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

Judicial Comedy in Turkey
The recent closure case for the leading Ak Parti has been becoming now the most invaluable materials for comedians in Turkey. The defense document provided by the ruling AKP yesterday claims that the so-called evidences provided by the chief prosecutor of Turkey against AKP, were all collected through the search in Google. AKP provided some evidence in their defensive document to support their claims. After this interesting claim Turkish Justice system has gained a new concept called ‘Google Davası‘ which means ‘Google Case’. Sorry for the search engine users who are coming to this site after the search terms ‘Google Case’ to find out the most recent case for Google vs Microsoft, or Google vs any other parties. This is the Google Case in Turkey. In other words, Google Case is known differently now in Turkey.

For the proposed 17th July World Justice Day Logo for Google even people suggested Google to use the following Logo to be shown to Turkish Google users from google.com.tr.

You see the suggested Google Logo below for the World International Justice Day to be shown to Turkish users on 17th July if the day is officially approved. The logo carries the picture of Chief Prosecutor of Turkey with a stick in one hand to represent the letter ‘l’ in Google.

Chief Prosecutor of Turkey: Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya
Kemalists regard him as the keeper of the Grail: Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya, Turkey’s Chief Prosecutor. With his proclaimed intent of closing the ruling AK party for “anti-secularist activities”, he has recently stirred up a new political storm. Semiran Kaya introduces the uncompromising prosecutor

When the office of President was about to be occupied by Muslim Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül a national crisis erupted. The Chief of the General Staff threatened with a military intervention and departing President Sezer quickly appointed a new Chief Prosecutor from his party at the climax of the conflict in May 2007: Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, a public prosecutor who has managed to provoke an even greater national crisis during his brief one-year term.

By bringing charges against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to the Constitutional Court of Turkey, demanding that the party be closed and its officials barred from politics, Yalcinkaya has mobilized the judicial system against the government, the president, and the parliament at the same time. Who is this man and what is driving him to launch such a judicial coup?

The nationalist Kemalist social class
Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya represents the long-antiquated Turkish state. An official of the Turkish state bureaucracy who stands for the nationalist Kemalist social class, an elite class and generation that sees itself along with the military as guarantor and protector of the secular republic and that will use every means possible to cling to its accustomed power structure and privileged position.

Thus Yalcinkaya as Chief Prosecutor embodies not only the Kemalist state ideology, but is also stepping forward as a kind of inquisitor who must protect the republic from the Islamic threat. The charge demanding that the ruling AKP party be banned from politics for five years shows how very convinced the 58-year-old career judge is of this.

Not entirely popular with the folk: Yalcinkayas proposed ban of the AKP. The AK Party won nearly 47 percent of the vote in 2007 | Of course, banning parties is nothing new in Turkey. This tradition has been practiced since 1963, and twenty-four parties have been banned to date. But for the first time the ban targets a ruling party, and one with a 47 percent majority behind it. Nonetheless the petition for a ban did not come as a surprise to many in the country.

The judge, known in the Turkish press as cold-blooded, rigorous, and hardworking, has spent the past five years collecting and analyzing everything in preparation for an AKP ban. When the headscarf ban was abolished at universities, the time had come to submit the petition to ban the AKP.

A family that turned to Kemalism
Yalcinkaya was born in 1950 as the son of a Kurdish-Turkish family in Urfa, one of Turkey’s most ancient cities located near the Syrian border with a high illiteracy rate. The family had a good reputation there. His grandfather was a well-known sheikh and belonged to the Islamic Nakshibendi order.

More formative, however, was the upbringing he received from his father. A teacher, he taught him the secular ideals of Atatürk and sent him away from the religious conservative village Kara as a boy to attend school in the capital. Thus he came from a family that turned to Kemalism.

Yalcinkaya argues that moves such as abolishing a ban on the headscarf in universities indicate a secret Islamist agenda | In Ankara he studied law and soon entered a career as a judge while left-wing and right-wing student groups were fighting each other and the military seized power for the third time on September 12, 1980. At the age of 30 Yalcinkaya had experienced with great awareness at least two of the three military putsches (1960, 1971, 1980). Thus he is not only an exemplary product of the Kemalist school but also a child of the putsches.

The fervent Kemalist, who became a judge at the highest Turkish court of appeals (Yargitay) in 1998 and was appointed deputy chief prosecutor in 2004, carefully prepared the 162-page petition. After all, many founding members of the AKP started their political careers in the banned Islamic Welfare Party (Refah, 1998) and Virtue Party (Fazilet, 2001). But even critics of the AKP do not find his charge of Islamism substantive enough and suggest he is settling a personal score with the AKP.

Incorruptible and stiff-necked
Yalcinkaya, however, had already distinguished himself in November 2007 with the petition to ban the Pro-Kurdish Party DTP with its 20 delegates in parliament, an application that is still pending in the constitutional court. He has also made a name for himself as one of the most vehement opponents of the constitutional draft passed by the AKP to reform the headscarf ban at universities. Yet party politics and party bans are not his real areas of specialty as a public prosecutor, rather fighting corruption.

Even though the graying man with strikingly serious face does not shy away from conflicts and is personally upright and incorruptible because he is convinced that he and his likeminded peers are the true champions of the republic, critics point out that on purely formalist grounds he alone had to submit the petition to ban the AKP as a representative of the shrinking nationalist Kemalist upper class. After all, today neither the military nor the Kemalist power elite have a majority in the population.

But before the Kemalists surrender their power, they are ready to fight out of desperation for “their” secularism, even if this would push the country toward political turmoil and into a very dangerous situation.

Semiran Kaya Qantara.de 2008 Based on a German Newspaper translation

SUMMARY OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT PARTY (AKP)

A state prosecutor has asked Turkey’s highest court to shutdown the ruling AK Party (AKP) for allegedly undermining secularism. Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, the court of appeals chief prosecutor, as quoted by Turkish television as saying he wanted senior party members, including the president and prime minister, banned from politics for five years.Below are some excerpts from the indictment submitted by Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals, to the Constitutional Court on March 14, 2008, demanding the Justice and Development Party (JDP) should be closed down on the grounds that the party has become a focal point for anti-secular activities.

The Case (from p.10 on)

“Democratic and secular state does not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of religious beliefs. Each person is free to choose his/her religion and to express his/her beliefs within the boundaries of the freedoms of religion and conscious.”

“In a secular order, the state is impartial towards religions which does not mean that religious freedoms are unlimited. The state may make arrangements and introduce restrictions in this area for protecting rights and freedoms.”

“Turkey’s implementation of the principle of secularism is different than certain western countries.”

“With the adoption of the principle of secularism, ….. people with different beliefs gained confidence by the fact that the state equally treated each one of them, enabling them to live together.”

“Secularism, which is also the key to transition to democracy, is a philosophy of life in Turkey.”

Anti-secular Actions and Statements of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the JDP and the Prime Minister (from p.27 on)

‘‘Turkey, as a modern Muslim country, can be an example to the harmony of the civilizations.”

“It would be wrong to bring together Islam and secularism as concepts. Because individuals cannot be secular. Some perceive secularism like a religion. If secularism is a religion, then a person cannot be a Muslim at the same time. Because a person cannot follow two religions at the same time. By definition, secularism is a system, and that the states and not the individuals can be secular. Belonging to a certain religion is an individual choice.”

“There are Turks, Kurds, Lazes, Circassians, Georgians and Abkhazes and all others living in Turkey. There is an important religious bond that binds together all these ethnic elements we have. Because 99% of the Turkish population is Muslim.”

[To the journalists:] “We have around 30 different ethnicities in Turkey. You write it often as well; religion is like cement in Turkey where 99% of the people are Muslims.”

“I am not secular as an individual, but the state is. However I am responsible to protect the secular order. Yet the people of this country will be bothered if you present secularism as a religion to them. Turkey is going very well, the government is successful. Yet there are some who talk about secularism all the time, trying to reap some benefits through this discourse.”

[On headscarf ban on the university students]: “I believe that [headscarf] is a reality of our country… There is a consensus in the society [on the freedom for head covering] but we cannot understand the dissonance between public institutions. Now that we have a societal consensus at place, we need to have also institutional consensus so that we do not turn into a society where people look upon each other suspiciously.”

“Now those people [who are defending ban on headscarf of the university students] have this mentality: ‘OK, you work on the fields with your headscarf, but never become a sociologist or a psychologist.’ We have to leave this behind.”

“I think the headscarf ban in universities is a mistake. A democratic country should provide religious freedom. This includes also that the citizens may represent their religions with some symbols with the condition that they shall be respectful to the laws. The headscarf ban is not liberal.”

[On the headscarf ban in France]: “Banning is a method the French use. We, the Turks, prefer the Anglo-Saxon interpretation of secularism and we find it nonsense to prohibit certain things in the 21st century.”

“My daughters could not study at Turkish universities because they cover their hair. We, as a family, are victims of this [ban]. We are against such discriminations. But the solution of this problem is not through the fact that we want it to be solved, but through participation and consensus of all political parties.”

“This [headscarf ban] has been going on for 8 years now. Our girls who acquired the right to study at the Turkish universities cannot do with their hair covered. I think this is restricting freedoms of religion and conscious as well as education.”

“Discriminating against women is a tradition of the pre-Islamic history. Such repressive and fanatic approaches that imprison the women in private sphere by isolating from the public sphere based on sexual discrimination cannot be called civilized.”

“We are determined to remove all mistreatments by securing a consensus on freedoms. No one should doubt our intention.”

“The man has a private sphere, a public sphere and a sphere belonging to the state. No one has the right to dominate these spheres. They are going to interfere with my home soon. They will say ‘you have to behave this or that way.’ I am sorry but Turkey is not an un-regulated, chaotic place. Everyone needs to know his/her limits. We do not want any tensions. We are patient so that no one would exploit [such tensions]. However those who are occupying the judiciary in the name of justice should not spend efforts to create those tensions themselves.”

“Some people accuse [women covering their hair] by saying that they carry it as a political symbol. And they respond that ‘no, we do not’. Just imagine even if they wear [the headscarf] as a political symbol. Can you accept wearing a political symbol as a crime? Can you prohibit symbols and signs? Where can you find such a prohibition in terms of freedoms in the world?”

Anti-secular Actions and Statements of Bulent Arinc, former Speaker of the Parliament (from p.54 on)

“There are two necessities in expanding freedoms, eliminating prohibitions and democratization: The first is that the parliament takes decisions in line with the Constitution, and the second, a national consensus. In making a new legal arrangement it is one thing to ask the opinion of the public agencies, and yet another to look for their consensus. In democracies, no country seeks consensus of public agencies for democracy… If the members of the parliament cannot secure a consensus, the only authority that would provide that consensus is the will of the people. You cannot be so untrusting to the country’s regime. The Turkish regime is not that weak to be shaken and affected when you talk about an issue. No one has the intention of giving up the Republic, democracy and fundamental freedoms. Therefore we do not have a regime problem in Turkey, but a debate on who owns the regime… The state has been restricting the right to life and right to expression by some
beliefs in public sphere instead of guaranteeing the citizens to live according to their beliefs. And it does so in the name of secularism which is a great inconsistency in terms of political science. This inconsistency has been disturbing the peace at home and creating a series of problems. It is this inconsistency stemming from differing interpretations which the intellectuals, politicians and academics need to solve.”

