A DIFFERENT APPROACH?

Zaman Online
July 18 2008
Turkey

What a difference a few days can make! The closure of the ruling
Justice and Developmetn Party (AKP) was widely seen as a foregone
conclusion, but a subtle change of atmosphere is now taking place,
largely due to the Ergenekon investigation. A more positive outcome
appears possible, particularly after the Constitutional Court
rapporteur advised against a ban on the party.

It is, however, much too early for Turkey to breathe a sigh of
relief. In the headscarf case, the Constitutional Court had ignored
its rapporteur’s opinion and opted for a harder line.In any case,
given the tensions of the past few months, the political situation
cannot be expected to return to its previous state, as if nothing had
happened, even if the AKP remains in power. In fact, if no change
resulted from the turmoil, Turkey would have missed an important
opportunity to strengthen its democratic framework.

The two court cases under way are causing wide controversy, but by
opening the very core of the Turkish system to debate they are also
making way for a major transformation. The inquiry into Ergenekon,
which is limited in scope, has so far only scratched the surface,
but as recent history is being re-examined, it is already creating
popular expectations for more openness, which political parties will be
challenged to meet.The Ergenekon investigation focuses on the recent
unlawful activities of a few dozen people, but as a result of the
inquiry, the entire ideological underpinning of the state is coming
under scrutiny. Members of underground "deep state" organizations took
to illegal extremes an authoritarian approach that, in its less radical
interpretation, still has wide currency across the political spectrum.

If, as the investigation suggests, the threat of Islamic fundamentalism
was deliberately exaggerated to create fear in the population, what
other issues were similarly exploited? The Susurluk investigation
of more than a decade ago had already alerted public opinion to
shadowy groups muddying the waters in the Southeast and elsewhere in
Turkey. Hundreds of unresolved murders in the early ’90s targeted
not Kurdish radicals who were advocating the use of violence,
but intellectuals and professionals who were advocating peaceful
dialogue, in the same way that Hrant Dink was trying to address the
Armenian issue.

Fear of a state backlash has often hindered reform, but it has also
provided a convenient shield for politicians to hide behind. During its
first mandate, the AKP had gone further than any previous government
in pushing forward a reformist agenda, but it has not entirely freed
itself from the politics of fear, as illustrated by its reluctance to
remove Article 301, which curbs freedom of expression, from the Turkish
Penal Code (TCK). Yet the recent Ergenekon revelations show that the
actions of self-declared defenders of the nation can in fact be far
more damaging than any public expression of dissent or criticism.

After the Constitutional Court issues its ruling on the case against
AKP, Turkey’s rulers will have to make it a priority to build
consensus and work with civil society on a comprehensive overhaul
of the Constitution. It is encouraging that initiatives such as the
Ortak Akil movement are already trying to bring different sections of
the society together to promote a more democratic framework, but it
is disappointing that no women figure on the list of intellectuals
backing the project. If Turkey is truly to build a more inclusive
political structure, it cannot ignore 50 percent of its population.