AK Party: Judiciary cannot engage in political opposition

12/5/2008 · Kategori: World - Politics

AK Party: Judiciary cannot engage in political opposition
 
Senior AK Party officials Dengir Mir Mehmet Fırat, Sadullah Ergin and Bekir Bozdağ submitted the party's preliminary court defense to the Constitutional Court last Wednesday.

Details of the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) 98-page preliminary defense have been revealed to the press. The government’s foremost emphasis rests on the closure case putting into question the notion of loyalty to the state and the republic.

 

While the AK Party underscored that it neither has a secret agenda nor acts against secularism, it stressed that judicial institutions should never be turned into tools of political opposition. The defense includes a very striking statement on the regulation made on the headscarf issue, which was among the party’s acts used as a pretext by the prosecutor to file the closure case. The defense statement also noted that opposing the headscarf ban should be viewed as a natural necessity of adhering to secularism and republicanism. “A real republican viewpoint should necessitate the inclusion of a certain part of the female students who wear the headscarf in the modern education system, not their exclusion. Participating in the education system is an approach that strengthens the principle of secularism.” The preliminary defense, referred to as a “response” by the AK Party, bears the signature of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and is made up of 35 addenda and three folders of documents.

In the preliminary defense the AK Party rejects all claims directed at it while placing emphasis on the legal and political illegitimacy of the indictment. “For all these reasons, we respectfully request that the Constitutional Court reject the case filed for the closure of the AK Party,” is the last sentence of the preliminary defense. The response to the claim that the AK Party “has become a focal point of anti-secular activities,” takes up a considerable amount of space in the defense and points out that all AK Party actions are designed to reach “the level of contemporary civilizations,” a target set by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, and are compatible with the Constitution. Another notable remark is that “The AK Party has become a focal point of serving our country and nation, not a focal point of anti-secular activities. We have never had a secret agenda which contradicts what we openly do and state.” In the preliminary defense, the indictment is defined as “an approach far from objectivity and rationality and which twists truths, confuses values and terms and harms secularism.” It is also stated that the closure case is devastating the political and economic stability, making the country poorer and wasting time. It particularly emphasizes that the case inflicts harm on the integrity of the nation and the state.

“The fact that terms such as ‘fundamentally religious,’ ‘counter-revolutionary,’ ‘political Islam,’ ‘moderate Islam,’ ‘the philosophy of enlightenment,’ ‘the central forces of globalization’ and ‘the Great Middle East Project’ are terms used in political debates has increased suspicions that the case has been opened as a result of political considerations rather than being based on law,” the defense statement also said.

 

Former YÖK president’s words quoted

The AK Party makes references to a report prepared by Professor Erdoğan Teziç, the former president of the Higher Education Board (YÖK), for the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (TÜSİAD) in 1997 in which Teziç argues, “The closure mechanism cannot be employed against a ruling party.”

The defense suggests that the history and our nation will not forgive those who block the country’s struggle to attain the contemporary level of civilization. The inclusion of President Abdullah Gül in the closure case is discussed in the defense. Noting that it is impossible to include the president, who cannot belong to a political party by law, a part of a case brought against a political party, the defense maintains that this is unconstitutional.

The interest taken by President Gül in Turkish schools operating in foreign countries during his office as foreign minister is also discussed in the defense. The section of the defense related to these schools is as follows: “These Turkish schools were visited by generals as well as by members of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Our presidents [Turgut Özal and Süleyman Demirel], parliament speakers [Mustafa Kalemli and Hüsamettin Cindoruk], prime ministers [Turgut Özal, Süleyman Demirel, Tansu Çiller, Mesut Yılmaz and Bülent Ecevit], foreign ministers and other ministers [Şerif Ercan, Ahat Andican, Cumhur Ersümer, Necdet Menzir, Refaiddin Şahin, İstemihan Talay, Enis Öksüz and others], Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Müfit Utku, deputies [Murat Sökmenoğlu, Hasan Korkmazcan, Hayri Kozakçıoğlu, Yıldırım Akbulut, Nevzat Ercan, Masum Türker, Haydar Yılmaz, Lütfullah Kayalar, Onur Öymen and others] and statesmen [Alparslan Türkeş, retired Gen. Ömer Şarlak, former Air Forces commander Gen. Halis Burhan and others] have visited these schools accompanied by our ambassadors in the respective countries and expressed support and appreciation.”

 

The preliminary defense argues the following ideas:

It is of our opinion that the indictment contains allegations not against our party but against the nation that supports our party and its fundamental values. The subject matter of this indictment is not the AK Party alone but the nation’s will and democratic politics.

The basic problem with the indictment is that it failed to understand the political philosophy and vision of the AK Party and, what’s more, it misunderstood it. The party depicted in the indictment has nothing to do with the AK Party. The AK Party has produced policies that show there is harmony, not disagreement, between the traditional cultural values of Turkey and the goal of “attaining the level of contemporary civilization.” In doing so, the sociological power of the AK Party and the synergy produced by its political perspective focus on the modernization target, which is the very essence of our republic.

