By Yusuf KANLI
TDN - It is not so common even for this country. This is the second time that we have witnessed the chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals filing a closure case against a ruling party. The first one, 10 years ago against the Islamist Welfare Party (RP), also opened on charges of acting against the secularism principle of the Turkish republic and lasted seven months and resulted with the Constitutional Court closing down the RP. What will happen now to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), of course, cannot be judged from now. The high court will start today processing the closure petition filed on closing of office hour Friday.
The eccentric moves we have been witnessing unfortunately have placed Turkey in some very extraordinary times. It is definitely going to be a difficult and rather challenging period both for political and economic stability of the country, as well as for its democracy.
There is uproar in the AKP and among its supporters, some sort of a "Did not I say so" like egoistic and hypocritical expressions of muted pleasure among some opponents of the ruling party.
Closure of a party, even the ruling party, is of course possible under the current Turkish legislation and accusing the chief prosecutor for being anti-democratic just because he exercised a duty given to him by laws is nothing but yet another demonstration of the self-catering democratic understanding in this country. Who had opposed and criticized the closure case filed against the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP)? We said it on DTP closure case, and repeating it on the AKP closure case: Complaining against a closure case being filed against a party is nonsense as long as there are clauses in the Constitution empowering the chief prosecutor to open such cases and the Constitutional Court process such demands. We either say "this country is facing separatist, fundamentalist threats and thus it is its fundamental right to defend itself and for its defense can close down political parties as well" or we say "In democracies parties live as long as they enjoy popular support, they cannot be closed down with some judicial `coup' or such actions" and make adjustments in the legislative infrastructure of the country.
After all, we have to all understand that in democracies we may not have all the time governments in office to our political preferences. Some people may wish to see someone else rather than Abdullah Gül at the presidency, and some other party other than the AKP in government. That's quite normal, but to see the change in democracies, one is required to wait until fresh elections, hoping that the changes he wanted to see happen are wanted by the people as well.
Should we get rid of Fridays?:
We Turks apparently have some serious problems with Fridays. It's incredible, but a fact of life, at least the "Turkish life." A short examination of the military memorandums; worst, dates of the military takeovers will reveal more than enough reasons for any sober democrat to believe that Fridays are rather "odd days". Not enough? The most drastic devaluation decisions of the governments. The government decisions on some most serious social issues of the country. Presidential approvals or vetoes of "sensitive" legislations submitted to the presidential office by Parliament, or some key government decisions. Even comments and remarks of the top civilian or military people on some "hot issues". Or, the Court of Appeals chief prosecutor opening a closure case against the ruling party of the country. Fridays. May 27, 1960 coup was a Friday. So was March 12, 1971 "coup by memorandum" and the Sept. 12, 1980 military takeover. April 27 memorandum last year? Yes, it was as well a Friday. Closure case against the AKP? Prosecutor demanded opening of the case after 16:30 on Friday.
Since the Istanbul Stock Exchange was created almost all important political decisions were timed according to the Friday closing hour of the market. But, before the market was established as well, an overwhelming majority of most crucial decisions, particularly those pertaining to economy or social life, carry the "Friday" mark. The 60-hour period between Friday afternoon and Monday morning - that is the time between the weekend stop and Monday resumption of the wheels of economy - must be a very precious "time dead block" for people to unleash some extraordinary moves that could send shockwaves through the society and might perhaps rattle markets.
Shall we get rid of Fridays? Will it help, for example, if we just call Fridays "Thursday-after" or "after-Thursday"? Most likely we will still have such eccentric developments still on the closing hours of the work day or late in the night of the day before the weekend irrespective how we call that day.