“When the headscarf issue started to be discussed as a human rights problem [in Türkiye,]… [i]nstead of looking for arguments in religious texts, the tendency was more towards considering it from the perspective of the right of freedom of expression. This approach was more successful and could also be understood by those who were not familiar with religious texts.”
—-
SEYMA Akın teaches at the Faculty of Political Sciences at the Necmettin Erbakan University in Konya, Türkiye. She is the institutional Erasmus coordinator at the university, and is part of Erasmus projects related to diversity and inclusion.
She has a Ph.D. in the sociology of religion, in which she studied the change in the attitudes of observant religious businesspeople. She has been a post-doctoral fellow at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel.
Dr. Akin has a keen interest in the fields of religion and modernity, social change and identity, migration, and urbanisation. She has also examined the discourse around power relations, and analysed the perceptions of Western media outlets regarding the coup of February 28, 1997 in Türkiye.
Joining any profession in the public sector was not possible if one wore the headscarf, university students were not allowed to study if they wore headscarves, and even the private sector adopted this approach, because of the spillover effect and the pressure put by the State in general.
Dr. Akın is also active in civil society movements, and is a member of an association aiming to improve the conditions of and empower women in Turkish society. At the association, she actively takes roles to raise awareness, provide training, and discuss ways for the improvement of women and the society in general.
She is particularly interested in improving the situation for observant women due to her experience both in her professional and educational life. Being an observant and hijabi herself, her professional, activist and personal experience are a panorama of the place of hijab in Turkish society.
The Leaflet spoke with her about the history and politics of women’s clothing in Türkiye.
Q: Could you tell us about the history of the headscarf issue in Türkiye?
A: It can be said that the headscarf debate in Türkiye has been an issue since the 1960s, but the context and extent of the debate, and its implementation have varied since then. Although there has never been a legislation openly banning the headscarf, there always has been some form of prohibition until recently. A brief historical summary might shed light to understand the nature of the problem.
Some universities, the Istanbul University in particular as the pioneering institution, created ‘persuasion rooms’ where it was explained to female students why they cannot wear the headscarf.
After the republic was founded, one of the regulations related to clothing was passed with the ‘Hat Law’ in 1925. This law demanded male civil servants to wear hats as opposed to traditional ways of head coverings. It deepened the rift between the modernist and traditionalist circles.
The headscarf was not banned or, to put it more clearly, there was no legislation to prohibit women from wearing it. However, modernisation and Westernisation in Türkiye has always been linked to clothing as well. Thus, there were attempts to ban the veil or the ‘çarsaf’ (similar to burqa). But any law prohibiting these or the headscarf was not passed.
One legislation indirectly linked to the issue but often understood and interpreted as prohibition of the headscarf was the regulation for civil servants regarding dress code passed in 1982 after the coup. Here, apart from details on what is appropriate to wear, it is stated that when on duty, everyone, whether a man or woman, has to be ‘bare-headed’. This law was only amended in 2013, lifting bans on the dress code.
In the 1980s, the headscarf started to become a highly disputed issue. One of the main reasons for the dispute is related to the fact that more and more women wearing the headscarf became visible in the public sphere. They started to study at universities and consequently entered the job market as teachers, nurses or doctors. There are some pioneers in the late 1960s and early 1970s who tried to study at various universities but were expelled due to their headscarves. During these years, the number of women who wanted to enter universities with their headscarves was quite limited.
The representation of women with a headscarf was non-existent for many years. This means they had no voice in order to pave and open their way, and fight for their rights.
The 1980s experienced a significant rise in the number of students with headscarves. Although the ban was not lifted, the approaches varied, depending on the university administration. The ban in the public sector and high schools still remained, and wearing the headscarf was only limited to religious schools and a few individual cases such as the female staff of Diyanet (the Directorate of Religious Affairs in Türkiye).
This situation continued until the February 28 coup, after which the use of the headscarf was gradually prohibited in all public areas. It was not possible to join any profession in the public sector if you wore a headscarf. University students were not allowed to study with headscarves, and even the private sector adopted the approach, both because of the spillover effect and the pressure put by the State in general.
After the election of the new Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government in 2002, the headscarf ban was not lifted for many years. One reason behind this was that the AK party was under investigation for acting against laicism, one of the core principles of the Turkish Republic. Also, the resistance against the headscarf was very powerful within the State and bureaucracy.
