Dr. Çetiner’s Blogs (Dr. Beytullah Gültekin Çetiner)

Closure Case of AKP in Economist

The Economist analyzes the closure case against the AK Party in an editorial article titled with ‘See you in court’. The following is the excerpt from Economist regarding the case.

Article: See You in Court
Autocratic regimes in the Muslim world often ban religious parties, which then go underground and turn violent.

Turkey’s Islamists have taken a different path. Despite being repeatedly outlawed and ejected from power, pious politicians have shunned violence, embraced democracy and moved into the mainstream.

No Islamic party has been as moderate and pro-Western as the Justice and Development (AK) party, which catapulted into government in 2002 promising to lead Turkey into the European Union.

Yet the country’s secular elite is still fighting to oust the AK government, on thinly supported charges that it wants to wreck Ataturk’s secular republic. A senior prosecutor has made the charges official, by asking the constitutional court to shut AK down because it has become “a centre for anti-secular activities”. In a 162-page indictment, Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya argued that AK is using democracy as a vehicle for imposing sharia law. He asked the court to slap a five-year ban on more than 70 AK officials, including the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gul.

The court, dominated by pro-secular judges, said it would decide by April whether to proceed with the case. Already jittery financial markets have taken fright. On March 17th the Istanbul Stock Exchange plunged by 7.5% and the Turkish lira fell by 3.5% against the dollar. Should the court decide to take up the case, the battle could last for a year, pushing Turkey into a prolonged period of instability, hampering reforms and jeopardising membership talks with the EU.

Mindful of all this, TUSIAD, the main business lobby, has denounced the case. “Shutting down parties is not compatible with democracy,” said its president, Arzuhan Yalcindag. America and the EU have also rushed to AK’s defence. A combative Mr Erdogan has opined that AK’s legal woes will only raise its popularity. He is probably right. The most recent challenge to AK rule came a year ago when he nominated Mr Gul for the presidency. The prospect of a president whose wife wore the Islamic headscarf and who would not veto AK-inspired laws galvanised the generals into threatening a coup. Many believe the army’s meddling helped AK to a bigger share of the vote (47%) in last July’s election. So why has the prosecutor chosen to act against AK now?

Some see it as a last-ditch attempt by Turkey’s old guard to cling to power. A new and pious class of Anatolian entrepreneurs, who have thrived under AK, is challenging the elite. One such group, Calik, which employs Mr Erdogan’s son-in-law, has acquired a media conglomerate, whose assets include a television channel, ATV, and the third-biggest daily, Sabah. “The reign of the Bosporus princes is over,” says a Western banker.

Ertugrul Gunay, the culture minister, has another explanation. He believes the case is connected to recent arrests of generals, academics and journalists linked to a string of murders, including that of an ethnic-Armenian editor, Hrant Dink (known as Ergenekon). Proponents of this theory note that Turkey’s first Islamist-led government was ejected in 1997 after it began investigating links between the army and organised crime. Another theory is that the case was prompted by AK’s efforts to ease the strict secular ban on the Islamic headscarf in universities. This move is cited in Mr Yalcinkaya’s indictment. Other “evidence” is said to range from the AK-run Istanbul council’s censoring of bikini ads to an AK official’s observation that “asking a pious girl to remove her headscarf is akin to telling an uncovered one to remove her underpants”.

It is hardly the stuff of an Islamic revolution. Yet even AK’s closest allies agree that Mr Erdogan should have done more to reach out to secular opponents. On the headscarf, he might have worked harder to protect the rights of women who choose not to cover their heads. He might also have scrapped Article 301 of the penal code, which has been used to prosecute scores of Turkish writers and academics for “insulting Turkishness”. With much of Mr Yalcinkaya’s case built on things that the prime minister and his lieutenants have said, Mr Erdogan should see the value of free speech. His secular opponents, meanwhile, would do better if they left their ivory towers and spent more time with the ordinary people of Turkey.

Note: You can read more about the case from Turkish Democracy under Test

Closure Case for AKP

As explained in Turkish Democracy Under Test, the closure case for the leading AKP has triggered many debates in Turkey.

There are different views circulating in Turkey about what kind of a stance the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) should adopt in the wake of the closure case recently opened against it.

According to media reports, the AKP is working on a constitutional amendment that will make party closures harder. But its plans have met with criticism from some circles who say such a step should not be taken when the judicial process is in progress.

Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that party closures should be made harder in Turkey, regardless of the AK Party case, and that the current situation is a good opportunity to take the necessary steps to this end.

