Human angle

Tolerance and beyond

by Prof Dr. Özer Ozankaya

“A thousand friends is too few, one enemy is too many,” declared our ancestors. The undesirability of any enmity among human beings could hardly be emphasised more strongly. Yunus Emre took up much the same theme 600 years ago: If you have broken someone’s heart once, it’s no prayer to God – this obeisance! To avoid breaking hearts, Yunus gives this advice: Be sure to look forward/ And remain faithful to your word/ Show tolerance to the created /For the Creator's sake!

Tolerance! Many others have dwelt on the same theme at different times and places. It may be the very elusiveness of the virtue that has earned it so much attention. But there are no grounds for pessimism. A problem recognised is a problem half-solved. The more the intense need for tolerance is felt and voiced, the closer we come towards establishing a society based on it.

Today, the desire for an active, changing and developing society, rather than a stagnant one, is frequently expressed. But change is double-edged. What one person sees as progress may be another’s idea of regression. Social peace, unity and development can only coincide if the beauty of compromise is acknowledged.

How much tolerance?

Let us try to build a definition of tolerance. It is relevant to the personal behaviour of individuals on the one hand and to the actions of social authorities of all kinds on the other as they enact laws and lay down norms and rules. At both levels, it acknowledges that everyone should have the right to express opinions and beliefs, whether agreeable or not. It is both an attitude of mind and a rule of behaviour. The individuals and public authorities concerned need not abandon their views or refrain from expressing and defending them. But they do not prevent, by force or any other means, the peaceful statement of alternative positions.

Members of society enjoy equal rights, regardless of their ideas and attitudes. This is a basic ingredient of the Republic of Turkey and many other states - equality without any discrimination before the law, irrespective of language, race, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such consideration. “We should not complain about the diversity of thoughts and beliefs,” argued Atatürk. “On the contrary, if all thoughts and beliefs meet at the same point, it will be a sign of inactivity.”

The question arises here whether it is appropriate to accord the freedom of expressions to those who, for their part, regard it as their right and duty to ensure the general adoption of their own way of thinking, even by force. For example, is it right to show tolerance to those who argue that democracy is irreligious and should be demolished, or who defend the dictatorship of the proletariat, and who advocate violence as a way of achieving such ends? I believe not. To allow the violent opponents of national sovereignty and democracy to organize, publish, demonstrate, train militants and receive finance is to wait with legs tied, like the sheep awaiting slaughter. This level of tolerance can be only an indication of incapacity.

Is tolerance enough?

As a concept, tolerance has its limits. Alongside its positive connotations, it can also imply an element of reluctance. For some, tolerance permits different beliefs and views to be regarded as inferior, even though they must be endured. The famous American economist John Kenneth Galbraith once recalled that as children their mothers told them to be tolerant towards Catholics, because they were “not good as we are”.

This example clearly illustrates the inadequacy of the concept of tolerance. If a person says, “Your beliefs or thoughts are of no value, so I choose to overlook and ignore them,” then the conclusion can be drawn that he or she would claim the right to suppress the assumptions and ideas in question if he or she regarded them as more consequential.

In summary, tolerance may incorporate politeness, pity and indifference. The reason why the concept of “freedom of thought” is distorted in many peoples’ minds is that acting politely or turning a blind eye are considered adequate. Whereas what is necessary is that every individual and authority should accept that people who hold different views from theirs are citizens with the same rights as themselves, respect them and act accordingly.

Mutual understanding

In the long term, a passive respect is not a sufficient condition for true social peace and integrity. On the contrary, it is also necessary to have an open mind, and to try to understand alternative ideas. That is to say, we should not maintain our beliefs and thoughts as they are, but we should revise them in the light of the beliefs and thoughts of others, and remain susceptible to further new influences.

The word tolerance fails to address this need. For hundreds of years, this concept was invoked in an effort to describe a virtue which is very difficult to put into practice. Today, too, there are selfish and vulgar persons and groups to whom a minimal tolerance can usefully be recommended, on the grounds that it is in their interests. That said, it is a difficult job to replace a word which has been useful in many ways, and which has been so much praised and exalted.

Tolerance is the minimum standard of  behavior necessary for social peace and solidarity, and for the unity and integrity of nations. To turn a blind eye to beliefs and thoughts which differ from our own constitutes the lowest line which cannot be crossed. The goal to which our endeavours should be directed is displaying mutual respect and love and being ready to help each other in a positive way.

Science and democracy

Whatever you wish for yourself/ Wish the same for everyone else/ That, if anything, is the meaning/ Of all the sacred books, prescribed Yunus Emre.  For him, too, tolerance was not enough: “Come near and let us meet- Even if we are strange, let’s love each other,” he wrote. How can this open-mindedness and mutual love and respect be achieved? The two most effective instruments are basing the administration of society on the principle of national sovereignty, and introducing a scientific manner of thought through education for persons of all ages. For both science and democracy are predicated on a free and equal tolerance.

Science requires devotion to the truth. It is an indispensable requirement of science to consider reality as it is without distortion, even if it is contrary to our beliefs and interests. From time to time, science tests its own knowledge. All findings are open to expert criticism. A scientist does not become angry with those who display the drawbacks of his or her theories, but is thankful for their comments. Compromise is connected with the respect shown by everyone for the truth - irrespective of creed, interest or habit. For this, it is essential to acknowledge the evidence of fact.

So it is in a genuine democracy. Democracy involves a search for the most widely acceptable solutions. Democracy has to be open to the free discussion of every citizen. This requires that facts should be available to the nation and not distorted or concealed. It requires that state officials should act in the knowledge that every citizen has to be served equally, no matter what their beliefs and opinions. An honest, impartial public administration is an indispensable requirement for social peace and national unity.

Just as, in science,  there is no explanation or guide which is valid throughout space and time, so in democracy, there is no prescription, doctrine or command which can ensure the benefit of society in all eras and under all conditions.

Denizli message

In so far as public affairs are based on the twin principles (to quote Atatürk) that “Sovereignty is vested fully and unconditionally in the nation” and that “The real motto in life is science” , there can be no doubt that tolerance, mutual love and respect are intended. The strongest guarantee of national integrity and development, and hence of international peace, is that every citizen should learn and understand the implications of these principles. Are not these tenets, in fact, a modern composition of the following principles of virtue inscribed at the entrance to Denizli’s historic Babadağ Çarşı?              

Show your love to all, greet them and don’t ignore them when they greet you;

Never discriminate, be just in giving all their due.

Always show goodwill, speak the truth on every occasion;

Never waver from good deeds, get along with everyone.

Spread friendship all around; good works will remain - you’ll be gone.

Know this well, and never forget it: Service comes first, then you’re gone!

(DIPLOMAT  -  January  2005  -  Ankara)