by If you were standing outside Hagia Sophia, in the heart of the historic center of Istanbul, on Monday morning, you may have noticed something of a kerfuffle. Maybe. Or maybe not. The square outside this newly renovated Byzantine cathedral turned super-sized mosque is always crowded, with visitors queuing to get into a line that could snake around itself over and over again – there very respect them consistently and those without patience to wait. At Hagia Sophia, a certain chaos is part of the process.
However, on Monday morning, the chaos was different. Apart from the standard hubbub, it was the kind of confusion that comes with radical system change. If, 24 hours before, all the entrants filed together, suddenly there was a (much higher) entry fee of €25 for foreigners – and a separate entrance, which described in one account as “garage entrance”. The main door is now reserved for Turkish nationals going inside for faithful observation – non-Turkish Muslims are reportedly required to pay that hefty €25 fee, even if they have come to Hagia Sophia to pray. The same news coverage cited “surprise” among mosque officials and visitors alike.
In some senses, this can be clearly seen for what it is. A political statement. Hagia Sophia now cause celebre to the president of Turkey Recep Erdogan; an easy promoter to help him cement his relationship with a core support base that includes Turkey’s most traditional and religious citizens. In 2020, he restored the building to full Islamic use, reversing the 1934 decision to preserve the historic immeasurable structure as a museum. Erdogan only narrowly squeaked re-election last May, after a runoff. You don’t need to be an expert on Middle Eastern affairs to understand what happened here.
But all the same, the news sparks an age-old travel debate. Is it reasonable to charge for foreign holidays (in some cases Alot) higher fees to visit key tourist sites than those with a particular ancient monument or citadel as part of their national heritage? Should domestic visitors pay less to see a special spot than those who flew in?
After all, this is not really an unusual practice. Thailand has a two-tier cost policy – to pick just one notable example – for its entire network of national parks. The fee for international visitors is, in total, five times higher than the price for nationals.
In the smaller parks, it is 100 baht for foreign adults, compared to 20 baht for their Thai counterparts; at the top of the scale, when you visit the islands of Mu Koh Similan National Park, out in the Andaman Sea, 500 baht is seen against 100. And if you are a British tourist, for example, who wants to appreciate the limestone. karsts of Ao Phang-Nga National Park, including Instagram staple “James Bond Island” (Khao Ping Khan), you will pay 300 baht for your pleasure, where local sightseeing will have to spend only 60.
Cambodia takes the same position. Entrance to its main attraction, the Khmer temples of the Angkor Archaeological Park, is free if you’re Cambodian, but a passport is required if you’re not – US$37 (£29) for one day, US$62 (£49) if you want with you. to wander the site over three.
There is one small cheat code – but it goes a long way to getting in unexpectedly. In 2022, the Cambodian government announced that foreign nationals who have lived in the country for two years are entitled to a free Angkor day pass, once a year.
Is this all fair and square?
One of the reasons generally given for a two-tier pricing structure is that foreign visitors are charged market cost for entry to an important landmark – while locals are allowed a discount because they are taxpayers whose wages have contributed to the upkeep of the already sited. . In addition, when the landmark is a place of worship, it is surely also unreasonable to charge local people an amount of money to enter somewhere that is central not only to their personal faith, but a place they may have to visit give often.
Another solid argument is that the costs of running a national park, for example, are high, and higher fees for international tourists help to support this – while allowing residents to enjoy the best of it. of their own country, at a rate that is not prohibitive. .
Personally, I have no problem with this. As a British citizen, I come from the sixth richest country in the world according to current GDP. My wages and standard of living reflect this. Is it that much to ask me to pay a little more to see world wonders in Cambodia (ranked 110th in the international GDP league table) or Thailand (ranked 30th)?
My instinct is that, in countries where the income gap between host and guests is not as great as the disease, then yes, it is not unfair to ask foreign visitors to pay more to subsidize the system. The average salary in Cambodia is three million riel (£570) – far less than what it costs every European or American visitor to travel to this vulnerable corner of the war-torn Far East. Having recently spent a happy day at Angkor Wat, watching the sun set over its 12th century turrets, I’d also say that £29 is a bargain for a glimpse of one of the wonders of the world.
Even if you’re willing to complain about Thailand and its 500 percent national park surcharge for foreigners (with its 30th position on GDP, it’s higher than Denmark, the Czech Republic, Finland and New Zealand), it’s even it considering the actual cost to you, the tourist. That 300-baht price tag for Ao Phang-Nga National Park is the equivalent of £6.75 – hardly worth the grind to enter a revered beauty spot whose photo moment is as glorious now as it was in 1974. The Man With The Golden Gun.
Leaving aside the likely political motivation for the decision, I don’t even have a particular issue with the new fee at Hagia Sophia. I had the privilege – and it was privilege – to visit the complex last year, when the cost of entry was much less than €25.
Would I refuse to pay it, if it was in place in May? Definitely not. Hagia Sophia is an almost incomparable treasure; at the bottom of the page, a basilica of the sixth century, which, however, has been converted to another faith, spending its back story in gorgeous mosaics and frescoes. And he does so while standing in one of the capital cities of the planet, meeting east and west on the banks of the Bosphorus. Twenty odd quid to see it, by side entry? Sure, show me the way.
Granted, you could argue that a building of such global relevance should be free for all, all over the world. But then, Hagia Sophia is hardly the first religious structure to demand a fee from those who are not visiting for the main purpose. If you want to walk around St Paul’s Cathedral in London this weekend, you can’t if you’re attending mass, but it’s £25 if you’re there for the acoustics of the Whispering Gallery.
There is one point of certainty in this discussion – fees like this will only become more common. Look to Paris, where you can find it in the admission policy for the Louvre. Everyone under the age of 18 can enter the best art museum in Paris for free, but this distribution extends to any visitor under 26 who is from the EEA (European Economic Area). Like Brexit, this does not include the UK. This is not, as some would have it, a punishment for the adverse Britain; only benefits lost on leaving club. Similarly, you will be €22 worse off if you have a British passport, and if you fall into this eight-year period.
Should Britain respond by introducing tiered museum fees of its own? On the contrary, I would say no. It would look very shabby for the world’s sixth-richest country to charge foreign tourists inflated prices – unless, of course, Britain acknowledged the size of its GDP by offering discounts to those visiting from further down the league table. Of course, this point is moot. Take a trip to the British Museum, or the V&A, on a Saturday, and you’ll notice that wherever you come from, entry is free.