Radikal daily’s Murat Belge criticizes those who say the AK Party should not take any legal steps to make party closures harder at the moment because such a move would be inappropriate at the current juncture.

“It is obvious that a process has begun, but it is not possible to call it a judicial one. This is perhaps the last name one could give to it,” he says, referring to the lack of any concrete legal ground in the AK Party closure case. He suggests that if one side does not refrain from abusing the judiciary and the law, then the AK Party, which is the victim of this attack, has the right to defend itself.

Vatan daily’s Okay Gönensin thinks the closure case may prompt the AK Party to change the Political Parties Law to harmonize Turkey’s party closure criteria with the standards in democratic countries. “If we can manage to handle the closure case as a lesson for democracy for everybody, we can take these steps,” he says, stressing that there is no point in taking this to a referendum as the AK Party currently plans to do. “This case has once again showed that the issue of freedoms should be handled collectively,” Gönensin adds, stressing the importance of regarding freedoms as a whole.

Bugün daily’s Ahmet Taşgetiren says if the closure case against the AK Party had been filed in a country where judicial decisions were free of any political motivation, then the AK Party would wait for the conclusion of the judicial process before taking action. “This is the stance that should be taken in the wake of a legal case,” he admits.

However, in the AK Party closure case, Taşgetiren points out the wide suspicion about the case’s being a part of a greater project aimed at removing the party from the political stage. He says the political leanings of the judges that will decide on the closure case also raise suspicion over whether their decision will be free of any political influence.

Referring to the allegation that the AK Party has become a “focal point of anti-secular activities,” he voices questions as to whether the prosecutor who prepared the indictment was acting neutrally or with an ideological motive. “When the scope of secularism is so controversial in Turkey, how can the judges have a neutral stance?” he asks. Given the track record of the Turkish judiciary, he thinks it is crucial for the AK Party to take measures that will marginalize the judiciary in the field of politics.

“In my opinion, the AK Party should continue to appeal to the public in the wake of the political deadlock it faces. Certainly, there should be no provocation or insult, but the AK Party should not fail in defending the rights of the 47 percent of the population that voted for it. Yes, this is a defense of democracy. It is [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s responsibility to not let the national will be hijacked,” he declares.

Turkish Democracy Under Test

Turkish democracy has been facing another test since the application of Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals to the Constitutional Court of Turkey for the closure of leading AKP which earned 47% of all votes in the general elections only 7 months ago. This happened on Friday (14th March) 2008. The democracy had tested last year during the presidential elections in Turkey. It was beginning of yet another military cue which happened on 28th February 1997 in Turkey. Previous attempts against democracy had come through military.

In last year’s democracy test, the court ruling, coming just a few days after an ominous warning from the military about the government’s plans for the presidency was putting Turkish democracy and Turkey’s political system to a deadlock with the ruling. According to ruling, the parliament had to gather with at least 367 of MPs ready for election of President. This meant that to elect the president 2/3 of the parliament should be ready sitting in their seats which would be almost impossible for any of the governments in Turkey. This deadlock in Turkish Democracy was broken by prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan where he said for the court decision “a bullet aimed at democracy”. Never before has a sitting prime minister accused the country’s leading judges of firing “a bullet aimed at democracy”.

This was another social engineering attempt made on 28th of February 1997. Shortly after this declaration, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan declared the early elections. After the elections his party gained 47% of votes (in earlier case they were only 34%).
After the elections all people in opposition admitted that it was a big mistake (even including people from the Constitutional Court members). In many polls in Turkey, people believe that judges are biased and involved in politics after those sort of decisions made. Public opinion regarding the judges became stronger with the most recent event in Turkey. The following gives brief description on the test of democracy in Turkey.
On Friday (14 March), Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya applied to the Constitutional Court to close the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and ban 71 of its leading members from politics for five years, including President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The prosecutor justified the closure request with the “anti-laicist activities” of the party.

Members of the AKP have reacted to the closure request over the weekend.

Erdogan: “A step against the national will”

Speaking at a Congress of AKP Women’s Branches in Siirt, Prime Minister Erdogan’s speech was interrupted by the spectators shouting “Let the hands of those break who touch the AKP.”

Erdogan said, “We are a party working for democracy. Those working for democracy do not break arms, hands or feet. Those who work for democracy learn their greatest lesson at the ballot boxes. No one can force the AKP, which was voted for by 16 million 500 thousand voters who believe in a democratic, laicist and social state of law, to become the focal point of laicism. It can also not become the focal point of anti-laicism. Yesterday’s event (i.e. the closure request) was a step taken against the national will.”

