Two Laws in France and Turkey in the Context of the State's Regula-tion of Religious Space: 1901 Law on Associations and 1925 Law on the Closure of Dervishes, Lodges and Zawiyas

One of the important features of the law is that allows the legislator to regulate the social sphere, albeit to a certain extent. The ruling elites, who use the power of the state, have frequently applied this opportunity to build a society in line with their ideations. Based on the understanding that the state should dominate religion, some regulations made into the social sphere merge as an extension of this understanding. It is possible to see such regulations in almost all examples of authoritarian regimes. The desire to re-establish the society with a new content requires the liquidation of the institutions to be shaped according to the legitimacy patterns of the old order. Although the society possess the old society characteristics and continues to have the old sense of legitimacy, the new owners of power are not willing to adopt this sense of legitimacy. In the perspective of the new owners of the regime, the institutions of the old order constitute a point of resistance to the construction of the new order, this situation blocks the possibility of shaping and managing the society according to their own approach. From this viewpoint, it becomes possible to read the steps taken by the state in regulating the religious sphere as an authoritarian mentality’s quest to reshape society and make it manageable by itself. However, this point needs to be justified. To meet this need in countries where there are ruling elites who want to implement an authoritarian secularization program or project, the current religious understanding, which is largely influenced by society, is often portrayed as a phenomenon that is anti-modernity, and therefore against science, progress and reason. In such cases, religion and its associated structures are often subjected to “superstition”, “reactionary”, “a pile of superstitions”, “irrational” and many other negative attributes. Therefore, religion, in this perspective, appears to be the principal obstacle to progress and science, that is, to be the main responsible for the decline. This provides an opportunity for the ruling elite to “justify” the legal arrangements in this area. Choosing to rule the state with an authoritarian mindset also brings about the establishment of a dominant state-society relationship. In this relationship, in which a one-way hierarchical structure is in favor of the state, the state, and of course the political elite that governs it, becomes the owner and norm-maker of society. This norm says that the decision-making authority on how and what the quality of society should belong to the state and its rulers. In other words, state-society regulations are fictionalized on a hierarchical basis; and supremacy in the hierarchy is attributed to the state. For this reason, authoritarian regimes carry out their arrangements in the social sphere from this perspective. This study focuses on two laws in the French Third Republic and one-party-ruled Turkey, which are cited among such authoritarian regimes in terms of religion-community relations and as a result of state’ attempt to take over the function of religion in society. The evaluation of France in general, especially the Third Republic, as a role model for Turkey during its founding period, has inspired this work as well as many other studies. In this context, the law of Associations issued in France in 1901 on the reorganization of religious associations, and the law regarding the closure of Dervish Lodges, Zawiya and Shrines in Turkey in 1925 are discussed. Although both laws have been passed for a long time, these laws still remain in the focus of political conflicts and legal debate. This is thought to be due, significantly, to the fact that these laws are related to a sensitive issue such as regulating religious activities of the public authority. On the other hand, the main reason for the struggle against religious institutions such as church in France and dervish lodges, zawiya and shrines in Turkey is that they have one of the most powerful and privileged positions of the old order and are seen as a major obstacle to Republican projects. As in most other nation-states, such as Turkey and France, the main issue for Republicans is to produce citizens for the Republic. From the point of view of the Republican elites, it is clear that this can only be achieved in the institutions of the new order, so the institutions of the old order are a major obstacle to this. The state's domination of education and the achievement of national unity through education can also be seen as an output of this idea. The republic cannot remain a spectator from institutions that it has not approved, to receive education of their own children and divide their souls. By monopolizing education by the state, generations that will be raised in line with the ideology of the Republicans will spread the influence of rejectable understandings. Thus, citizens would not be only raised as free individuals, but the threat of the ancient regime would also be largely eliminated. Although we do not claim that these two laws are exactly the same, our study points out that the concerned laws contain similar qualities and that the understanding and justifications laid out in their construction have common characteristics. In general, after the revolution of 1789, the arrangements made by the state in France regarding the religious aspects such as the development of policies to control the religious area, pushing religion out of the public sphere, subjecting religion-related elements as irrational, anti-progress, superstition, superstition belief, sometimes threaten national sovereignty and integrity were the inspiration for the ruling elite in the early years of the Republic of Turkey. It is, therefore, accepted by many researchers and observers that the two countries, in this respect, have comparable qualifications. The study, from a comparative perspective, deals with the developments that occurred with the enforcement of laws in both countries and how the relevant sectors were affected