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

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.