“At the center of all debates are such issues as headscarf, secularism, Higher Education Council (HEC), high schools for imams, and the Koranic courses… Yet we believe that the real center of the debate is freedoms and who is going to determine the limits of freedoms. We defend the view that those limits can only be drawn by the parliament. This is a democratic requirement. Because the parliament is the place where the people are represented. Therefore the last word on Turkey’s fate can be said by this parliament. Yet for some reasons, some institutions or persons do not want to admit this truth.”

“Democracy is not a regime of the elites. It is not a regime of a certain minority. It is not a regime of the rich. Democracy is there for everyone: all the poor, the sufferer, the victims and people in the streets. Democracy exists for each individual without any discrimination. No one can prevent the use of this right.”

Anti-secular Actions and Statements of Abdullah Gül, former Minister of Foreign Affairs (from p.65 on)

[On the headscarf ban]: “Of course, such are prohibitions are not included in the EU’s human rights standards. All these will be removed when the day comes. I am indeed sure about that. Prohibitions that do not exist in Paris, London or Paris should not exist in Turkey as well. It is indeed so, because [headscarf] is a part of our culture. We see these issues as the ones that need to be solved in time, with prudence.

“As JDP, we see the issue of headscarf as part of the rights of free thought and expression. Whoever covers her hair and whoever not is free to do so. This is the gist of the issue for me.”

“We are determined on the freedom of expression and belief: everyone should be permitted to live according to his beliefs. All individuals must feel safe away from fears and anxieties. They must freely express whatever they think and believe and live according to whatever they believe in. It is our mission to eliminate terror and torture and to strengthen freedoms of expression and beliefs. We will continue to be determined to realize all legal actions to this end.”

“You cannot defend restrictions on the rights of the majority when you discuss the religious rights and freedoms for the minorities in Turkey. But these are our own problems. I believe that we will solve our own problems by ourselves. Of course this would require a course of time. No one should be proud of prohibitions. No one would be honored by defending and taking pride in prohibitions. We will settle this problem when an appropriate time comes by our own initiative… Our government is determined to eliminate all prohibitions.”

“We are always in favor of positive freedoms… Turkey will be a society that is constantly becoming freer, democratized and widening the civil sphere. We are determined on that. As the society, as the parliament, as the government.”

Anti-secular Actions and Statements of Huseyin Celik, Minister of Education (from p.70 on)

“The secular state is defined as the state where the religion is not permitted to interfere with the work of the government. These religions can be Christianity, atheism, Buddhism or any other. The Sikhs wear turbans as required by their beliefs. The laws may prohibit but [those girls covering their hair] said ‘this is a requirement of our belief’ and they did so. This is exactly what the prime minister is saying…. You have to accept it as such. You cannot prohibit this with judicial decisions. We are the owners of the Republic of Turkey, the democratic, secular, social state and the rule of law. We do not need to hear any warning by any person.”

”It is a dram in its own right that our young girls are deprived of their education rights just because they cover their hair.”

[On the declaration of the All-Universities Board comprising university presidents announcing that they would not comply with the constitutional amendment permitting female students wearing headscarves at the universities and calling upon the new president of the Higher Education Council to resign]: “The Law on Higher Education Council defines the duties of the All-Universities Board. There is no power of approving or abolishing laws. The Board cannot do politics. No one has the right in the name of a university president or the Board to stand against the will of the Turkish people. No one under the rule of law can say that ‘I cannot permit [the women covering their hair] in my university’ even after a constitutional amendment is made and as it enters into force and in the absence of anything that would restrict the freedoms. The universities are not personal properties of the presidents. Each person needs to be aware of his position regardless of his status under
the rule of law.”

Anti-secular Actions and Statements of Deputies of the JDP (from p.75 on)

Sadullah Ergin, Vice-Chairman of the JDP Group in the Parliament: “Universal human rights are not rights which exist because a certain public agency or court says so. These are innate rights in our existence as human beings. The doctrines and decisions are subject to change yet universal human rights will exist for ever.”

‘’You believe it or not, headscarf is a reality in Turkey. Governments cannot be closed towards their own people. It cannot exist just because you say so, or ceases to exist because you say it so.”

