<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Beyond the headscarf</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/05/09/beyond-the-headscarf/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/05/09/beyond-the-headscarf/</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:41:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Mustafa Gokcek</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/05/09/beyond-the-headscarf/comment-page-1/#comment-2557</link>
		<dc:creator>Mustafa Gokcek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 19:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=241#comment-2557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Excellent article. The last two paragraphs lay out a superb analysis and explanation of the secularist tension in Turkey. After reading this article I am convinced that headscarf issue &#039;alone&#039; is not the reason. 
While naming the closure case as &quot;judiciary coup&quot; is a good way to address it, it doesn&#039;t necessarily answer the question &#039;why&#039;. Some Turkish intellectuals have explained the Kemalist reaction in terms of class struggle, Kemalists getting deprived of their status as the ruling elite, and in terms of a center-periphery struggle for power. 
To note another point, EU process is not the main factor that prevents a military coup in Turkey. As the failed coup attempts of 2004 and 2005 reveal, it is the lack of unity and inner support from the military and business circles together with lack of public anarchy that has prevented a military coup so far.
This struggle is not there to end very soon.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article. The last two paragraphs lay out a superb analysis and explanation of the secularist tension in Turkey. After reading this article I am convinced that headscarf issue &#8216;alone&#8217; is not the reason.<br />
While naming the closure case as &#8220;judiciary coup&#8221; is a good way to address it, it doesn&#8217;t necessarily answer the question &#8216;why&#8217;. Some Turkish intellectuals have explained the Kemalist reaction in terms of class struggle, Kemalists getting deprived of their status as the ruling elite, and in terms of a center-periphery struggle for power.<br />
To note another point, EU process is not the main factor that prevents a military coup in Turkey. As the failed coup attempts of 2004 and 2005 reveal, it is the lack of unity and inner support from the military and business circles together with lack of public anarchy that has prevented a military coup so far.<br />
This struggle is not there to end very soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Galymzhan Kirbassov</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/05/09/beyond-the-headscarf/comment-page-1/#comment-2418</link>
		<dc:creator>Galymzhan Kirbassov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 13:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=241#comment-2418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If elections are all about winning and being in the office, then why don&#039;t assertive secularist parties such as CHP moderate their policy stances and shift them toward the median voter&#039;s preferences? It&#039;s hard for me to understand why CHP still defends an assertive secularism which does not give the party many votes. So, according to this reasoning, CHP either does not want to be elected, or as a rational profit-maximizer, CHP is already maximizing its preferences without an office.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If elections are all about winning and being in the office, then why don&#8217;t assertive secularist parties such as CHP moderate their policy stances and shift them toward the median voter&#8217;s preferences? It&#8217;s hard for me to understand why CHP still defends an assertive secularism which does not give the party many votes. So, according to this reasoning, CHP either does not want to be elected, or as a rational profit-maximizer, CHP is already maximizing its preferences without an office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
