IS THE GOAL DEMOCRACY DECEPTION OR THE UNITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE COUNTRY?

Democracy is not a goal but a means.
Upon the closure case of the Justice and Development (AK) Party, some tales about democracy have been told.
Democracy should no be damaged!!!
Everyone should respect the democratic consequences!!!
Democracy has been undergoing a judicial coup!!!
Democracy is essential for everyone every time!!!
Was that democracy a goal or a means?

Meanwhile, the European Parliament was backing AKP and giving instructions.

Here is the report by European Parliament:

"The political procedure is in danger of a coup in Turkey. Prevent it"

The European Parliament's rapporteur on Turkey, Dutch Christian Democrat Ria Oomen-Ruijten expressed that "Unfortunately, there is no judicial system that everyone can trust in Turkey"

Evaluating the recent developments in Turkey, Dutch Christian Democrat Ria Oomen-Ruijten emphasized that "There is an elite segment consisting of the army and the judiciary. Parliament decides by a two-thirds majority to lift headscarf ban (the ban on wearing the headscarf in universities), but it cannot be implemented. I don't know of any other country like this. There is no example of such a thing. I am in favor of the independence of the judiciary but, unfortunately, there is no judiciary in Turkey that everyone can trust. This is a kind of weakness of Turkey. Some studies regarding the judicial system need to be made."

Ria Oomen-Ruijten, emphasized that she was firmly opposed to the closure cases against the ruling Justice and Development Party and the Democratic Society Party and called for "swift judicial reforms concerning the judicial system to overcome the problem."

"A strong message should be sent to the Turkish military. They should stay away from politics in order to allow the emergence of a modern, well-functioning democracy."

Expressing that The Head of Turkish General Staff General Yaşar Büyükanıt visited Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and gave a message like "we have the first right to speak about the resolution", Oomen-Ruijten expects the army to be constructive in the resolution of the Cyprus issue.

In the draft document the necessity for a comprehensive resolution under UN supervision is emphasized and it is advocated that "the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from the island would facilitate negotiations concerning the resolution"

Joost Lagendijk, co-chair of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliament Committee, gave his thanks to Oomen-Ruijten who prepared the report in an "appropriate manner" and about the recent issues he worded that:

"The indictments against AKP and DTP are still on stand by. We have to be clear on this issue. The closure case filed against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is a judicial coup to the political process in Turkey. Choice of the majority of people is "wrong" according to the judiciary. This is absolutely unacceptable. The image of the judiciary is disturbing. Our reaction to the demand for judicial reform in Turkey should be severe."

Keep on investigating Ergenekon illegal network and intensify the investigation!

It is demanded in the draft report that the investigation into the Ergenekon network should go on with determination and "all the connections within the state should be revealed and those in the network should be surrendered to the justice.

A new civic Constitution will be a very important chance in point of "placing the protection of human rights and freedoms into the heart of constitution" and it is also recommended in the report that a massive participation of the civic society in the new constitution studies be provided.

It is stated in the report that commitment of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan "2008 will be a reform year" has been welcomed and another thing emphasized in the report is that depending on the majority in parliament, the determination of the government policy on reforms will play a vital role in the transformation of Turkey into a modern democratic society.

Give priority to the article 301!

According to the document, article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code should be altered depending on the "successive promises given" and it is criticized that new reforms regarding the freedom of expression haven't been made yet.

In the draft report it is stated that "We are pleased for the recognition of foundations law. Examining the text, EU commission should search whether or not it is possible for assets to be administrated, owned or re-seized including those sold to third parties by the non-Muslim minorities."

Following the recognition of Foundations Law, the draft says, Turkish government should fulfill all promises with regard to religious freedom. And the following demands are mentioned in the report; the legal status essential for the activities of all religious communities, education of the spiritual officials, establishing a legal framework regarding the construction of places for worship and hierarchic election, reopening of Heybeliada School for Clerics and the permission for the use of title "ecumenical patriarch"

In the document, Turkish government is called for taking immediate action targeting permanent resolution for the Kurd issue and DTP deputies and mayors are asked to "participate constructively in the political resolution to the Kurd issue in a democratic country, Turkey."

The position of the President Gül is controversial.

– Involvement of the President Abdullah Gül in the indictment and the motion for banning him from politics for five years was criticized severely. Lots of legal scholars including some constitutional professors advocated that it was the mistake of the chief prosecutor to involve the President in the indictment although he can only be judged by treason and this kind of indictment is to be turned down by the Constitutional Court even just because of this reason. He is asked for his opinion and the answer is ;

– In the matter of closing a party, the real concern is whether to end the legal personality of a party rather than the infringement of a penal code. And this is not associated with the penal codes. This is a case of closing a legal personality.

Here the indictment against President Gül is that activities and statements of the President during the period when he was a minister or a parliamentarian were considered as one of the reasons or evidences of the formation that established a basis for closure of a party.

On the other hand, the above-mentioned 5-year ban is not a code regulated by the Penal Code; it is a sort of protection required by the Constitution and Political Parties Law. This is also legitimate for the Prime Minister. If there were a penal judgement for the Prime Minister or ministers, the Constitutional Court would judge them under the title of "Supreme Court". [1] Anyhow, the Constitutional Court unanimously accepted the indictment seeking the closure of the ruling Justice and Development Party and the indictment filed against Abdullah Gül by a large majority and this created a shocking effect on the AK party adherents.

Taha Akyol is talking in favor of AK party and giving some warnings;

"While a case is in progress, is it allowed to submit amendment motion with regard to that case?

Yes, it is. While Öcalan was being judged during the Ecevit's government, wee saw that the penal codes were changed!!!

Now, while there are some cases based on the article 301, isn't there a motion to change this article?!!

In every constitutional amendment, aren't there any cases or verdicts reached in the judiciary?

Even there are examples of changing the rules of the game by annulling the law which forms the basis of the case handled by the Constitutional Court itself!!!

Constitutional amendments can be made legally on a few ongoing cases but there are some rules that AK party should never break"

Attitudes of AK party to the constitutional amendments aren't clear yet. But there are three options mentioned;

– To restrict the authorities of chief prosecutor: for instance, some formulas like grounding the indictment for shutting down a party on the approval of the Assembly by inspiring from the German Constitution. Let me state that it would be exactly improper or even endanger the regime to modify the authorities of the chief prosecutor at this stage.

– To change the structure of Constitutional Court: for example, allowing the parliament to elect members for Constitutional Court as in all democratic countries… the Court also has such a demand for a reform regarding this issue. I have been advocating this theory for ages. Nevertheless, while there is a closure case against AK party, it would be a big mistake to attempt to change the structure of the Court. It may lead to developments that will overthrow the regime.

Justice and Development Party (AKP) and National Movement Party (MHP) should never touch the authorities of the chief prosecutor throughout this case.

– To glance at the criteria of Venice Commission: this is possible because it can be thought as a general democratization. For example, adding the "violence" factor to the definition of "formation", issuing some other minor sanctions before the closure sanction… and here it is essential to be cautious.

It will cause a provocation effect!

Attempts like restricting the authorities of the chief prosecutor and changing the structure of the Court are possible in terms of "technical law", but that will be completely inappropriate in point of politics and philosophy of law. It will cause a "provocation" effect exactly.

Holding a referendum on the issue of restricting the authorities of the chief prosecutor and changing the structure of the Court will literally turn this mistake into a political "provocation"[2]

[1] 21.03.2008 / Fikret Bila / Milliyet

[2] 22.03.2008 / Milliyet