Cavit Torun, the MP of Diyarbakir: “It is true that even the majority, let alone the minorities in this country cannot enjoy freedoms of belief, thought and ideas. Counter-arguments to this cannot reverse this fact. There are still thousands of young girls cannot freely attend the schools, their sufferings and sorrow are at the limits of patience.”

Mustafa Bumin, former president of the Constitutional Court stated that “permitting anyone covering her hair and neck for religious reasons is a type of imposing and forcing others. This act of covering persons and forcing them to do so is against the principle of secularism as it would lead to creating an environment in which the youth will clash, also creating ruptures among the people belonging even to the same religion.”

Irfan Gunduz, the MP of Istanbul responded on this statement by Bumin: “No judiciary can embargo the future. The society has a consensus on this. Is the Constitutional Court a fatwa issuing authority on the headscarf issue?”

“Our prime minister goes accompanied with his wife [wearing a headscarf] to the White House, Versailles or Kremlin, and this poses no problem. Yet the same fact becomes a big problem when he visits Çankaya, the presidential mansion. Even her boarding on the president’s aircraft becomes a problem. So, how can Turkey still persist on such a wrong doing in a shrinking world?”

Musa Uzunkaya, the MP of Samsun: “Latife Hanim, Ataturk’s wife, attended the meetings at the Cankaya mansion with her hair covered. The wife of Ismet Inonu [the second president of the Republic] accompanied him in black chador during his visits abroad. Were they also reactionary?”

Guldal Aksit, former Minister of State: “Turkey has a problem of headscarf. It constitutes a hurdle before the education of our young girls.”

Ersonmez Yarbay, the MP of Ankara: “Headscarf is a part of the individual freedom of beliefs.”

Mehmet Elkatmis, the MP of Nevsehir: “The headscarf ban is against human rights. No one can defend it.”

Nihat Ergun, Vice-chairman of the JDP: “Women who want to actively participate in the modern life in their religious identity and appearance are unjustly treated.”

Bulent Gedikli, Vice-chairman of the JDP: “As JDP we have said that we are looking for a social consensus…It is clear that ban on headscarf is a violation of human rights. The fact that a girl covering her hair is deprived of university education is making us and the public sad.”

Egemen Bagis, the MP of Istanbul: “I have sisters and friends who cannot attend the university [because of the headscarf]. I absolutely believe that this is a shame for human rights.”

“Some female MPs with headscarves from the Nationalist Action Party used to come to the door of the parliament and took their headscarves off there. What is the use of living such a dual life? I find it extremely shameful in the name of humanity.”

Prof. Dr. Yusuf Ziya Ozcan, the president of the HEC: “Prevention of the rights of education for certain students at the universities has become a chronic problem.”

Dengir Mir Mehmet Firat, the Vice-Chairman of JDP called public prosecutors to take necessary action in the face of university presidents who refused to comply with the constitutional amendment permitting women with headscarf to pursue education at universities.

MPs from JDP together with MPs from the Nationalist Action Party proposed a constitutional amendment on the 10th and 42nd articles in order to permit university education for women with headscarves.

The Ankara chapter of the JDP opened a tent for iftar (the break of the Ramadan fasting) decorated with the pictures of the JDP leader and several banners.

Evaluation of the Anti-secular Actions of the JDP by the Public Prosecutor (from p.113 on)

“So, there is a strong possibility that political Islam or the ‘moderate Islam’ model as some circles want to qualify it will turn Turkey into a country ruled by Shariah and it is also probable that Islamic terror will be used to this end.”

“This mentality which takes democracy as an instrument to reach the ideal of Shariah hid [the JDP’s] intentions behind the ideology of ‘moderate Islam’, produced by the centers of globalization after the 1990s for our country as the co-chairman of the Project of the Greater Middle East and other countries of the region as the political objective [of the ideology of ‘moderate Islam’] and behind such concepts like human rights, democracy, freedoms of religion and conscious, and the right to education, none which is related to Shariah.”