 

We have ensured that the masses adopt secularism

Our party is the only party to secure seats in Parliament from 80 of Turkey’s 81 provinces in the last general elections. For this reason, the AK Party is a guarantee of Turkey’s unity and integrity. A political party that has managed to garner support from all groups in the society and that has proved to be the guarantee of the country’s unity and integrity cannot be claimed to be a focal point of unconstitutional actions. In addition to perfect respect of institutional and practical requirements of secularism within a legal framework, the governments formed by the AK Party have made significant contributions to the adoption of the secular character of the state by the masses. Our past has an important mission in ensuring the adoption of secularism by the masses as well as the integration of different groups with the system.

This closure case has shaken our trust in democracy. Parliament is the heart of democracy and political parties are the main veins carrying blood to this heart. The fact that parties are easily disbanded renders the ability of democratic politics to solve problems ineffective. Our nation’s trust and belief in democracy has been deeply undermined. The AK Party closure case has inflicted harm on our nation and stability in our country has received a serious blow.

This case has brought harm to our country and nation. Inflicting harm on political and economic stability means impoverishing our nation. No one should have the right to make Turkey lose so many years.

Separatist forces gain power through this process. The unity of our nation stands to lose. All ideologies and acts that may undermine Turkey’s unity will try to gain power and ground during this process. The closure case opened against the AK Party has rendered loyalty to the republic controversial.

This indictment is based on the assumption that our nation does not cling on to the principles of our republic. Our sole objective is not to defend our party against this closure case. In fact, we have not been engaged in any single act that would require us to defend ourselves. We have only striven to furnish services to our nation and state. We have always deemed politics an instrument of service for our citizens. Our statements and acts are respectful of human rights and aim at making our republic take straight steps toward a democratic and social state governed by the rule of law.

It is against reason to accuse a political movement which has striven to make Turkey a full member of the European Union since the very day of its establishment of being a focal point of “anti-secular activities.”

In democracies, opposition against ruling parties can be carried out by political parties, nongovernmental organizations, press organs and intellectuals. Judicial bodies can never be an instrument of political opposition.

 

Criticism of those who praise the 1960 coup

It is impossible to understand how those who assert their firm belief in democracy with determination and courage can be condemned in this political environment where there are people who praise the May 27 [1960] coup d’état and assert that “the people had greeted with joy the hanging of [former Prime Minister Adnan] Menderes and his ministers. [A covert response to Council of State President Tansu Çölaşan, who had praised 1960 as an enlightened coup]. The condemnation of the AK Party for its stance on the 1960 coup becomes more curious when other political cues emerge. Phrases used in the indictment that were once directed at the Democrat Party (DP), including accusation that the AK Party is “counter-revolutionary,” “majority” and “seeking revenge from the secular republic,” have the character of supporting the said political campaign. Even this by itself is enough to say that the indictment is not only political, but entirely political. In the face of all attempts to frighten, threaten and force us to submit, we say: We have done and we will always do everything in our power to make democracy take root in this soil, to strengthen our state, to elevate the will of the nation, to exalt the standard of human rights and for our nation to live in welfare, peace and freedom.

 

Case not of closure but of freedom of expression

The attempt to shut down the AK Party, despite changes made to the 1982 Constitution making it difficult to shut down political parties, is fundamentally in contrast with the Constitution. This indictment, prepared with a forced logic, no proof based on actions proving the [supposed] focus [of anti-secularism], is being presented in this vein. The indictment seeks to create the impression that the condition of having become a focal point for anti-secular activity has occurred by presenting individual speeches of party members -- all made under the scope of freedom of expression -- as evidence. For this reason, this case is not a closure case but rather one that has literally gained the character of a case about the freedom of expression. The points listed in the indictment as “actions contravening secularism” do not have any character that violates the principle of secularism. The thesis that has been fictionally designed in the incitement is thereby automatically refuted.

 

‘We never had a policy against secularism’

Almost all of the statements and activities presented in the indictment as actions of party members reflect thoughts and policies a democratic party committed to human rights should defend, let alone being against the Constitution. The contemporary understanding of secularism implies on one hand separation of state and religion and at the same time ensures under the guarantee of the state that the freedom of religion and conscience of individuals are protected.

The indictment of the AK Party has the character of a fictional text that includes speculative forecasts about the future prepared while acting out of fear and worries by ignoring the realities of the country and the implementations carried out by the AK Party. It is understandable for opposing political parties to resort to such tactics. However, the judiciary is obliged to be based on solid facts, findings and documents and not on illusory assessments.

The AK Party also emphasized in its defense the double standard being applied to it, noting the emphasis on religion made by former President Süleyman Demirel, former Prime Ministers Mesut Yılmaz, Bülent Ecevit and opposition leaders Deniz Baykal and Devlet Bahçeli in various speeches. The defense statement pointed to the slogan used by the CHP on its posters for its congress, held on April 26, which read: “Get out from between us. The religion is ours. The state is ours. The nation is ours.”

Yorum (yok) Yorum yaz!

« Önceki ::