Monday, April 7, 2008 | Cengiz ÇANDAR
The outside view on Turkey gives a more accurate picture than overheated discussions inside. In fact, looking at events from the inside bears a danger of being lost among the trees, while it is possible to see the entire forest from the outside. The Economist magazine is one of the best to present a clear picture of Turkey, because of its fame and prestige in the eyes of democratic public opinion, politicians and business circles in international communities.
The Economist regards the closure case brought against the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government as a “dangerous mistake.” In a commentary titled “Courtroom Drama,” it notes: “In a modern democracy, the notion that a court might ban a political party that has been in government for over five years and was re-elected only nine months ago seems bizarre.”
This reflects the “pulse of Western democracy.” The “bizarreness,” of course, is self-suggesting that Turkey lacks the quality of being a “modern democracy.” If Turkey owns such an objective, which it does, and should, have, then the country has to save itself from this bizarreness. Otherwise, Turkey's breaking away from the European Union and the western democracies in general becomes inevitable. Since this is perhaps, and even most probably, the motive of the parties behind this case, the “closure suit” is transformed into a “strategic question” rather than a finite legal process for Turkey.
Can we not wait for the end of this case? The Economist responds: “Since the case so plainly lacks merit, a wise court would simply throw it out. Unfortunately, however, the court is itself part of the fiercely secular establishment, as it showed by its strange decision to overturn Mr. [Abdullah] Gül's] election by Parliament last May. To avert a prolonged crisis, Mr. [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan should bring forward his plans to replace the Constitution with one that makes it harder to close down peaceful political parties. Only by showing once and for all that democracy matters more than secularism will Turkey become a truly modern European country.” Through this observation, we might say Turkey is facing a “strategic question.” To leave this lawsuit alone in its natural course would mean drifting apart from the western democracies and in a way turning our back on the “modernization project” Turkey launched at the beginning of the Republic. Ironically enough, “local powers” daring such a move, with the justification that secularism is in danger, are warned by the very own “secular West” for “deviation from western democracy.” Like teaching their grandmothers how to suck eggs, will the secular West learn secularism from these powers?
Joost Lagendijk, one of the fervent advocates of Turkey in its EU bid and co-chair of the Joint EU-Turkey Parliamentary Committee, said in Ankara Saturday, "to be honest, you can explain to very few politicians in Europe that a closure case has been opened against a political party that got 47 percent of the vote on the grounds of it being anti-secular. You cannot see something like this in the last 50 years of Europe's past.” The issue of “party closure” not only disqualifies Turkey from the EU but also represents a “dangerous mistake,” or even a deadly one, in terms of the country's short- and mid-term security. This is more than just a closure case against the AKP. The pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) is also on trial in another similar attempt. Two parties in Parliament encounter the ploy of closure. But their position in the Southeast is more important. After all, in the elections held nine months ago, these two parties gained 90 percent of the votes in the Southeast, the geographical origin of the Kurdish conflict and the most troublesome region of the country. Here are a few examples: In Diyarbakır, the AKP won 47 percent of votes, Independents (who represent the DTP) won 41 percent, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) won 2 percent each; in Şırnak, AKP 27, DTP 52, CHP 7, and MHP 3 percent; in Mardin, AKP 49, DTP 40, CHP and MHP 3 percent each; in Hakkari, AKP 33, DTP 56, CHP 4 and MHP 2 percent; in Batman, AKP 46, DTP 39, CHP 4 and MHP 1 percent; in Siirt, AKP 49, DTP 40, CHP and MHP 3 percent each; in Muş, AKP 39, DTP 46, CHP 3 and MHP 2 percent; in Bingöl, AKP 71, DTP 14, CHP 4 and MHP 3 percent; in Van, AKP 53, DTP 33, CHP 4 and MHP 3 percent; in Urfa, the AKP won 60 percent, DTP 20, CHP and MHP 5 percent each.
In a country in which the AKP and the DTP are abolished, the will of 90 percent in the Southeast is being nullified and its representation is being neglected totally.
The Southeast's representation in Parliament and in the “political ground field” will be left to the “mountains.” How can this country peacefully overcome the Kurdish issue by closures?
Can you stand against the constitutional changes and say no change of rules in the middle of the game? But this is not a “game.”
We are not playing a game; we are playing with the fate and future of Turkey.
Everyone should keep their eyes wide open and return back to Turkey before making a “dangerous mistake,” before it is too late and before being pushed off the road completely.