http://www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/turkey2019s-uncertain-future-a-symposium
"
Is the ruling party of Prime Minister Erdoğan a threat to Turkish
democracy?
-- Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute
The legal case against the AKP is an affirmation of democracy
rather than an assault upon it. Democracy rests upon the
rule of law and constitutionalism. Neither plurality support
nor a majority in parliament should place any politician or
party above the law.
[...]
Popularity and democracy are not synonymous, though.
Turkish constitutionalism separates religion from party politics
in order to preserve democracy. Prime Minister Erdoğan has
abused this separation. He has eroded the distinction between
religious and public education, sought to retire forcibly several
thousand secular judges who questioned his party's interpretations
of the constitution, and then moved to replace those judges
with AKP apparatchiks. He also has instituted an interview process
-controlled by party loyalists- designed to evaluate government
technocrats on the basis of religiosity rather than merit.
Turkish Air employees have even been quizzed on their belief in the Koran.
No party or prime minister in Turkey's history has been so
hostile to the press. Erdoğan has sued dozens of journalists
and editors. In a strategy borrowed from Iran, he has
confiscated newspapers-such as Sabah, the national daily-
which he deemed too critical or independent, and transferred their
control to political allies. Journalists such as Vatan's Can Ataklı
and Reha Muhtar, television commentator Nihat Genç, Sky Turk's
Serdar Akinan, and Kanal Türk's Tuncay Özkan are now under fire
either for their own criticism or, in the case of the television
announcers,
for their guests' criticism of the ruling party.
Erdoğan has treated courts, both international and domestic,
with disdain. After the European Court of Human Rights decided
against permitting headscarves in Turkish universities,
he declared that "only ulama [Islamic religious scholars] could" issue
such a judgment. In several instances, Erdoğan has refused to uphold
the Supreme Court's decisions when it ruled against the AKP's
confiscation of political opponents' property. In a moment reminiscent
of Henry II, a follower gunned down a justice after the prime minister
launched a fusillade against the Court.
Both AKP supporters and Western officials unfamiliar with the
AKP's record paint the Court's actions as undemocratic.
AKP supporters argue that the party represents democracy,
and they seek to equate any opposition-be it secular, nationalist,
or judicial-as fascist. This is unfair. Ultra-nationalists who do not
abide
by the law find themselves in court, just as the AKP now does.
The military has stayed on the sideline, as it should. Declaring its
support for the constitution in a written statement is not a coup.
Turkey is not alone in holding politicians legally accountable.
In April 2000, the European Parliament suspended French
demagogue Jean-Marie Le Pen; soon afterward,
Austrian politician Jörg Haider also faced sanction.
The global community does not allow Hamas's popularity among
the Palestinians to absolve it of responsibilities under international
law.
True democracy requires respect for the judicial process.
Let Erdoğan have his day in court. We should respect the results
as a sign that Turkey's democracy has matured.
"
..
|
