The BBC reports on the political situation in Turkey and a large rally supporting secularism. The article also includes some background information about the history of secularism in the nation.

The rally began because of concerns that the leading presidential candidate would be too loyal to Islamic influences.

The protesters are concerned that the ruling party’s candidate for the post remains loyal to his Islamic roots.

The candidate, Abdullah Gul, earlier said he would not quit despite growing criticism from opponents and the army.

Keeping with its traditional role in Turkish society, the army remains a staunch supporter of secularism.

An army statement on Friday accused the government of tolerating radical Islam and vowed to defend secularism.

The article lists the military’s history of intervention in politics, in order to preserve a secular order.

The army has carried out three coups in the last 50 years - in 1960, 1971 and 1980 - and in 1997 it intervened to force Turkey’s first Islamist Prime Minister, Necmettin Erbakan, from power.

Apart from thinking about the debate on secularism within Turkish society it is also interesting for me to consider a society where military intervention like this becomes a sort of norm to keep society moderate. The concept of a military involved in civilian government to this extent is something that I am skeptical of coming from the strict segregation we have in the United States.

It makes me think about Thailand, another state where the military has periodically intervened to remove a questionable government. Unlike Turkey, in Thailand the interventions have usually been predicated upon the idea of public corruption and designed to remove a government abusing its power. Thai military interventions have always claimed to be acting in the interest of the beloved King, and have always received ex post facto justification from him. Thailand, like Turkey, is a “modern” state with a representative government that manages to have periodic military intervention which does not lead to the sort of chaos that might be typically expected from a military coup.

The story about military intervention in politics and the potentially disastrous consequences, even where there are arguably “good” intentions to start with comes, I think, from the story of Roman dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla. The successful general became dictator twice, and voluntarily relinquished power. But he set a dangerous precedent, with Julius Cesar reputedly saying something to the effect of, “if Sulla could do it, why can’t I?” to justify his own march on Rome.

I think it’s that story and its interpretation that forms much of the basis for skepticism of military involvement in civilian affairs in the West. In 20th century Turkey, however, the military’s intervention has seemingly preserved secularism and a “Western” mode of government (or, at least, a government aligned with the West).

Another point that the article makes is that the extent of Gul’s Islamist leanings is itself in doubt. There may be less for secularists to fear from him than it commonly known.

Mr Gul has steered Turkey’s European Union accession talks as foreign minister and is seen as less confrontational than Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development (AK) party.

“The president must be loyal to secular principles. If I am elected, I will act accordingly,” he said after his nomination for the presidency.

But some analysts say he is closer to his religious roots, and his wife would be the first First Lady to wear a headscarf, a deeply divisive statement in Turkey.

Still, the majority of the article focused on the concerns of secularists, not just about the head scarf issue but also about the overall makeup of the government.

The BBC’s Sarah Rainsford says secularists are concerned that if he is elected, the AK party will control the presidency, the government and parliament.

Sunday’s “Republican Meeting”, planned by dozens of non-governmental organisations, took place in the city’s Caglayan Square.

“Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” shouted demonstrators from all over the country as they waved flags and pictures of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.

“We want neither Sharia, nor a coup, but a fully democratic Turkey,” they added.

Many sang nationalist songs and called for the government’s resignation.

Our correspondent describes the rally as an enormous show of force. More than 300,000 people attended a similar event two weeks ago.

It frequently seems that Turkey experiences a more intense version of the sort of conflicts present in the Middle East and Europe. Obviously there is more to that observation than the mere fact of its geography, the idea of Turkey as the bridge between the Middle East and Europe is a creation of the twentieth century. Still, there are tremendous potential consequences for the entire region if Turkey remains true to its secularist history or if it makes a break and leans more towards an “Islamist” politics.

The complete article from the BBC: “Huge rally for Turkish secularism”