Women with headscarves were left outside the public sphere, and few had the chance to develop intellectually and gain positions in society. Therefore, the ‘modern’ intellectual woman gained important positions in society, and she was never wearing the headscarf. Those who did, became housewives or had low-paying jobs that employed the less qualified.
The then president of Türkiye, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, for example, did not allow the wives of the members of the AK Party government and members of parliament to participate in the ceremony celebrating the foundation of the republic in 2003 if they woree headscarves. Students who were not allowed to universities for wearing headscarves went to the court to plead that the ban was against human rights. One student even took the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, but the court rejected the plea and did not impose any sanctions on the Turkish State because, according to it, the ban did not violate the convention of human rights.
In 2008, the government made an attempt to lift the ban, but the constitutional court annulled it on the grounds that it was against the laicic principles of the State. It was in 2013 that the ban was completely lifted and openly formulated.
Also read: Karnataka hijab row: Behind the urge to discipline
Q: At different points in the modern history of Türkiye, there have been alternate attempts to enforce the headscarf and to ban it. How do you see these seemingly opposite attempts?
A: There have been many attempts and implementations in banning the headscarf, but it was never enforced in the modern history of Türkiye. However, the approach whether or not to ban it and the scale of the ban has never been consistent. There had been times when the headscarf ban was widely applied because it was not only limited to civil servants (as it was described in the regulation of the dress code). On the contrary, the ban was applied to students and even had a spillover effect, causing private institutions to force women to take off the headscarf when coming to work. This was the case during the February 28 coup, starting from the mid-1990s. It eased only after the 2010s.
Nevertheless, even when the ban was not applied, it was almost impossible to work in the public sector. While teachers in more religious schools were tolerated with headscarves, some professions were strict on the headscarf ban (for example, law enforcement and positions in the justice system, among others). The only enforcement of the headscarf might be for students in religious schools (such as İmam Hatip schools, a public school that provides a secular curriculum along with religious education and which train government-employed imams), but parents send their children particularly to these schools since they expect them to receive religious education. Thus, the enforcement of the headscarf in these schools is not something unexpected; still, they usually do not enforce students to wear the headscarf, and teachers are free to choose whether to wear it or not.
Q: What were the reasons for the ban on the headscarf in Türkiye? What were the sanctions and how were the victims affected?
A: The headscarf ban on a large scale started with the second half of the 1990s, but this does not mean that it was previously allowed. Women were generally not allowed to take positions in the public sector with their headscarves. According to the Turkish Constitution, Türkiye is a laic/secular country and thus prohibitions related to religion can be justified with this principle. The political climate of the country was also one of the reasons for banning the headscarf; therefore, in times of coups, the ban was often much stricter when compared to other periods.
Women with headscarves were left outside the public sphere, and few had the chance to develop intellectually and gain positions in society. Therefore, the ‘modern’ intellectual woman gained important positions in society, and she was never wearing the headscarf. Those who did, became housewives or had low-paying jobs that employed the less qualified.
As we discussed earlier, the 1980s and especially 1990s witnessed a greater number of students entering universities and afterwards the job market with their headscarves. Since there was no ‘written’ ban, women enjoyed the relatively free atmosphere of these years and became much more visible. This triggered, on the other hand, a heated debate around the laic nature of the Turkish State, and some groups were in favour of hindering women with headscarves. The ban in public institutions could be carried out easily due to the existing dress code.
But there was no such regulation for students; nevertheless, after February 28, 1997, the ban at universities started and reached higher education throughout the country. Students refusing to take it off were dismissed from universities and lost their right to education. Some students decided to wear a wig, but this had a psychological burden, among other problems. Also, some professors embarrassed these students in class or humiliated them (by pulling the wigs or looking under the wig). Some students decided to take it off when entering the campus; especially during the first weeks of the ban for students, journalists made videos of the women entering the campus and presented them in media outlets.
Some universities, the Istanbul University in particular as the pioneering institution, created ‘persuasion rooms’ where it was explained to female students why they cannot wear the headscarf. Students were sometimes not allowed to enter graduation ceremonies in universities in a headscarf even if they were in the top three. There were even reports that students with headscarves were deprived of their rights even if they graduated with a top degree.
As we discussed earlier, working with the headscarf was very hard and often limited to certain institutions. Those wearing the headscarf at that time and refusing to take it off were either dismissed or sent to areas with harder working conditions or areas that were usually considered as a punishment. When the ban was lifted, some women could return to their professions; but for those who graduated from universities and could not even enter the job market, there was no compensation and their employability was not high since they were kept out of the qualified job market for many years.
