This article was originally written on 14 June 2007 and published on blog.luxzenburg.org. It is republished here as a historical document and reflects the author’s ideas at the time of writing.
A debate is currently raging about the secular republic of Turkey. A new president is being chosen by parliament, in which the religious AK Party holds an absolute majority. In the first round, Gül, the AK Party’s candidate, won. But the constitutional court has declared the elections invalid. The military has already stated it will defend the secular republic by all available means — and last weekend hundreds of thousands of Turks protested against the election of a ‘religious’ president. His wife even wears a headscarf.
What surprises me is the automatism with which Dutch media take the secular side. There is talk of the ‘Islamisation’ of Turkey, a prime minister who is allegedly a fundamentalist. Let us first look at ourselves. The Netherlands is governed by a Christian Reformed trio — all three graduated from the Free University of Amsterdam, and two are members of a Christian party, one of which could even be labelled ‘fundamentalist’.
If we applied the same language to the Netherlands as to countries with a predominantly Muslim population, would the Netherlands not look exactly like Turkey? Countries with predominantly Muslim populations are invariably called ‘Islamic countries’ by our media. Countries with predominantly Christian populations are never called ‘Christian countries’. Turkey is a ‘secular republic’ but simultaneously an ‘Islamic country’. So is the Netherlands a ‘secular monarchy’ and a ‘Christian country’?
The AK Party is a religious party, and some media seem to suggest it should be banned. But nobody is calling for a ban on the SGP, CU or CDA. Why are Christian parties permitted to exist but not Muslim ones? When a group of Muslims in a fragile democratic country finally forms a democratic party, that is apparently not good enough either.
A double standard is being applied. With Muslims, the focus is on fundamentalism, terrorism, undemocratic principles from the Quran — as long as it is negative. That the Bible is also no paragon of democracy, equal rights for women or non-violence goes unmentioned. It is always argued that Christians ‘contextualise’ those passages historically. Let us assume that the majority of Muslims do the same with certain passages. Take any recognised and respected member of the ulema, and he will preach peace. A small number of obscure fanatics receives full attention and sets the tone. Even the media acknowledge this, yet repeat the same image regardless.