“The JDP has begun to gradually implement its objective of transforming the society into an Islamic one with the encouragement and impact of the votes it received in the general elections of 22 July 2007, first by preparing the draft of a new constitution and then aiming at the principle of secularism through putting the issue of headscarf on the agenda.”

“The headscarf that is a symbol of religious fanaticism has been shown as an indispensable part of the freedom of belief and the party tried to present wearing headscarf as a right.”

“Headscarf is a religious and political symbol supported by a liberating discourse by the Party in its march towards a counter-revolution in education, culture, economic and social life through its struggle against the Republican revolutions in general, and the principle of secularism, in particular.”

“Elimination of the ban on headscarf at universities is a dangerous process which would lead to its gradual use in public sphere, forcing those who do not cover their hair, hence gradually creating a religious discrimination in all domains of life.”

“The authorities of the concerned party surely know that the headscarf which has been transformed into a political symbol for opposing women’s freedoms and the basic values of the Republic and presented as a fundamental right to the society is the most important key for the counter-revolution that would bring the entire society under a theocratic order by spreading to all spheres and then by bringing some other anti-secular demands as rights to the social agenda and through new ‘consensus-building processes’.”

“It is unquestionable that the legal change in the Law on Higher Education is against the Constitution. The constitutional amendment is contrary to the Constitution as well.”

“… Those who are against the Republic and its philosophy of enlightenment has begun to look for a revenge against the Secular Republic with the manipulation of the unipolarism created by globalization and changes in international balances… Today the opponents of the Secular Republic have seized the opportunity for a counter-revolution which they never had before, by taking the international support behind them.”

“The secular Republic is in danger as it has never been. Because the counter-revolutionaries are not marginals anymore, they are in power today.”

“The party in question relied on political Islamists in appointing the bureaucrats with the power and ability created by the fact that it is in power.”

“In around five and a half years of the JDP government, Turkey’s image of a secular country in international circles has been eroded and the countries of the world and especially the EU countries perceived Turkey as a ‘moderate Islamic republic’. This perception has been officially acknowledged by American authorities like Colin L. Powell, former US Secretary of State. Many American authorities defined our country as a ‘moderate Islamic republic’ ignoring the fact that Turkey is indeed a secular, democratic and social state governed by rule of law. They have showed this impudence in their discourse by the fact that prime minister Erdogan frequently refers to his co-chairmanship of the Greater Middle East Project which is an American project aiming at installing moderate Islamic regimes in the region.”

Conclusion by the Public Prosecutor (from p.145 on):

“It is thus concluded that the JDP has:

revealed its intention to constitute the environment in which basic principles of the Republic of Turkey will be changed by the actions mentioned above and especially by their proposals for a constitutional amendment and changes on the Law on Higher Education [abolishing ban on headscarves at universities]

ignored the fact that religious symbols cannot be used in secular systems

been determined to transform the secular Republic into a new life system and a new state order and begun to divide the society into those who are religious and those who are not

been spending efforts to change gradually the secular judicial structure and to give it a new shape

opened to the discussion the future of the regime and the Republic.”

“It is a fact that the JDP will use material power to change the secular order because it enjoys the government power today and this danger is not far. This is a fact when we consider that they will adopt Shariah by enabling the society to evolve towards an Islamic structure through what they call “consensus processes” by exploiting religion and the sacred values and through jihad aiming at transforming the state into Shariah.”

“The JDP would use jihad as required by Shariah when and if it fails to achieve to establish the regime it aims. In other words, the use of jihad, i.e. violence is probable.”

“The threat posed by the policies of the JDP is clear and present. Concrete steps have been taken that may harm the civilized peace and the democratic regime in the country.”

“In this context, there is no other possibility than closing the party as the only sanction applicable and also required by the society in order to protect the society from this danger and to prevent [the JDP] from reaching its objective.”

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.