Today’s Zaman, Turkey
July 21 2008

Ã-DP leader Uras: deputies need some courage

Ufuk Uras, the leader of the Freedom and Solidarity Party (Ã-DP),
has said Turkey’s deputies would have been loyal to their oaths if
they had supported an investigation in Parliament against
antidemocratic actions.

Elected as an independent deputy in last year’s general election, Uras
asked Parliament last Wednesday to launch an investigation into failed
coup attempts against the government in 2004. His initiative received
the support of 20 deputies from the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society
Party (DTP) and independent Hakkari deputy Hamit Geylani. Deputies
from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the main
opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), the opposition Nationalist
Movement Party (MHP) and the Democratic Left Party (DSP) refused to
sign the motion.

Most deputies said the people cited in the failed coup plans had
already either been taken into custody or jailed as part of the
Ergenekon operation — an investigation into an illegal
ultranationalist gang with links to the state and military — and that
it is necessary to wait for the completion of the trial process.

However, the Ergenekon indictment, which was announced last Monday,
did not include the 2004 coup plots.

`They need to have some courage to have a deterrent effect on
undemocratic moves. Having a stance against gangs and coup plotters is
the responsibility of the deputies,’ Uras said, pointing out that
undemocratic structures in the parties make deputies passive actors.

For Monday Talk, Uras elaborated on his views regarding the Ergenekon
investigation, reforms needed to democratize political parties, the
Ã-DP’s strategy for earning more votes in the next election and how
the Turkish left needs to renew itself.

Have you been surprised by the content of the Ergenekon indictment?

The indictment is a major document itself, but it can still be
supported by additional indictments. The indictment is not the last
stop.

Last week on Monday Talk, the lawyer for the family of assassinated
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink said the Dink case offers an
opportunity to solve the Ergenekon case because Dink’s murder showed
the world that elements within the state were involved in the murder
plot. Do you agree with this view?

I absolutely agree with it but, unfortunately, the Ergenekon
indictment has bypassed the Dink case. Leaving aside the Dink case, in
the trials against Orhan Pamuk and Dink, prior to his murder, all the
personalities who showed up against them have been detained as part of
the Ergenekon investigation. Those personalities were publicly
threatening Dink and Pamuk. The Dink murder is not an isolated
incident. Apparently, there are some official or semi-official forces
behind it; they should be revealed.

What would you say of the CHP’s comments regarding the indictment,
namely that it is a `mouse born out of a mountain’?

I hope those words were the expression of a desire that Ergenekon is
not a deep-rooted, complicated structure with illegal elements in
it. There have been writers, generals and influential people
detained. Calling them `mice’ is quite inappropriate. There is neither
a `mouse’ nor a `mountain,’ but a judicial inquiry into some illegal
coup attempts. Even if you take just one of the accusations against
the suspects — for example, their involvement in the 2006 Council of
State shooting — you cannot belittle it by calling it a `mouse.’ Even
that one event is a major terrorist act.

You asked parliamentarians to support you in the establishment of an
investigative commission into the coup plots against the government,
but only 21 deputies backed you. What are the implications of this?

Deputies would have been loyal to their oaths if they had supported an
investigation in Parliament against undemocratic actions. What else
would prompt the deputies to defend themselves? If we do not act when
we have such a concrete example, then when are we going to show that
we are for democracy? They need to have some courage to have a
deterrent effect on undemocratic moves. Having a stance against gangs
and coup plotters is the responsibility of the deputies. A decisive
act by the deputies would show there is no power above Parliament.

Is it just a matter of courage?

Deputies need to have courage to make individual decisions and take
steps against undemocratic plans. However, they cannot think
individually and make individual decisions, because they think and act
with a group mentality. There is not an official group decision made
in the party, but apparently AK Party members had a tacit agreement
that they don’t want to come against this. They reasoned that there is
already a judicial investigation going on so there is no need to have
a parliamentary commission. This also shows the undemocratic structure
of our party system.

How so?

The parties have their groups in Parliament. This type of structure
does not exist in the parliaments of democratic countries. Deputies
stand up when the party leader enters the group meeting as if they are
in an elementary school. The word of the party leader is taken as if
it is the word of God. Take the 10 percent election threshold. The
European Court of Human Rights ruled recently that the election
threshold was not a violation of the European Convention on Human
Rights and they noted it was necessary for Turkey’s conditions because
it strengthens governmental stability. Turkey has always been under
`special circumstances’ and not in the stratum of democratic
countries. They found this practice suitable for Turkey, which is
indeed derogatory for Turkey.

What are the election thresholds in other European countries?

The 10 percent threshold applied in Turkey appears to be the
highest. Most European countries do not have thresholds, but if they
do they are quite low. If we look at the countries around Turkey:
Greece, Israel and Georgia have thresholds varying from 1.5 to 3
percent. The 7 percent threshold in Russia has been subjected to
criticism. In the past Turkey had a proportional representation system
and governmental stability was not in danger. In the 1965 elections,
the Justice Party (AP) came to power and formed a single-party
government. We have to see that proportional representation does not
necessarily lead to instability. We need more freedoms and rule of law
to overcome instability, not thresholds. But we have the wrong
strategy when we oppose different views.

Would you elaborate on this?

For example, we have the wrong strategy in opposing the AK Party in
Turkey. We should be defending more democracy and more democratic
rights in fighting against the disagreeable policies of the AK Party
rather than supporting a ban on it. We should overcome crises by
demanding more democracy.

Do you think the AK Party will be shut down?

The closure case was opened even though the indictment was weak, so
this leads us to expect a closure — but we never desire it.

Do you expect an early election?

I don’t.

Why not?

Because I expect that in an early election scenario, parties that are
in Parliament now will not get as many votes as they did in the last
election. According to the polls, support for the CHP is down to 10
percent, while support for the AK Party is down to 30 percent. The
second issue is the retirement plans of the deputies. They will be
eligible for retirement benefits next year in autumn. Still, anything
can happen; but I expect local elections to be held in March and we
may expect an early election following autumn 2009. An early election
would not increase the gains of the major parties as far as I can see.

What have you been doing to increase the gains of the left?

We are first looking at the local elections and trying to end the
party leaders’ dominance at the local level. We want to eradicate the
practice of parachuting local candidates. For local administrative
positions, people should determine for themselves who their leaders
will be. We hope to see national candidates emerging out of the local
elections. I believe the leftist ideology of the single-party era has
reached its end. We need a left defending more democracy and
freedoms. We need renewal in the left. We need a renewed left
gathering not at the left of the center but at the center of the left,
especially considering that the center has become like a military
commandership.

What are the principals of this new left?

We defend transparent politics and social policies against neo-liberal
policies and a real liberal secularism against a militant secularism
and we emphasize political participation at the local level. Wherever
we go in Turkey, we see the public demanding more democracy and people
in general do not support tools outside of democratic
principles. People also demand more social policies and this can be
achieved only within a democratic system.

Where do you put the CHP in this new leftist context?

In the world there is no leftist party that would defend military
coups and the constitution of military rule. The secularism the CHP
defends is control of religion through the state apparatus, while real
secularism requires the impartiality of the state toward religion. The
CHP does not even nominate Alevi candidates.

Do Alevis still support the CHP?

Some do, but there is a big division. I see that in the meetings of
the Alevi associations in both Europe and Turkey, but Alevis do not
see any new place to go. If they find a new address, they could easily
dispense with the CHP.

You have been saying that a third of the votes you received were from
Alevis, another third were from Kurds and the rest was from the left,
right?

Roughly, that’s correct. This is the first time in the Turkish
Republic’s history that an independent has been elected as a deputy
from a region in Ä°stanbul — referred to as the `first region’
— where the population is about 6.5 million. There were about 3.5
million voters and I got about 81,000 votes. We’re brainstorming about
whether this could be a model for other regions in Turkey. But we have
to be careful about the timing. We should wait for the local
elections, see the results and maybe then push the button.

What exactly will you do?

We might declare a mutual manifesto together with the opposition
forces in society, such as unions, professional organizations and
individuals, and create a group attractive enough for some of the
existing parties to join us. This should not be a confederative
structure, as that has been unsuccessful in the past. We would agree
on concrete steps to be able to act together.

What type of concrete steps?

For example, creating a new constitution. We would adopt a `hurry
slowly’ philosophy.

There is only one socialist local administration in Turkey. It’s in
Hopa, a district of the northeastern province of Artvin ¦

Yes, it’s the only socialist administration in Turkey and the Middle
East. They set a very good example of how a local administration
should serve. They have clean and inexpensive water and they provided
opportunities for disabled citizens and opened beaches to the
public. In short, they base their work on the philosophy of how to
benefit the public. If people want to see a good alternative local
administration, they need not go so far out to Europe or other
countries; they should just go to Hopa.

Do you expect votes from the right?

I do, because I get calls from people who have identified themselves
with the right and they say they have had a different view of what the
left is, but after starting to learn about our policies they say they
feel close to our views. People usually mean the CHP when they say
left. But describing the CHP as a leftist party is a betrayal of the
left.

Ã-DP leader Ufuk Uras

Elected as an independent deputy in the July 22 general elections last
year, Ufuk Uras is the founding leader of the Freedom and Democracy
Party (Ã-DP), which defends liberal socialist ideas. An academic in
the field of economics, Uras was an assistant professor at
Ä°stanbul University until becoming a deputy. Among his many
books are: "Ã-DP SöyleÅ?ileri" (Ã-DP Interviews),
"BaÅ?ka Bir Siyaset Mümkün" (Another Politics is
Possible), "Siyaset Yazıları" (Political Writings),
"Alternatif Siyaset ArayıÅ?ları" (Search for
Alternative Politics) and "KurtuluÅ? SavaÅ?ı’nda
Sol" (Left in the War of Liberation). His book "Ä°deolojilerin
Sonu mu?" (End of Ideologies?) received the Marxist Research Support
Award in 1991.

21 July 2008, Monday
YONCA POYRAZ DOÄ?AN Ä°STANBUL