BY MURAT BELGE
RADIKAL- Columnist Murat Belge comments on a controversial report on Turkey prepared by Dutch parliamentarian Arie Oostlander and approved by the European Parliament. A summary of his column is as follows:
I’ve written a couple of times before about a report on Turkey prepared by Dutch parliamentarian Arie Oostlander, a controversial document which was approved by the European Parliament last month. The report was revised several times due to the internal dynamics of the European Union, and moreover, it was nothing official and lacked any binding force. Yet, the report’s criticisms of, and reservations about, our country in its EU ambitions were typical in that an average European on the street would say the very same things about Turkey. Let’s take a closer look at what Oostlander said in his report: ‘Turkey’s current Constitution, adopted under a military regime two years after the 1980 coup, does not form an appropriate legal basis to guarantee the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.’ Could you ever imagine a European who would object, saying, ‘No, that’s not so, the 1982 Constitution is a fine democratic one for Turkey’? Or take our country’s 10% parliamentary representation threshold: The report argued that this threshold, while it prevents a fragmented legislature, unfortunately sacrifices to that end the representative nature of the Parliament, which now represents only 55% of the voters. Can you think of a European who wouldn’t agree with that? Oostlander stated in his report that recent banning of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP) and the likely future banning of its successor the Democratic People’s Party (DEHAP) both showed that Turkey lacked the necessary political determination to practically guarantee basic democratic rights. Who in Europe would think anything different? Oostlander’s major criticisms of Turkey have their roots in this following observation: ‘The underlying philosophy of the Turkish state implies an exaggerated fear of the undermining of its integrity and an emphasis on the homogeneity of Turkish culture (nationalism), an important role for the army, and a very rigid attitude towards religion, which means that this underlying philosophy is incompatible with the founding principles of the European Union.’ Could anyone advocating a democratic perspective argue anything contrary to this? However, there are quarters in Turkey ready to protect the status quo and even argue for more of the same. In their unhealthy minds, living under a military dictatorship is no dishonor but trying to put the military under civilian control would be. Due to this unhealthy mentality, there is a large and rigid resistance to democratization and normalization in our country. Are these the pillars of the Turkish Republic? Does it make any difference to put these principles another way? Or can one even do so?’
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION