A Psychological Sensitivity in the Search for a Solution: Reflections on Gökhan Bacik’s article: "State, ‘Cemaat’, Political Resolution: A Roadmap Proposal"
Recently, Gökhan Bacık reopened one of Turkey’s most painful societal debates — the state–religious community (cemaat) relationship — with an article published on Medyascope. The core proposal in his piece was the recognition of the cemaat as a “political actor,” and, much like the case with the PKK, the suggestion of resolving the issue through a “political solution model.” While this proposal is valuable in terms of intellectual courage, it carries a heavy emotional burden for thousands of people still suffering at the grassroots level.
This article is not written as a polemic or a rebuttal, but rather to give voice to the psychological and emotional fractures experienced on the ground. Because a true solution is not only possible on the political level but must also be carried and framed through psychological healing.
For religious communities that were once closely aligned with the state and later experienced a harsh rupture, the trauma has many layers: dismissals from jobs, social exclusion, confiscation of property, stigmatization of children, long periods of detention... And through all this, neither the political sphere nor society at large has provided open acknowledgment or even a simple “we hear you.”
This is why suggestions like “the cemaat must dissolve itself” provoke a reaction from the grassroots such as: “We’ve already been punished — now are we to deny our very existence?” In psychology, this is called secondary trauma: when your pain goes unrecognized, the wound is reopened.
While Bacık’s proposal may make sense from a standpoint of political rationality, the language used could be perceived by stigmatized individuals as a call to collective guilt. Yet justice cannot be achieved by generalizing guilt — it must differentiate individual responsibility. Blanket statements risk creating new layers of injustice, especially for the thousands who have had no involvement in wrongdoing.
So, what kind of language should be used instead?
Instead of “dissolve yourself”, say “redefine your sense of belonging.”
Instead of “sign a new contract with the state”, say “establish a shared ground of responsibility and truth.”
Because this process can only move forward if individuals feel not guilty, but wounded — and still worthy.
What Gets Overlooked in the Search for a Solution?
First: The initial step of healing is the recognition of trauma. This should not be limited to an official apology from the state. Yes, the widespread punitive policies enacted by the state have caused deep suffering and deserve acknowledgment. But where such acknowledgment is delayed or seems unlikely, the upper leadership of the cemaat — if a legitimate structure still exists — must step in to make the community’s suffering visible, create space for expression, and offer support. This would serve as a healing bridge between the leadership and the grassroots.
Second: Political solution processes cannot rely solely on rational planning or strategic negotiations; they must also include deep empathy and emotional repair. In contexts of collective trauma, people do not only seek restitution of their rights — they long to feel seen, heard, and understood. At this point, empathetic politics, that is, a political approach centered around people’s emotional realities, becomes a prerequisite for restorative justice.
Not only the state, but also the community’s internal actors — opinion leaders, civic formations, intellectuals — must adopt and promote this empathetic language. This means addressing the issue not only externally but turning inward as well. Voices from within the community must acknowledge past suffering, emotionally connect with the grassroots, and be able to say: “We hear you.”
Concrete Proposals:
Establish Community Testimony Platforms: Create safe spaces where victims can share their experiences of injustice, loss of rights, and emotional devastation. These platforms would serve not only for storytelling but also for strengthening collective memory.
Foster Empathetic Leadership: Provide training and awareness programs to help both political and religious leaders develop a more empathetic and inclusive language.
Issue Public Apologies and Acknowledgments of Responsibility: Political authorities and upper-level representatives of the cemaat must take responsibility for past harms and have the courage to offer public apologies. Such symbolic gestures can be crucial in rebuilding trust.
Initiate Reconnection Processes: For communities whose bonds with society have frayed, localized dialogue forums and empathy workshops should be organized to rebuild trust through relational healing.
Third: Instead of demanding that communities like the cemaat dissolve, we should expect a transformation that is transparent, accountable, and integrated into the civic order. This transformation must be framed in an inclusive language that relies not on fear but on trust. It requires time, dialogue, and mutual goodwill.
Bacık’s article may be the first to open a political resolution framework for this issue. Yet if such a framework is constructed without taking into account the society’s deep psychological wounds, it may reopen them instead of healing.
Today in this society, there are people who suffer even though they know they are not guilty — people who cannot wipe the labels from their children’s eyes, who are torn between a sense of belonging and a loss of identity. These people are not against a solution. But a true solution can only be built if someone tells them: “You are not alone. You were wronged. Let’s think together now.”
Note: This article is not written to defend any political organization. It is a call for awareness of how the pain experienced on the ground must be taken into account in any meaningful resolution process.
