Ahead of Turkey’s upcoming presidential election, originally scheduled in May, there was a lot of clamoring regarding the Justice and Development Party candidate Abdullah Gul, an experienced politician and foreign minister. Unlike most senior officials, Mr. Gull’s wife Hayrunisa Gul wears the Islamic headscarf and if elected, would have been the country’s first First Lady to do so. This set off a scorching controversy among Turkey’s faithful secularists. They claimed Mr. Gul was a stealth islamist with a radical agenda which threatened to impose draconian rule on their institutions. His record as a politician up to then disputed their claims. He actually pushed for entrance into the EU, despite bigoted opposition of those afraid of letting a predominately Muslim country in. The sickening part of this debate is that it placed significant pressure on Ms. Gull and took away from what should have been at the heart of the election question, viz., who is has the best qualifications for the job? Instead, people wanted to focus on what clothes the candidate’s spouse would wear to the inauguration.
Why is it that when discussing religiosity and secularism in the Islamic World, the debate is divided between headscarves and bikinis; between nightclubs and madrasas? Why is it that people are condemned as archaic extremists because they don't feel comfortable running around the beach in the equivalent of undergarments? Are the values of drunkenness and promiscuity found in the nightclub scene somehow superior to the moral teachings learned in the mosque? What about those who remain true to their faith- which explicitly prohibits alcohol and lewd behavior- and yet are active participants in everyday society, i.e., working, attending university, dining out, exercising their voting rights, etc, etc? Are they to be harangued for not contributing to the STD epidemic or being on the delivering end of drunk driving accidents and the like? There is no reason why a woman CHOOSING to wear a head scarf cannot also be educated, politically engaged, and professional.
Furthermore, the electability of Mr. Gul ought to have focused on his record rather than his wife’s attire. But I suppose to be part of the boys club of elites in Turkey- or any country attempting westernization- one's wife has to wear a low-cut blouse and skirt, toasting champagne. The irony of this situation is that by the state impeding a woman’s right to chose what she wears somehow is on par with democratic principles whereas letting her CHOOSE for herself exhibits “islamofascism”, to quote George W. Bush. Actually, this is in line with the Bush administrations commitment to so-called, “democracy” as when Turkey was lambasted by Paul Wolfoitz and Colin Powell for its refusal to allow access to its airstrips as a launching pad to invade Iraq in 03, despite the overwhelming opposition to the war among its population. It’s all a bit Orwellian, isn’t it?
Why is it that when discussing religiosity and secularism in the Islamic World, the debate is divided between headscarves and bikinis; between nightclubs and madrasas? Why is it that people are condemned as archaic extremists because they don't feel comfortable running around the beach in the equivalent of undergarments? Are the values of drunkenness and promiscuity found in the nightclub scene somehow superior to the moral teachings learned in the mosque? What about those who remain true to their faith- which explicitly prohibits alcohol and lewd behavior- and yet are active participants in everyday society, i.e., working, attending university, dining out, exercising their voting rights, etc, etc? Are they to be harangued for not contributing to the STD epidemic or being on the delivering end of drunk driving accidents and the like? There is no reason why a woman CHOOSING to wear a head scarf cannot also be educated, politically engaged, and professional.
Furthermore, the electability of Mr. Gul ought to have focused on his record rather than his wife’s attire. But I suppose to be part of the boys club of elites in Turkey- or any country attempting westernization- one's wife has to wear a low-cut blouse and skirt, toasting champagne. The irony of this situation is that by the state impeding a woman’s right to chose what she wears somehow is on par with democratic principles whereas letting her CHOOSE for herself exhibits “islamofascism”, to quote George W. Bush. Actually, this is in line with the Bush administrations commitment to so-called, “democracy” as when Turkey was lambasted by Paul Wolfoitz and Colin Powell for its refusal to allow access to its airstrips as a launching pad to invade Iraq in 03, despite the overwhelming opposition to the war among its population. It’s all a bit Orwellian, isn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment