First of all, secularists in Turkey don't trust that the AKP government is committed to furthering and protecting liberties for all citizens. They remember 1993, when religious fanatics burnt 35 scholars alive in the city of Sivas after being rallied by local Imams and officials of the Welfare Party, to which AKP leaders used to belong. They know that in the past, AKP leaders have dismissed the West and its ideals such as democracy 'as a train to ride until the destination is reached'. Anyone with the ability to speak Turkish can log onto YouTube and find videos of past speeches by Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul that completely contradict their current seemingly liberal stands. Therefore the lack of trust on the side of the secularists is certainly not unfounded.

Another point in the secularists' arguments is that they don't believe that this constitutional change is sincerely about civil liberties. They ask righteously, why has the issue of headscarves been singled out among many obstructions of liberties in Turkey, such as the Alevi demands for the removal of mandatory religion lessons in high schools or the Kurds' plea to have the Kurdish language recognized within the education system? What about the scholars' struggle with the infamous Article 301, which makes it a crime to criticize Turkish national identity? Why was this issue given priority, and why now, a year before the local elections?

Yet another secular argument is that allowing headscarves in public places, especially in universities, will inevitably result in more girls deciding to cover their hair as a result of peer pressure, in addition to social and familial pressures. It may seem from the outside that AKP has not imposed law that will make Turkey more Islamic and that they do not resemble Islamists anywhere else in the world because they ran good relations with Israel and show desire to align with the West. Yet from the inside things look quite different, even if you are skeptical about the paranoid tendencies of staunchly secularist observers. Let me give a few examples; RTUK, the government's TV watchdog, has grown in influence over the AKP years: applying conservative censorship on TV, going as far as to censor a decades old stand-up comedian because he cross-dresses for the show. On the other hand, censoring the internet has become absurdly easy since the Parliament has passed Article 5651 forming and empowering an internet watchdog that can shut down websites whose content violates certain vaguely defined rules. Moreover, getting liquor licenses in city centers has become almost impossible in smaller cities, and those who have long held these licenses are being forced to close up their shops. In the secularist mindset, all these little examples are augmented with the observation of increasing number of covered women on the streets and religion’s increasing influence in all parts of Turkish life.

Obviously the imminent example of the Iranian Revolution, and the state of the neighboring Muslim nations, also help convince secularists here that if they do not take matters into their own hands, as instructed by founding fathers, their fates will inevitably be similar to their neighbors. Stories of the development of the Iranian Revolution and letters from those who have supposedly lived through the process go around secularist circles like urban legends. When I defend any actions of the AKP around my secularist friends, I get warned that during the Iranian revolution, leftists had backed the Islamists and they were the first against the wall after the revolution. Although I don't think most Turkish secularists understand Iranian history or politics, I understand why they might feel threatened looking at Iran's past. Overall, the secularists see this constitutional change as a 'wolf in a sheep’s clothing,’ and they see their opposition as the only roadblock to an 'Islamic Republic of Turkey'.

But despite all these apparently sensible arguments, I am not convinced. Let me explain why:

First, I am not convinced because I do not believe that preemptively restricting others' freedom in order to protect your own against a perceived threat is morally acceptable to anyone who truly believes in liberty. Second, I am not convinced because it is crystal clear to me that the ban has not been successful in defending Turkey's secular system. To the contrary, it has been damaging the system by acting as an anger point that has driven millions to vote for the Islamist parties who exploit the opportunity.

I think the secularists in Turkey fail to analyze the demographic shifts in Turkish population, along with the global trend of growing conservatism (especially in Muslim countries) in response to the conjuncture of current world affairs. If they did so, they would better understand why the AKP keeps gaining ground and they would be readier to face the challenges political Islam poses to them. They also fail to accept that the current status-quo in the Turkish state is impossible to maintain due to its many failures to appease the demands of many different groups, including most significantly the conservatives. Moreover, most secularists deny that reform is absolutely necessary to move forward. Although I can understand their distrust of AKP and their worry about the future, I cannot understand how most secularists can turn a blind eye to some of Turkey's bleeding wounds and expect the status-quo to be sufficient.

If the secularists in Turkey had marched against inequality or censorship that violated their own freedoms, I would be marching with them in the streets. But I sincerely hope those days will never come.