“The nation decided to form this party”

He added, “This injustice committed against the nation will not be accepted. A judicial position which uses its power in the name of the people cannot go against the will of the nation. The national will cannot be ignored. Those who are imposing the strange situation of the closure trial will also experience its embarrassment. There is no legal basis for this unfortunate endeavour. Turkey will continue undeterred in its development of rights and freedoms. The AKP was born out of demands for justice. The nation decided to form this party, you decided.”

Arinc: AKP will receive 70 percent

Another leading member of the AKP facing a five-year ban from politics is Bülent Arinc, former Speaker of the Turkish Parliament. He said, “The indictment is the result of hatred and grudges. It will return from court.”

Adding that he felt honoured by being mentioned in the indictment, Arinc continued: “I have been in politics for around 40 years. With the experience of someone who has been mentioned in other indictments, I can say that a party which people try to close down politically is not harmed by these kinds of trials. On the contrary, the phone calls we receive, the solidarity and support around us show us that the AKP will receive 70 percent of the vote in the next elections as a reaction to this oppression and injustice.”

Other ministers condemn closure attempt

Minister of Justice Mehmet Ali Sahin expressed his sadness for Turkey in the light of the closure request:

“This process will help Turkey to get rid of the anti-democratic practices concerning political parties. This process will stop Turkey from being a graveyard for political parties. I want to tell those who are smirking now that they will be left empty-handed.”

Minister of Culture Ertugrul Günay commented on the closure trial, too, saying: “This is not an injustice towards the AKP but an insult towards the country.” He added, “Really, do not take it seriously. Indictments are written, the judiciary makes the decision.”

Liberals and Test of Democracy in Turkey

The liberals accuse both parties in the recent test of Democracy in Turkey. Liberals accuse AKP by not sticking the political reforms which are coinciding with the alignment of accession to European Union. The following part reflects the views of liberals in Turkey. It is written by the Journalist Cengiz Candar. Cengiz Candar is a journalist writing in several places including Turkish Daily News. The article was taken from Turkish Daily News. The title of article is ‘Both parties are guilty’

Both parties are guilty

A short time after Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya, chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals, resorted to the Constitutional Court, asking for the closure of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), we met for dinner with a group of AKP officials and ministers to talk about the recent developments. One of the top-level AKP officers said, half jokingly, “one of the quickest results of this case for us is to win back liberals.”

“Don’t be so sure,” I said, “That depends on how well or how much you stick to the rope of democracy.”

Democrats in Turkey surely oppose “shutting down parties.” After all, they not only stand against disbanding the AKP that only half a year ago won 47 percent of votes and formed the government, but they also stand against the closure of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP). Tomorrow, if the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) is taken to court on a request to be shut down, democrats will of course resist it, too. For them, it is a matter of principle, though they have little in common with the MHP.

At the point where we have arrived, this is more than just a matter of principle; it is something to do with “political action challenging democracy.”

Nonetheless, no one should think of a “democratic attitude” as a variable in a payoff equation that forces Turkey into the common pincers of “barracks and mosque” and which automatically assumes that the democratic attitude sides with the mosque against the barracks.

If the process we have been pushed into is conducted as Turkey’s large-scale “democratization attempt” or the AKP’s “struggle for democracy,” then democrats might think of walking down the aisle together with the AKP.

No one should see democratic public opinion “in the bag” as the AKP’s “reserved forces.”

The point that has arrived is regrettable for our country and highlights the beginning of a dangerous period that all of Turkey may undergo. However, we can barely explain how we reached this point by putting the blame on inappropriate moves of the Ankara bureaucracy under the guise of “leftist nationalists” with “anti-democratic tendencies” or of the coup d’état plotters.

Seeking to shut down a government party that won 47 percent of votes seven months ago by resorting flimsy evidence in an unsound indictment is a desperate move. But how a ruling party with 47 percent of votes became vulnerable to such a move just seven months after assuming office is still worth thinking.

We got sick and tired of saying for months that the AKP is off the “democratic reforms route.”

We have to run a few litmus tests, [a metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry], to see what else the AKP is aside from being democratic.

“Litmus paper 1:” The AKP’s position on Article 301 of the Penal Code. The ruling party did nothing either to squash or to change this article, which has hung over freedom of expression like the sword of Damocles. The AKP kept stealing time and turned a soccer team always playing the ball in the center or sending it to the touchline.

If you ask Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek, “People do not care about Article 301.” He doesn’t either and never did.

“Litmus paper2”: The AKP’s attitude in the Hrant Dink murder case investigation. At this point, all hopes fade away. The case seems to be sent to the European Court of Human Rights.

A parliamentary sub-committee formed under an AKP deputy to follow the case suddenly completed works, or left them undone, and annulled itself.

“Litmus paper3”: The energy the must be exerted on the way to the European Union. Let’s remember the first AKP government period, between the fall of 2002 and 2005. Everyone, including Europeans, primarily described the events in Turkey as “silent revolution.” But nowadays no one in Brussels wants to touch the “Turkey dossier” because to tackle Turkey seems a futile act and brings no additional gain to the professional career of European bureaucrats.

The “100 Intellectuals” published a communiqué two weeks ago to alert the government. Turkish Foreign Minister and “Top Negotiator” Ali Babacan do not have time to focus on the latter. So Turkey actually has no chief negotiator for the EU.

“Litmus paper3”: The course of the Ergenekon crime gang investigation. There were doubts that the investigation would run into a dead end at some point. As time passed, reservations matured, and nowadays, although it’s denied, there is a tendency among the AKP’s top officials to relate the Ergenekon investigation to the closure case brought against the AKP.

If you stop halfway and push the decision with some other calculations in mind to dig out anti-democratic structures within the state structure and seek reconciliation, then the “Ergenekon boomerang” will come back and hit you through the closure indictment.

If you do not adopt a decent and determined approach to the closure of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) and needlessly impose in parliamentary sessions and say “I will not speak with you until you name the PKK terrorists,” then you suddenly share the same fate with it.

Instead of undertaking the responsibility to do your best as the executive party in the Dink murder investigation, but rather adopt a different attitude and say “the issue has been transferred to the judiciary,” making excuses about Article 301 and any anti-democratic provisions in the legal system yet say “Let’s see the implementations,” you would be “transferred to the judiciary” all of a sudden.

How can the AKP have a right to object to the closure case, if there is inconsistency in its own acts?

The AKP’s wrongdoings are innumerable. You name it; from putting the draft constitution on hold and focusing on the headscarf issue, which unnecessarily turned the political agenda upside down, to not touching the Political Parties Law as one of the by-products of the 1983 Constitution in its fifth year in the government.

The case against the AKP finds legal ground with the current Political Parties Law.

It’s really time for the AKP to wake up. It has been seven months since the elections could be termed a “lost period of time,” as a transition period from having the power as the governing party to losing the power as the ruling party.

Winning 47 percent of votes did not help the AKP. They lost control in the state of ecstasy that brought reluctance and some sort of arrogance together. Though they do not accept it, this is how they look from the outside.

The powerful support of 47 percent couldn’t be wasted in seven months this badly.

Now they have to turn this inside out, go back to the reformist attitude of the 2002-2005 period and form “alliances” again.

This is very difficult but possible.

Cengiz Candar/Turkish Daily News (Friday, March 21, 2008)
May there be Ergenekon Connection with the recent closure?

Many people in public and also some ministers from government such as Ertugrul Gunay believe that there is a connection between the Ergenekon case and prosecution of a case brought by chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals, Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya. According to another columnist Murat Yetkin:-

‘The prosecution process of a case brought by the chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals, Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya, against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) will take quite some time. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever not to conclude the Ergenekon crime gang investigation that the government side ties with the closure case in a cause-and-effect relation.’ (The title of article is Does the AKP closure case forestall Ergenekon investigation? The rest of article may be found here)
Test to Pass or Fail?
Now, the time will show us the result of test for democracy in Turkey. The case is expected to be lasting 5-6 months if the supreme Constitutional Court accepts the document brought by the chief Prosecutor. No doubt about the application of prosecutor being political by majority in Turkey since the document contains many ridiculous statements such as prosecuting even President Abdullah Gul who can be accused of virtually nothing under Turkish constitution. It is pretty likely for the constitutional court to reject the application even only for this reason. But in Turkish people’s minds the acceptance is also likely because the Constitutional Court lost the credit already with the biased decision made last year in case of number 367 with presidency election.

One fact is that the ruling party AKP slowed down the political reforms. In Turkey, the constitution made after military cue is still in power. This problems will always come unless a new constitution made by civilians replaces the old militaric constitution. The AKP concentrated on headscarf issues only with the force of Nationalist Party MHP and made a  functional distraction error which is a vital mistake in systems engineering. Turkey is difficult to enjoy a real democracy unless a new constitution is made by civilians. AKP started the work and has a draft version of new civilian constitution but no time spent on making it legal.