Closure Case for AKP
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.