The ban on the headscarf was widened, as I have explained earlier; so, for taking public exams, one had to take off the headscarf. These exams were language exams, exams to enter the public job market, and exams to apply to graduate degrees and even university placement exams. This also meant that even if the ban was eased in universities, the conditions to access these remained the same.
All these led to the dependency of religious women on their families, and to less or no income at all. Furthermore, because their access to the job market was only possible after the 2010s, they were also not able to get promoted in their jobs and had to start from scratch after so many years.
Another negative impact of the ban was that the representation of women with a headscarf was non-existent for many years. This means they had no voice in order to pave and open their way, and fight for their rights.
Q: What do you think is the purpose of these diktats on wearing or not wearing the headscarf?
A: The headscarf has often been associated with backwardness and traditionalism in Türkiye. This idea was reinforced because women with headscarves were left outside the public sphere, and few had the chance to develop intellectually and gain positions in society. Therefore, the ‘modern’ intellectual woman gained important positions in society, and she was never wearing the headscarf. Those who did, became housewives or had low-income jobs that hired those who were less qualified.
I believe that this also had psychological consequences. Women appearing all of a sudden in big numbers in the public realm were considered disrupting and the main source for a reactionary Türkiye, especially when one of the main goals of the republic was to create a ‘contemporary’ nation. And this could only be possible with a more Western attitude, which included outer appearance as well.
One further aspect is related to the political and sociological realities of the country. The enforcement of the headscarf ban, particularly from the 1990s onwards, was directly linked to the influence of the military on public life in Türkiye. It has always played a determining role since the beginning of the republic; and because it supported the laic principles of the State, any move by politicians or the public against this nature of the State was understood as a threat justifying its interference — including coups.
From time to time, I was refused to be allowed to give classes in private schools due to my headscarf. When I sent my CV without a photo to a well-known company in Türkiye, I was invited for an interview but was rejected afterwards. Later, a person working for the company told me that the company does not employ anyone with a headscarf.
There have always been organisations in Türkiye that have supported the strict interpretation of laicism, and supported the moves of the military as a force guarding and watching its people. The headscarf, from that point, was a form of deviation from the path as set by the founding philosophy of the State.
Also read: The legitimacy of hijab in public institutions: an explainer
Q: Have you personally faced problems due to the headscarf? Can you share your experience?
A: I did have a headscarf problem, especially in my professional career. While I was a student, we were allowed to enter the campus with a headscarf (after a few years though, of my two younger sisters, one had to go abroad to study and one could only go to university after the lifting of the ban on headscarves, which meant a delay of more than ten years). Nevertheless, two professors in particular would make humiliating remarks during the class about the headscarf and religion in general.
After my graduation, I was employed as a teacher at a public school, that is, an İmam Hatip school. Not all schools would allow working with a headscarf, but these did; still, the administration was worried when the school was inspected, particularly because I was an intern teacher and could easily lose my position.
After the coup on February 28, 1997, I had to quit my job because I refused to take off my headscarf. For a while I gave private lessons individually and also in a private language school. From time to time, I was refused to be allowed to give classes in private schools due to my headscarf. When I sent my CV without a photo to a well-known company in Türkiye, I was invited for an interview but was rejected afterwards. Later, a person working for the company told me that the company does not employ anyone with a headscarf and has close relations with an NGO that is in favour of a strict laic State and against any public visibility of religion. I also worked freelance as a translator, but in order to work as a certified translator, I needed to take language exams, and for this one had to take off the headscarf.
When I had quit my job, students were still allowed to enter universities. So, I applied for an M.A. programme which I could attend only for a term, since the headscarf ban was widened to include higher education institutions as well.
I was dismissed because I did not attend and after six or seven years, universities accepted students to take up their previous studies. However, although I enrolled for it, I was not allowed to enter the exams with a headscarf and I was dismissed for the second time from my graduate studies. Only ten years later, I returned to my studies from scratch and completed it 13 years later.
Q: Do you think the hijab is a political problem?
A: I believe that the hijab as discussed in Türkiye and many other countries is political. Although the debate nowadays is not on the agenda of the country, it still is a matter of the public sphere. It was more so during the ban of the headscarf because it became a matter where people could set limits on what is allowed and what is not, exercising power on women with headscarves.
