THE CHP IS A DISGRACE TO SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (2)
Haluk Ozdalga*

Today’s Zaman
28 June 2008, Saturday
Turkey

CHP leader Deniz Baykal vehemently opposed a bill that would amend
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which prominent Turkish
intelllectuals have been tried under.

Embarrassment resulted this year when the media disclosed that General
Staff headquarters had circulated several internal reports on issues
outside the military’s areas of responsibility and these came under
criticism.

One such report concerned nongovernmental organizations that received
financial support from the EU or the US, alleging that with such
financing, anti-Turkish activities were being carried out. Another such
report was about journalists, newspapers and other media institutions,
classifying them according to their level of purported loyalty to
the state.

Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal was certainly one
of the first to come forth in defense of these documents, claiming
that the first report was "merely a position paper" of the military,
while the second one was "only an internal assessment report of the
military meant to harmonize its relations with the press and the
media." (Taraf, April 11, 2008)

Kanalturk: money for favorable media treatment

Another humiliating situation for the CHP ensued when it was disclosed
that the party had entered into a formal contract with a small
private TV station, Kanalturk, in a blatant attempt to bribe and
create partisan media. A sum of $3.5 million was paid to the station
in return for giving extensive air coverage to the views and figures
of the party. The case is under legal investigation and constitutes
a clear violation of the law; however, given the cordial relations
between the party and the judiciary, it is unlikely this will yield
any concrete results.

Nor should the political aspects of the case be neglected. Kanalturk
was founded and managed by Tuncay Ozkan, one of the country’s most
blatant and aggressive militarists in civilian clothing. When he
decided to start a TV enterprise, he was known to have visited the
military headquarters trying to drum up financial support, because
the military wields considerable financial clout through several
large holdings they own and control. On Kanalturk, films depicting
military coups and regimes in other countries are given ample air
time. Ozkan is such an ardent booster of military interventions in
politics that when, in the midst of the northern Iraq crisis, Chief of
General Staff Gen. YaÅ~_ar Buyukanıt mildly told a press conference
that the military’s role is to take orders from political leaders,
this was just too much for Ozkan to stomach. He exploded in protest
on his own vanity station, suggesting that now we should consider
setting up a new army: "Now I say, the Turkish nation can set up not
one, but thousands of armies… How can a chief of General Staff say
we are to take orders from the politicians?" (Zaman, April 14, 2007)

This is the station Baykal and his party chose as its ally in the
media, and in support funneled $3.5 million to its coffers.

Opposing reformed Foundations Law

This February the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government
submitted a bill to Parliament to finally complete work to reform
the Foundations Law. Foundations played a significant role in
Ottoman society, but this old institution badly needed revisions
in line with modern times. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
closely followed the push for reform, even though it was clear the
issue would be exploited politically. The government took the issue
seriously and organized several study groups to produce a proposal
based on democratic principles, granting equality to all foundations,
including minority ones (Greek, Armenian, Jewish, etc.), along with
the right to own property and the right to engage in international
activities and economic enterprises.

To no one’s surprise, the CHP opposed these reforms. Their
opposition contained much exploitation, little substance and
groundless claims that the reforms amounted to kowtowing to EU
dictates. "Very ridiculous… Why? We should adapt to the EU… this
is very ridiculous." (parliamentary proceedings, Feb. 20, 2008, CHP
deputy İsa Gök) At one point, one CHP spokesperson even alleged
that the issue was connected to the international Orthodox Church and
its gaining property rights in Turkey. (parliamentary proceedings,
Jan. 30, 2008, CHP deputy Rahmi Guner)

Backwards stances on Article 301 and broadcasting in Kurdish

Before it was amended earlier this year, Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
Article 301 prescribed imprisonment for "insulting the state and
Turkishness." The problem concerned not only the law’s wording, but
also its overzealous use by prosecutors. Between 2003 and 2007, 1,481
legal cases were initiated under the infamous law, with 745 ending
in a guilty verdict against the accused. Among those charged under
301 were a number of writers and journalists, including Orhan Pamuk,
winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, and Hrant Dink, a prominent
Turkish-Armenian journalist who was later assassinated. It was a
clear-cut matter of freedom of speech. When a bill was introduced
in Parliament this April changing the law’s wording and requiring
that the justice minister green light any prosecutions under it,
the CHP and Baykal opposed it vehemently, voted against it and spread
slander alleging that the government was making people free to insult
the Turkish nation. In previous debates, Baykal charged that reforms
to Article 301 amounted to nothing less than "a betrayal," (Star,
Dec. 1, 2006)

The majority of the population living in Turkey’s East and Southeast
are ethnic Kurds. When the government introduced a reform bill this May
allowing state-run TV to broadcast in languages other than Turkish,
thereby opening the way for broadcasting in Kurdish one day a week,
the CHP again opposed and voted against this measure.

CHP champions adventurism and aggression abroad

The major political opposition in Turkey against a just and peaceful
settlement of the Cyprus issue comes from the CHP. Back in 2004, when
the AK Party government supported the UN plan and a referendum for
a united Cyprus, it paved the way for a diplomatic breakthrough. But
Baykal strongly opposed the plan, simply because he prefers that the
problem remain unresolved, caring little if that puts him at odds
with the Turkish social democrats on the island.

On the northern Iraq issue, the CHP has been proposing military
deployment there even if that would mean an open confrontation with the
US and the local Kurdish forces. Though the turmoil such a step would
reap is clear to all, Baykal escalated his demands on this issue during
the first half of 2007, as elections approached. In October 2007 the
government decided to deploy troops in northern Iraq to neutralize the
bases used by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) for aggression into
neighboring Turkish territory. The absolute condition for the political
and military success of this initiative was the strict limitation of
these cross-border operations to the PKK and its bases. But when the
issue was debated in Parliament, the CHP spokesperson saw no reason
to depart from his party’s aggressive line. "The prime minister says
that … the sole target of the probable cross-border operations will
be the terrorist organization [PKK] … That is not enough …

The main objective of the operation … [must be] to prove to the
political authority in northern Iraq protecting the PKK that this
protection will carry a heavy price." (parliamentary proceedings,
Oct. 17, 2007, CHP deputy Å~^ukru Elekdag)

Banning the AK Party

One major tactic of the CHP is to incessantly paint a picture of
Turkey as facing a threat of being transformed into a state based on
Islamic law, something Turks did not have even during the Dark Ages,
and of the AK Party’s advocating this. The major "proof" the CHP
has for its claim is the AK Party’s bid to lift the ban on wearing
headscarves on university campuses.

This February, when 411 members of Parliament passed constitutional
changes giving university women the opportunity to exercise their
freedom of choice, the CHP petitioned the Constitutional Court to
overturn these changes. Defying the Constitution’s clear stipulation
that it has no jurisdiction to rule on constitutional amendments,
the court ruled as the CHP had asked. In March the chief public
prosecutor issued an indictment seeking to close down the AK Party and
bar Erdogan from engaging in politics for five years. For his part,
Baykal hailed these developments as a major victory.

Shortly after the release of the indictment, criticized by many for
ideological tendentiousness, Baykal expressed his opinion on it as
follows: "This is a very objective, very good indictment, prepared
with responsibility." (Zaman, March 18, 2008) Baykal was also clear on
how the court should rule. "If the judiciary is prevented from doing
its job, then the abuse of religion cannot be prevented and there
will be chaos." (Hurriyet, April 4, 2008) On what awaits Erdogan,
he had this to say, "The truth will prevail at some point, and you
will get your punishment." (Taraf, June 15, 2008)

When numerous EU leaders cried foul over the indictment, saying
that banning a governing party which recently won 47 percent of the
popular vote and barring a prime minister from politics would be
unacceptable, Baykal’s response went like this: "The biggest problem
between Turkey and the EU is the politicians who come here on behalf of
the EU, and under the influence of this or that person make irrelevant
comments. These politicians talking thoughtlessly and recklessly deal
the harshest blow to relations with the EU. EU leaders must tell these
politicians about Turkey, as they don’t know what they’re talking
about." (Milliyet, May 7, 2008) The politicians who need instruction
by EU leaders about what to talk about, at Baykal’s behest, include
figures no less distinguished than European Commission President Jose
Manuel Barroso and EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn.

In another reply to the various EU leaders criticizing from
a democratic point of view the drive to ban the AK Party, Baykal
simply stated that "those who speak on behalf of the EU are democracy
smart-alecks." (Radikal, May 12, 2008) And when Rehn suggested an
understanding of "democratic secularism" that was also objectionable
to Baykal, he responded, "The discourse on democratic secularism
is a reflection of the desire to abandon secularism." (Hurriyet,
May 19, 2008)

–Boundary_(ID_oboYKiRjV+qxzboiNnheVA)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress