level bureaucrats, rich business men and media moguls of Turkey who do not act independently of one another.
Once this group received the order to undermine my political career, action was swiftly taken. The next morning baseless allegations that my ex-husband was from Nigeria, supposedly a country ruled by Shari’ah were on the front pages of the newspapers. In fact, my ex-husband was an American Muslim, and Nigeria is definitely not ruled by Shari’ah. Further, they claimed I was kicked out of university because I was a bad student, whereas in fact I was banned for wearing the scarf."
Following our conversation, it seems that Turkey is encountering the same type of problem that is being faced by most of the Muslim world: an oppressive regime that will not let the reigns of power fall into the hands of the people.
To me, the future of Turkey seems set to go along the same path for as long as the same people remain in power with their contorted brand of secular democracy.
Indeed, in Merve Kavaçki’s words:
"Turkey itself has to sit down and decide whether or not it wishes to be a fully democratic state as the current state of affairs is attributable to the policy of having one brand of democracy for one group of people, but another for other."
Our conversation is nearing an end, unlike the struggle of Merve Kavaçki. But this lady seemed undeterred by her experience. Her voice exuded life and energy. She spoke of suing the papers for wanton misrepresentation.
However, it seemed to many would be supporters of Kavaçki that defending Islam in the field of politics was less than useful. Kavaçki seemed to agree. "We are against the use of so-called secularism in the prevention of Human Rights, like freedom of Religion", she reaffirmed.
Some people say she is dreaming. Seventy-five years of fierce opposition to Islam makes Merve’s struggle a ‘useless one’, they say. As for me, I repeat the words of the martyr Hasan Al-Banna:
"The dreams of yesterday are the realities of today and the dreams of today are the realities of tomorrow."
[Mainpage]
[Hijab Resources]
[Active Muslims]