The verdict of the court not to close the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is certainly a relief, not only for the AK Party but for Turkish democracy as well. It may herald the beginning of a new era that rules out closing a political party that does not use or encourage violence. Thus democrats and AK Party supporters may hail the decision of the court as opening the path for democratic competition among political parties alone, no longer inviting the judiciary to meddle in political affairs. It may be inferred from the decision of the court that political quarrels should be settled by political means, not by the interference of the judiciary or the military.
But the court also ruled that the AK Party has become a "focal point of anti-secular activities," a point tacitly criticized by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who in his initial reaction to the court ruling asserted that "the AK Party has never been and will never be a focal point of anti-secular activities."
Thus secularism may remain the central issue of political debate in the future. Constrained by the verdict, the AK Party may speed up its evolution into a center-right political identity by pushing for more democratization and EU accession. In the new period, the AK Party may, therefore, try to expand its democratic credentials by seeking reformist policies reminiscent of its first three years in power. The court verdict would also have some ramifications on opposition politics. In a way, the court provided new ammunition to opponents of the AK Party who base their opposition on secularism. Yet this may not bring about any fresh argument against the AK Party. If the opposition continues to focus on secularism in order to push the AK Party into a corner, this would only serve to reinforce the current political division, a division that favors the AK Party. People who are concerned with secularism being used to limit the power of the people, the national will and democracy will continue to rally behind the AK Party.
Therefore, the decision of the court may also be interpreted as the end of secularism being the focal point of Turkish politics. The opposition block may be satisfied with the fact that the court declared the AK Party as anti-secularist and move on to challenge the ruling party on more concrete social and economic issues. This is the strategy that would normalize Turkish politics. It is also more likely to beat the AK Party in coming elections on such a down-to-earth opposition instead of a single issue of secularism, which has proven ineffective in bringing down the AK Party government in the last election.
In this line of reasoning, there is a possibility that the court verdict may lead to a process of "rethinking" secularism by the radical secularist block that may embrace a "moderate secularism" in an attempt to address the concerns of Turkey's religious people, a kind of rediscovering of the late Bülent Ecevit's notion of "secularism that is respectful of religion."
This may be wishful thinking given the inflexibility of the secularist-Kemalist block, but they have to try something new. Why not attempt to understand sensitivities and concerns of religious/conservative social segments? It is now a common saying that the ruling AK Party should address the concerns of secularists and win over their trust. Why do we not expect the same prudence and wisdom from the secularist/Kemalist bloc? If there is to be a reconciliation in Turkey, the secularist/Kemalist block has responsibilities as well. To start with, they should understand the need to lift the headscarf ban at universities and take the initiative to overcome this problem. Remember, around 70 percent of people want this ban lifted. If we are to seek compromise, reconciliation, and consensus, let us start removing the headscarf ban, a very effective way to win the sympathy of conservative/religious people.
04.08.2008
But the court also ruled that the AK Party has become a "focal point of anti-secular activities," a point tacitly criticized by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who in his initial reaction to the court ruling asserted that "the AK Party has never been and will never be a focal point of anti-secular activities."
Thus secularism may remain the central issue of political debate in the future. Constrained by the verdict, the AK Party may speed up its evolution into a center-right political identity by pushing for more democratization and EU accession. In the new period, the AK Party may, therefore, try to expand its democratic credentials by seeking reformist policies reminiscent of its first three years in power. The court verdict would also have some ramifications on opposition politics. In a way, the court provided new ammunition to opponents of the AK Party who base their opposition on secularism. Yet this may not bring about any fresh argument against the AK Party. If the opposition continues to focus on secularism in order to push the AK Party into a corner, this would only serve to reinforce the current political division, a division that favors the AK Party. People who are concerned with secularism being used to limit the power of the people, the national will and democracy will continue to rally behind the AK Party.
Therefore, the decision of the court may also be interpreted as the end of secularism being the focal point of Turkish politics. The opposition block may be satisfied with the fact that the court declared the AK Party as anti-secularist and move on to challenge the ruling party on more concrete social and economic issues. This is the strategy that would normalize Turkish politics. It is also more likely to beat the AK Party in coming elections on such a down-to-earth opposition instead of a single issue of secularism, which has proven ineffective in bringing down the AK Party government in the last election.
In this line of reasoning, there is a possibility that the court verdict may lead to a process of "rethinking" secularism by the radical secularist block that may embrace a "moderate secularism" in an attempt to address the concerns of Turkey's religious people, a kind of rediscovering of the late Bülent Ecevit's notion of "secularism that is respectful of religion."
This may be wishful thinking given the inflexibility of the secularist-Kemalist block, but they have to try something new. Why not attempt to understand sensitivities and concerns of religious/conservative social segments? It is now a common saying that the ruling AK Party should address the concerns of secularists and win over their trust. Why do we not expect the same prudence and wisdom from the secularist/Kemalist bloc? If there is to be a reconciliation in Turkey, the secularist/Kemalist block has responsibilities as well. To start with, they should understand the need to lift the headscarf ban at universities and take the initiative to overcome this problem. Remember, around 70 percent of people want this ban lifted. If we are to seek compromise, reconciliation, and consensus, let us start removing the headscarf ban, a very effective way to win the sympathy of conservative/religious people.
04.08.2008
No comments:
Post a Comment