Judicial sabotage

Is the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) aware that it is being lured into a trap by the decisions of the judiciary? If it has not yet woken up, let me tell it what the trap is.

It is one that will prevent the party from making a constitution and resolving the Kurdish question, the two actions most needed for ultimate reform. It is really odd. Before the new Parliament has even commenced Turkish politics seems to have gotten out of hand. Once more Turkey’s judiciary has played a central role in driving politics into chaos. Political actors and democrats cannot allow the judiciary to hijack politics.

What I am referring to is two decisions taken by branches of the judiciary. One is the decision of the Supreme Election Board (YSK) to nullify the election of Hatip Dicle as a member of Parliament from Diyarbakır -- the same YSK that decided Dicle was eligible to be elected as a deputy. Now the same institution and the same judges have ruled Dicle is not eligible to be elected. Such a scandalous case cannot occur in any civilized country. Are they joking or committing institutional suicide?

There can be no defense against the argument that the law is clear on this matter and that anyone sentenced for “crimes against the state” would lose the right to be elected. First, if there is such a law, it is shameful. An ordinary criminal, say a rapist or a murderer, may be able to stand as a candidate and win a parliamentary seat, but anyone who is convicted of “thought crimes” cannot. How can we defend such a “law”?

Second, the YSK cannot hide behind even this shameful “law” simply because it does not have any authority written in any law to nullify the election of a deputy. Dicle, under the authorization of the YSK, entered the elections and the people of Diyarbakır elected him as their representative, period. From this moment onwards, the YSK is out of the picture and has no authority whatsoever over an elected member of Parliament. It is a shame on the part of the rest of Parliament and political parties that they do not defend “their space” against the unwarranted intervention of the YSK. I would have expected the AK Party, the majority party in Parliament, to act in a way to defend the will of the people who elected Dicle just two weeks ago. But, on the contrary, it remained silent and even rushed to take the offer made by the YSK in Diyarbakır, granting Dicle’s spot to another deputy from the list of the AK Party. It should have at least restrained itself from accepting the undeserved seat unjustly taken away from the BDP. I think this is not being faithful to the will of the people who elected Dicle as their representative.

The AK Party has nothing to win out of this one seat but a lot to lose: its commitment to the supremacy of the will of the people. Anyone who is elected as a deputy should be treated like a precious jewel of democracy for his/her representative capacity. Whoever he or she is -- whether an Ergenekon suspect or an ordinary person -- it does not matter. For the court not to decide to free the detained suspects in the Ergenekon case who have been elected as deputies is another blow to the will of the people and the belief in the supremacy of Parliament. I cannot accept that representatives of the people are kept in prison. The belief in the supremacy of Parliament and the people’s choice requires respect for anyone elected as a deputy. Apart from a moral high ground, there is also a practical reason why we should resolve these crises immediately. It is that we need this Parliament and we cannot afford damaging its public standing.

I am deeply upset about these two decisions of the judiciary because they damage the legitimacy of Parliament, the most important matter above all other concerns and gains. Once the legitimacy of the current Parliament is in question, it will become impossible for it to carry on with the most challenging task ahead: making a new constitution. For this, I am shocked and upset not only about the YSK decision but also the attitude of the ruling AK Party. I think it has been lured into a trap.

The trap is to render the AK Party unable to make a new constitution and resolve the Kurdish question. The decisions of the judiciary about Dicle, Mustafa Balbay, Mehmet Haberal, and Engin Alan are attempts at sabotaging Turkey’s normalization and democratization by hindering the making of a new constitution and the resolution of the Kurdish question.

Turkey the day after elections

It appears the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has won another term in office. It is the first party in the last 50 years to have won three consecutive elections. This is a phenomenal success that has to be studied by political scientists.

However, Turkey post-elections will be a better country. The ballot box is the best cure for any kind of political or social disease, provided that all parties accept the rules of the game. For any reasonable community, there is no better alternative than upholding the will of the people. Let’s hope this election will be a turning point in coming to terms with the rules of the game. No one can question the mandate given to a political party disregarding its ideology, identity or program.

I think what the people are best aware of in this country is their power to determine who is to govern them. It is important to note that the people of this country have experience in determining who is to rule through the ballot box. This power has been in place since 1950. So it is better not to doubt the wisdom of the electorate.

Political parties have also behaved themselves despite the occasional tension and polemics. Campaigns conducted by all political parties reflected their priorities. Whatever they are, no one can argue that political campaigns are constrained in any way. Election campaigning in languages other than Turkish was possible for the first time. Therefore, Kurdish candidates from all political parties were able to use Kurdish to convey their messages to the people.

Polemics were commonplace among the political leaders, which is almost inevitable in an election campaign. It is hoped that these polemics will remain after the elections and that political parties will settle their differences on important issues.

Anyhow, I think what marked this election is the absence of ideological quarrels. We have not discussed the future of secularism and republican values being threatened by Islamization under the government of the AK Party.

During the second term of AK Party rule, one would have expected that Islamization of the state and society would have gone further, and thus the quest to defend secular values would have intensified. But this has not happened. On the contrary, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) has almost abandoned this issue, never mentioning such things either in its election manifesto or during public meetings.

What has changed since then? The sensitivity of the CHP towards secularism, or the intentions of the AK Party to undo secularism and the republic? What has happened to the “hidden agenda” of the AK Party?

If secularism and the republic are not in danger today, then they were also not in danger four years ago. So, what was the idea behind this? I think in the post-election period this will be discussed.

Nonetheless, it was good to experience an election period in which real issues were raised and discussed, and pledges were made concerning these real issues. This is certainly an indication of Turkey’s normalization.

Yet, the thing that will institutionalize Turkey’s normalization is to resolve the Kurdish question and to make a new, liberal, democratic and pluralistic constitution. And this is under the responsibility of the AK Party once more.