When Turkish female politician Merve Kavakçı was elected as a Member of Parliament (MP) in 1999, it triggered a heated debate on whether she would be allowed to wear the headscarf and serve as an MP. The then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit called to “put the woman in her place” and she eventually lost her seat.
Furthermore, for a long time, women were not allowed to serve as judges, prosecutors or in the police force. The ban on the latter professions were often justified with the argument that the ones holding such positions had to be neutral.
Many issues in social life are political, and this does not necessarily have a negative meaning. Demands from various groups have impacts on politics and policies, as it is the case with the headscarf, and need to be responded to by politics.
All these bans and limitations have been lifted and the matter of neutrality is not discussed any more. These examples clearly show that the matter is often dependent on politics and political climate, and the perspectives of the politicians.
I believe that it needs to be highlighted that many issues in social life are political, and this does not necessarily have a negative meaning. Demands from various groups have impacts on politics and policies, as is the case with the headscarf, and need to be responded to by politics.
Q: How has the problem been dealt with in Türkiye? Is it an ongoing conflict? If yes, can it ever be resolved?
A: For a very long time, there were no regulations on the headscarf other than the one for civil servants. Depending on the situation in Türkiye, the ban was limited to certain institutions or widened to include students as well. Only in 2013, the headscarf ban was clearly lifted and women were allowed to participate in public life without any limitations.
The nature of discussion around the headscarf also changed over the course of time. At first, the argument was more related to the theological context, that is, the arguments in favour of the headscarf were based on religious texts. This has changed over time, particularly in the mid-2000s, when the headscarf issue started to be discussed as a human rights problem. Instead of looking for arguments in religious texts, the tendency was more towards considering it from the perspective of the right of freedom of expression. This approach was more successful and could also be understood by those who were not familiar with religious texts.
Nevertheless, the consensus needed within the broader public may take years to reach and has often been interrupted throughout the process. Today, there is hardly any discussion on the ban of the headscarf in Türkiye.
Also read: Interpreting hijab: why only through ‘essential practices’ doctrine?
Q: Do you think what women wear is a bigger issue than what men wear? Why?
From a Muslim and Turkish perspective, I would say that dress codes for women have always been a greater issue. To give an example, during the February 28 coup when the visibility of Islam was limited, men often had to shave their beards, which was not a big problem since it was not a strict rule from the theological perspective. But because women are required to wear a headscarf, taking it off was not as easy as it was with beards.
A second issue is that often, the protection of the faith is attributed to Muslim women rather than men. Their role as mothers to teach the children and also their visibility as Muslims are highlighted, thus passing most of the responsibility to women.
The protection of the faith is attributed to Muslim women rather than men. Their role as mothers to teach the children and also their visibility as Muslims are highlighted, thus passing most of the responsibility to women.
However, this is the case for Muslim communities. For observant Sikh or Jewish men, it might be as significant as it is for observant Muslim women.
Also read: Hijab row shows why we should see Muslim women’s rights through the dual lens of religion and gender
Q: In light of recent developments in India regarding hijab, what suggestions would you have to arrive at a just and lasting solution?
A: I do not know the details around the headscarf issue in India and my knowledge is limited to the ban and the protests in the country. Nevertheless, tendencies to ban freedoms related to religion and other issues usually go hand in hand with other developments in the country or on the global scale.
The Muslim community in India is not a recent phenomenon; and as far as I know, for most of India’s recent history, it did not cause any major problems. Therefore, political and economic trends in the country must in some ways be related to the debate and ban of the headscarf. There might be some other issues and communities involved, but the headscarf usually becomes the target due to its visibility in public.
Arguments in favour of the headscarf are often limited to theological texts. These arguments certainly have validity for those who are observant; but considering it from a broader lens, such arguments can lead to more confusion. It might lead to questioning the validity of the texts, or it might be considered as a threat to other religions and cultures, eventually leading to a ‘hierarchy of cultures’.
The headscarf issue should be evaluated in the context of basic human rights and not be justified from the theological perspective. That does not mean the exclusion of theology, but it needs to be stressed that the latter will be considered as valid by observant Muslims, whereas the human rights perspective is more inclusive and does not need any type of justification as described above.
Having said that, the political climate will certainly play a major role in the understanding and implementation of the issue. Türkiye went through a bumpy and long road until it gave green light to the headscarf in all fields of life.
